Suisun City City Council
November 19, 2024

THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SOLANO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND LYING WITHIN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 12 WEST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN AND THE SUISUN RANCHO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF HIGHWAY 12

AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD ON APRIL 29, 2008 IN BOOK 28 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 54, SOLANO COUNTY RECORDS;
THENCE LEAVING SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, (1) NORTH 68°17’02” EAST, 254.03 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF “99-06-F-A, SOUTHGATE ANNEXATION” TO THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY 12; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINES (2) NORTH 81°46’01” EAST, 200.05’; THENCE (3) NORTH 74°11’08” EAST, 133.94 FEET;
THENCE (4) NORTH 72°52’22” EAST, 412.45 FEET;
THENCE (5) NORTH 75°08’02” EAST, 325.64 FEET;
THENCE (6) NORTH 84°23’35” EAST, 146.18 FEET;
THENCE (7) SOUTH 75°38’23” EAST, 158.98 FEET;

THNECE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINES
(8) SOUTH 65°13’58” EAST, 331.28 FEET TO THE SUISUN CITY LIMIT AS DESCRIBED ON ANNEXATION “1967-01 FARGO VILLAGES APPROVED JUNE 5, 1967;

THENCE ALONG SAID CITY LIMIT LINE, (9) SOUTH 00°25’52” WEST, 771.58 FEET

TO THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY LIMIT LINE AND THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, (10) SOUTH 22°33’50” WEST, 588.52 FEET;

THENCE ALONG SAID LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY AND (11)

ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1382.47 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°24’39” FOR A DISTANCE OF 709.65 FEET AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING SOUTH 50°35’37” WEST, 701.88 FEET;
226

GENTRY ANNEXATION

REAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF SOLANO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE ANNEXED TO SUISUN CITY:

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY LIMIT LINE AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SUISUN CITY ANNEXATION NO. 8, (12) WEST, 1834.16 FEET TO THE

EASTERLY LINE OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF SUISUN CITY ANNEXATION NO. 18, “RAY CONNER”, APPROVED AUGUST 6, 1973; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, (13) NORTH 32°40’31” EAST, 54.90 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID ANNEXATION NO. 18, (14) NORTH 89°39’29” WEST, 382.41 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF ANNEXATION NO. 18, (15) SOUTH 0°20’31” WEST, 264.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LANDS OF SOUTHERN

PACIFIC COMPANY AND THE NOTHERLY LINE OF SUISUN CITY ANNEXATION “RAY CONNER” APPROVED APRIL 7, 1975;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID ANNEXATION (16) NORTH 89°39’29” WEST, 53.98 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID ANNEXTION, (17) SOUTH 7°51’29” WEST, 100.89 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID ANNEXTION, (18) SOUTH 89°39’29” EAST, 312.69 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CORDELIA STREET;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE (19) SOUTH 7°51’29” WEST, 34.26 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE, (20) SOUTH 43°17’32” WEST, 317.23 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE, (21) SOUTH 61°30’37” WEST, 1171.83 FEET TO THE FAIRFIELD CITY LIMIT AS DESCRIBED IN “FAIRFIELD ANNEXATION 2006-03, SHELDON OIL PROPERTY, APPROVED JULY 10, 2006”; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ANNEXATION, (22) NORTH 3°51’03” WEST, 190.51 FEET;
THENCE (23) NORTH 15°42’07” EAST, 70.05 FEET;
THENCE (24) NORTH 28°12’02” EAST, 210.00 FEET;
THENCE (25) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 800 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°48’35” FOR A DISTANCE OF 262.63 FEET AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 13°14’02”EAST, 261.46;
THENCE (26) NORTH 86°10’16” WEST, 20.00 FEET;
227

GENTRY ANNEXATION

REAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF SOLANO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE ANNEXED TO SUISUN CITY:

THENCE (27) ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 780 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°10’25” FOR A DISTANCE OF 233.79 FEET AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 4°45’28”WEST, 232.92 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY;
THENCE (28) NORTH 12°17’39” WEST, 102.48 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE FAIRFIELD CITY LIMITS AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE “SIXTH ANNEXATION DISTRICT OF 1982 (PIERCE) APPROVED JANUARY 4, 1983” (29) ALONG THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 416.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6°41’54” FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.63 FEET AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 7°17’44” WEST, 48.61 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY LIMIT LINE, (30) NORTH 10°38’01” WEST, 310.51 FEET;
THENCE (31) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1316.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°34’03” FOR A DISTANCE OF 564.28 FEET AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 22°55’03” WEST, 559.97 FEET;
THENCE (32) ALONG THE ARC OF A COMPOUND CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 616.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°19’11” FOR A DISTANCE OF 196.96 FEET AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 44°21’40” WEST, 196.12 FEET;
THENCE (33) ALONG THE ARC OF A COMPOUND CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1121.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°51’58” FOR A DISTANCE OF 545.21 FEET AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 67°27’14” WEST, 539.85 FEET;
THENCE (34) NORTH 60°36’22” WEST, 54.74 FEET;
THENCE (35) NORTH 01°02’00” EAST, 196.55 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 12;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE (36) NORTH 86°06’30” EAST, 923.29 FEET;
THENCE (37) NORTH 87°39’37” EAST, 325.70 FEET;

228

GENTRY ANNEXATION

REAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF SOLANO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE ANNEXED TO SUISUN CITY:

THENCE (38) ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 7866.12 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°55’17” FOR A DISTANCE OF 812.94 FEET AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 84°41’59” EAST, 812.58 FEET;
THENCE (39) NORTH 81°44’20” EAST, 814.52 FEET;
THENCE (40) SOUTH 66°33’50” EAST, 99.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF 168.17 ACRES MORE OR LESS.

END OF DESCRIPTION

229
Parcel Map Check Report
Client: Prepared by:

Client Preparer

MORTON & PITALO
Address 1 600 COOLIDGE DRIVE
Date: 9/25/2024 9:56:08 AM
Parcel Name: Site 1 - GENTRY ANNEXATION
Description:

Process segment order counterclockwise: False
Enable mapcheck across chord: False
North:1,849,653.4152' East:6,560,388.5397'

Segment# 1: Line
Course: N68° 17' 02"E Length: 254.33'
North: 1,849,747.5194' East: 6,560,624.8195'

Segment# 2: Line
Course: N81° 46' 01"E Length: 200.05'
North: 1,849,776.1665' East: 6,560,822.8077'

Segment# 3: Line
Course: N74° 11' 08"E Length: 133.94'
North: 1,849,812.6682' East: 6,560,951.6780'

Segment# 4: Line
Course: N72° 52' 22"E Length: 412.45'
North: 1,849,934.1324' East: 6,561,345.8372'

Segment# 5: Line
Course: N75° 08' 02"E Length: 325.64'
North: 1,850,017.6790' East: 6,561,660.5774'

Segment# 6: Line
Course: N84° 23' 35"E Length: 146.18'
North: 1,850,031.9613' East: 6,561,806.0580'

Segment# 7: Line
Course: S75° 38' 23"E Length: 158.98'
North: 1,849,992.5314' East: 6,561,960.0707'

Segment# 8: Line
Course: S65° 13' 58"E Length: 331.28'
230
North: 1,849,853.7473' East: 6,562,260.8787'

Segment# 9: Line
Course: S0° 25' 52"W Length: 771.58'
North: 1,849,082.1892' East: 6,562,255.0731'

Segment# 10: Line
Course: S22° 33' 50"W Length: 588.52'
North: 1,848,538.7191' East: 6,562,029.2501'

Segment# 11: Curve
Length: 709.65' Radius: 1,382.47'
Delta: 29°24'39" Tangent: 362.82'
Chord: 701.88' Course: S50° 35' 37"W
Course In: N54° 06' 43"W Course Out: S24° 42' 03"E
RP North: 1,849,349.1278' East: 6,560,909.2229'
End North: 1,848,093.1509' East: 6,561,486.9298'

Segment# 12: Line
Course: S90° 00' 00"W Length: 1,834.16'
North: 1,848,093.1509' East: 6,559,652.7698'

Segment# 13: Line
Course: N32° 40' 31"E Length: 54.90'
North: 1,848,139.3626' East: 6,559,682.4091'

Segment# 14: Line
Course: N89° 39' 29"W Length: 382.41'
North: 1,848,141.6448' East: 6,559,300.0059'

Segment# 15: Line
Course: S0° 20' 31"W Length: 264.93'
North: 1,847,876.7196' East: 6,559,298.4248'

Segment# 16: Line
Course: N89° 44' 09"W Length: 53.98'
North: 1,847,876.9684' East: 6,559,244.4454'

Segment# 17: Line
Course: S7° 51' 29"W Length: 100.89'
North: 1,847,777.0258' East: 6,559,230.6517'

Segment# 18: Line
Course: S89° 39' 29"E Length: 312.69'
231
North: 1,847,775.1597' East: 6,559,543.3362'

Segment# 19: Line
Course: S7° 51' 29"W Length: 34.26'
North: 1,847,741.2214' East: 6,559,538.6522'

Segment# 20: Line
Course: S43° 17' 32"W Length: 317.23'
North: 1,847,510.3205' East: 6,559,321.1214'

Segment# 21: Line
Course: S61° 30' 37"W Length: 1,171.83'
North: 1,846,951.3563' East: 6,558,291.1968'

Segment# 22: Line
Course: N3° 51' 03"W Length: 190.51'
North: 1,847,141.4362' East: 6,558,278.4023'

Segment# 23: Line
Course: N15° 42' 07"E Length: 70.05'
North: 1,847,208.8721' East: 6,558,297.3602'

Segment# 24: Line
Course: N28° 12' 02"E Length: 210.00'
North: 1,847,393.9449' East: 6,558,396.5976'

Segment# 25: Curve
Length: 262.63' Radius: 800.00'
Delta: 18°48'35" Tangent: 132.51'
Chord: 261.46' Course: N13° 14' 02"E
Course In: N67° 21' 41"W Course Out: S86° 10' 16"E
RP North: 1,847,701.8788' East: 6,557,658.2368'
End North: 1,847,648.4572' East: 6,558,456.4511'

Segment# 26: Line
Course: N86° 10' 16"W Length: 20.00'
North: 1,847,649.7927' East: 6,558,436.4958'

Segment# 27: Curve
Length: 233.79' Radius: 780.00'
Delta: 17°10'25" Tangent: 117.78'
Chord: 232.92' Course: N4° 45' 28"W
Course In: N86° 10' 16"W Course Out: N76° 39' 19"E
RP North: 1,847,701.8788' East: 6,557,658.2368'
232
End North: 1,847,881.9100' East: 6,558,417.1760'

Segment# 28: Line
Course: N12° 17' 39"W Length: 102.48'
North: 1,847,982.0398' East: 6,558,395.3549'

Segment# 29: Curve
Length: 48.63' Radius: 416.00'
Delta: 6°41'54" Tangent: 24.34'
Chord: 48.61' Course: N7° 17' 44"W
Course In: S86° 03' 13"W Course Out: N79° 21' 19"E
RP North: 1,847,953.4095' East: 6,557,980.3413'
End North: 1,848,030.2524' East: 6,558,389.1825'

Segment# 30: Line
Course: N10° 38' 01"W Length: 310.51'
North: 1,848,335.4301' East: 6,558,331.8847'

Segment# 31: Curve
Length: 564.28' Radius: 1,316.00'
Delta: 24°34'03" Tangent: 286.54'
Chord: 559.97' Course: N22° 55' 02"W
Course In: S79° 21' 59"W Course Out: N54° 47' 56"E
RP North: 1,848,092.5913' East: 6,557,038.4841'
End North: 1,848,851.1971' East: 6,558,113.8320'

Segment# 32: Curve
Length: 196.96' Radius: 616.00'
Delta: 18°19'11" Tangent: 99.33'
Chord: 196.12' Course: N44° 21' 40"W
Course In: S54° 47' 56"W Course Out: N36° 28' 45"E
RP North: 1,848,496.1050' East: 6,557,610.4777'
End North: 1,848,991.4140' East: 6,557,976.7084'

Segment# 33: Curve
Length: 545.21' Radius: 1,121.00'
Delta: 27°51'58" Tangent: 278.11'
Chord: 539.85' Course: N67° 27' 14"W
Course In: S36° 28' 45"W Course Out: N8° 36' 47"E
RP North: 1,848,090.0481' East: 6,557,310.2398'
End North: 1,849,198.4058' East: 6,557,478.1215'

Segment# 34: Line
Course: N60° 36' 22"W Length: 54.74'
233
North: 1,849,225.2728' East: 6,557,430.4283'

Segment# 35: Line
Course: N1° 02' 00"E Length: 196.55'
North: 1,849,421.7908' East: 6,557,433.9729'

Segment# 36: Line
Course: N86° 06' 30"E Length: 923.29'
North: 1,849,484.4547' East: 6,558,355.1340'

Segment# 37: Line
Course: N87° 39' 37"E Length: 325.70'
North: 1,849,497.7512' East: 6,558,680.5625'

Segment# 38: Curve
Length: 812.94' Radius: 7,866.12'
Delta: 5°55'17" Tangent: 406.83'
Chord: 812.58' Course: N84° 41' 59"E
Course In: N2° 20' 23"W Course Out: S8° 15' 40"E
RP North: 1,857,357.3135' East: 6,558,359.4320'
End North: 1,849,572.8160' East: 6,559,489.6718'

Segment# 39: Line
Course: N81° 44' 20"E Length: 814.52'
North: 1,849,689.8499' East: 6,560,295.7400'

Segment# 40: Line
Course: S68° 33' 50"E Length: 99.69'
North: 1,849,653.4168' East: 6,560,388.5340'

Perimeter: 14,542.35' Area: 7,325,405.33Sq.Ft.

Error Closure: 0.0059 Course: N74° 16' 26"W
Error North : 0.00160 East: -0.00568

Precision 1: 2,464,806.78
234
655)University)Ave,)Suite)200)•)Sacramento,)CA)95825
Phone:)l916p)561-0890)•)Fax:)l916p)561-0891
www.goodwinconsultinggroup.net

CITY OF SUISUN CITY
HIGHWAY 12 LOGISTICS CENTER

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Fi
nal Draft Report
NOVEMBER 7, 2023
235

City of Suisun
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Fiscal Impact Analysis

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of Report ..........................................................................................................1 Organization of Report ..................................................................................................1

2. HIGHWAY 12 LOGISTICS CENTER .................................................................. 2 Regional Location ..........................................................................................................2 Project Area ...................................................................................................................3 Proposed Development ..................................................................................................4 EIR Alternative Scenario 2 ............................................................................................6

3. METHODOLOGY AND GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS .............................................. 8 Scope and Methodology ................................................................................................8 General Assumptions ...................................................................................................10

4. FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS AND REVENUE/EXPENSE ASSUMPTIONS .................. 12 City Fiscal Assumptions ..............................................................................................12 Revenue Assumptions ..................................................................................................13 Expense Assumptions ..................................................................................................16

5. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 18 Revenues ......................................................................................................................18 Expenses ......................................................................................................................18 Net Fiscal Impacts........................................................................................................18 Net Fiscal Impacts of EIR Alternative Scenario 2 .......................................................19

APPENDIX

Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables

Proposed Highway 12 Logistics Center
 Tables A-1 through A-3
 Tables B-1 through B-7

EIR Alternative Scenario 2
 Tables C-1 through C-3

236

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 1 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report summarizes methodologies and assumptions that may be used to evaluate recurring fiscal impacts to the C ity of S uisun City (City) associated with providing services to the proposed Highway 12 Logistics Center project area, which is currently located within unincorporated Solano County (County) jurisdiction but within the City’s Sphere of Influence .

The fiscal impact analysis (FIA) evaluates annual revenues and expense s related to the C ity’s General Fund.

Other funds that are supported by development fees and user charges (e.g., enterprise funds), state resources (e.g., school districts), or a specific allocation of property taxes (e.g., mosquito abatement districts) are not included in this analysis . This report outlines project-specific assumptions to analyze fiscal impacts from future develo pment within the Highway 12 Logistic s Center area, and assumes that an approximately 162- acre portion in the northern area (the Project) is annexed into the City. The portion currently being considered for annexation is the area being analyzed in this fiscal impact study.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

This report is organized into the following five chapters:

Chapter 1 States the objective of the report and outlines its structure.

Chapter 2 Describes the Highway 12 Logistics Center , as well as the EIR Alternative 2 development scenario.

Chapter 3 Outlines the scope, approach, and global/key assumptions.

Chapter 4 Describes specific assumptions that apply to the C ity and identifies which methodologies apply to City revenue and expense categories.

Chapter 5 Summarizes the results of the analysis , and presents results of the Alternative 2 development scenario described in the EIR.

237

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 2 Chapter 2
HIGHWAY 12 LOGISTICS CENTER

REGIONAL LOCATION

Established in the 1850s and i ncorporated in 1868, Suisun City encompasses approximately 4.2 square miles and has a current population of approximately 28,500 people; the City is estimated to be home to approximately 3,700 jobs as well. It is centrally located in Northern California between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley , in the middle part of Solano County, southwest of the City of Fairfield, and is situated along State Route 12 (SR -12), just west of the intersection with Interstate 80. A map showing the regional area is provided below in Figure 1 (Regional Location Map).

F
IGURE 1

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

238

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 3

PROJECT AREA

As depicted in Figure 2 below (Project Site Map) and in Figure 3 on the following page (Proposed Annexation Area Map), the Project area is bounded to the east by the Union Pacific Railroad and to the north by SR -12. The western perimeter of the Project site is bounded by Ledgewood Creek. To the south, the Project site meets the California Northern Railroad, between Pennsylvania Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad, and meets Cordelia Road further south on the western side. This Project area encompasses approximately 162 acres, is generally located outside City limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and covers one Tax Rate Area (TRA) within the County (TRA 060-002).

F
IGURE 2

PROJECT SITE MAP

239

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 4 FIGURE 3

PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA MAP

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The development plan for the Project area consists of 1.28 million square feet of building space on 93 acres. Another 69 acres would be preserved as managed open space, which is assumed to be privately managed and funded. The development area would entail three separate planning areas and six separate buildings, as summarized in Table 1 (Anticipated Development) and as illustrated in Figure 4 (Project Development Plan Map), both on the following page.

240

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 5 TABLE 1

ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT

Proposed
Buildings
Building
Square Feet

Building A 152,305
Building B/C 710,489
Building D 56,880
Building E 56,880
Building F 172,380
Building G 127,303

Total 1,276,237

FIGURE 4

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP

241

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 6 EIR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 2

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the consideration and analysis of alternatives to a proposed development project in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Three alternative development scenarios are evaluated in the Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR; Alternative 2 is analyzed in this FIA.

The Alternative 2 scenario assumes development of approximately 530,000 square feet of building space on 51 acres, with another 110 acres being preserved as managed open space . The development area would entail two separate planning areas and three separate buildings, as summarized in Table 2 (Alternative 2 Development) below and as illustrated on the following page in Figure 5 (EIR Scenario 2 Site Map) and in Figure 6 (EIR Scenario 2 Development Map).

T
ABLE 2
ALTERNATIVE 2 DEVELOPMENT

Proposed
Buildings
Building
Square Feet

Building A 170,120
Building B 187,208
Building C 172,380

Total 529,708

242

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 7 FIGURE 5
EIR SCENARIO 2 SITE MAP

FIGURE 6
EIR SCENARIO 2 DEVELOPMENT MAP

243

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 8 Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY AND GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

Fiscal impacts arising from land development can be categorized broadly as either one -time impacts or recurring impacts, both of which involve a revenue and expense component. For example, a project may create the ne ed for an onsite sheriff substation, and the one -time construction cost of the station may be offset by a development impact fee. The annual expenses associated with sta ffing and maintaining the sheriff substation will be offset by annual property taxes and other revenues generated by new development. The fiscal impact s evaluated in this report are the annual, or recurring, revenues and expenses that will affect the C ity as a result of future development within the Project area.

Two methodologies are employed to estimate recurring fiscal impacts. First, the case study method is used to estimate recurring revenues and expenses by applying defined service standards, existing tax and fee rates, and suggested operating and maintenance costs to the various land uses and services proposed in the Project area. The second methodology is the multiplier method, which assumes that fiscal impacts will result from proposed development at forecasted rates per resident, per employee, or per person served based on existing averages for the C ity. The fiscal year (FY) 2022-23 budget for the C ity is used to estimate many of the average revenues and expenses; this FY budget is utilized in the analysis because it was the most current budget available at the time the FIA process began and because it is consistent with the timeframe that various fiscal assumptions , such as the Project valuation, were developed. The case study and multiplier methods are generally used under the following conditions:

Case Study Method

1. Marginal cost is a better approximation of the actual costs to provide similar services to specific new developments in future years.

2. The land use distribution of the project area being analyzed does not resemble the land use distribution within the public agency’s boundaries.

3. Service standards and estimated future costs for new projects are anticipated to be different than they are now.

Multiplier Method

1. Average cost is a reasonable approximation of the actual costs to provide similar services to specific new developments in future years.

2. Specific revenues and expenses are generated based on population or employment (e.g., recreation services or business licenses ), or both population and employment combined.
244

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 9

3. Service standards and other information are not available or accurate.

The multiplier method relies on a “persons served” factor, which is most often the sum of all residents plus a certain percentage of employees. The exact relationship of service demands and revenue potential between residents and employees is difficult to measure, but a service population comprised of all residents plus 50% of employees is considered standard fiscal practice. The 50% ratio suggests that a resident generally has twice the impact of an employee (e.g., a resident is home 16 hours per day, while an employee is at work eight hours per day).

The “Persons Served” factors for the City are presented in Table A-1 of the Appendix along with the population and employee figures. These estimates are based on 2023 data in order to correspond to the FY 20 22-23 budget utilized in the analysis, and are summarized in Table 3 below.

T
ABLE 3
CITY RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES, AND PERSONS SERVED ESTIMATES IN 2023

City
Total

Residents 28,471
Employees 3,732

Persons Served (Residents + 50% of Employees) 30,337

Case study and multiplier approaches are used to estimate different recurring fiscal impacts f or the City, as listed in Table 4 on the following page.

245

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 10 TABLE 4

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES FOR THE CITY

CASE STUDY METHOD MULTIPLIER METHOD
City of Suisun City
Recurring Revenues

Property Tax: Secured & Unsecured Franchise Fees
Base & Pooled Sales / Use Tax Licenses & Permits
Prop 172 Sales Tax – Public Safety Charges for Services Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Fines & Forfeitures
Citywide Services CFD No. 2

Recurring Expenses

Additional Police Staff General Government/Administrative Services Additional Pavement Maintenance Development Services
Fire Protection
Police Services
Public Works
Non-Departmental Services
Recreation, Parks & Marina

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

Many assumptions are factored into this FIA. Some of the most critical assumptions, in terms of their effect on revenues and expenses, are delineated below:

1. All revenue and expense assumptions are presented in 2023 dollars. Future analyses should be updated to reflect then -current revenues and expenses, or assumptions should be increased by an inflation factor that is tied to an appropriate inflation index such as the Engineering News-Record index or one of the regional consumer price indices.

2. Legislative actions taken at the state level in the 1990s diverted a percentage of the 1.0% property tax into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF ). For purposes of the fiscal analysis, it is assumed that this situation will continue in future years.

3. Estimated population and empl oyee estimates shown in Table A -1 of the Appendix reflect 2023 estimates for the C ity. As discussed previously, these estimates are used to determine average revenue and expense multipliers that serve as the basis for a significant part of the FIA. Population estimates are based on data from the California Department of Finance (DOF), while employment estimates are based on information provided by Claritas, a private demographics data provider. 246

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 11

4. Detailed information regarding Project demographics, average values, and other project - specific assumptions for the Project i s provided in Table A -2 of the Appendix. An employment density assumption of 1,000 square feet per employee for the light industrial logistics land use is also included in th is table, producing an estimated 1,275 employees at buildout. A particularly important assumption that affects property tax and property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fees is the estimated value of developed property. The total secured and unsecured value of this logistics land use is estimated to be $160 per building square foot. It should be noted that this value represents an average for new development within the Project area. Values for each building may vary depending on building height, building facade, building size, type and extent of unsecured property inside, and other factors.

5. Fiscal revenue and expense standards generally reflect average revenues and expenses based on the FY 2022-23 budget for the C ity. Speci fic adjustments to certain budget categories or line items are described in Chapter 4 of this study.

6. The governing jurisdiction is an important consideration because it determines how property taxes and other revenues are calculated and allocated, as well as which agency is responsible for providing services. It is assumed that the C ity will annex the Project into its boundaries and operate as the governing jurisdiction for the Project. 247

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 12 Chapter 4

FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS AND REVENUE/EXPENSE ASSUMPTIONS

The City provides c itywide services, such as public safety services , to all residents who live in the City and all employees who work in the City . F uture development within the Highway 12 Logistics Center area will produce a fiscal impact on the C ity based on the municipal services that are provided to the area by the City.

This chapter summarizes the applicable assumptions used to estimate fiscal impacts on the City associated with future development within the Project area, assuming that the Project is annexed into the incorporated territory of the C ity. Detailed tables of fiscal assumptions related to City revenues and service expenses are presented in Table A-3 and Tables B -1 through B-5 of the Appendix.

CITY FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS

Some of the key assumptions that drive the calculation of City revenues and expenses are described below. Fiscal revenues and expenses reflect average revenues and expenses based on the City’s FY 2022-23 budget, with the following notable exceptions:

1. As discussed above in Chapter 3, certain revenues are calculated and estimated based on the Case Study method, so they will not necessarily reflect average City revenues. These revenues are listed in Table 4 above and in Table B-1 of the Appendix.

2. Several City revenue sources are assumed to be unaffected by new development with in the Project. For example, the new buildings are expected to be owned and operated by the developer over a long period of time, so a lack of building sales transactions would produce no real property transfer tax revenue. Similarly, a hotel or other land use that may generate transient occupancy tax (TOT) is not anticipated, so TOT revenue s are not expected to be generated directly from within the Project. These and other revenue line items not expected to be impacted by Project development are listed in Table B -1 of the Appendix.

3. Most of the City’s costs are variable expenses that will increase to respond to new growth within the City and address the City’s responsibility to provide services to those new growth areas. However, some of the City costs are fixed and will not necessarily be impacted by new growth. An example of these types of costs is the fact that there will only be five City Council members, one City Clerk, City Treasurer, and City Manager, one Police Chief and one Fire Chief, and one department head in areas such as Development Services and Public Works whether there is new growth or not. Standard fiscal practice applies a 25% discount to General Government and Administrative Services expenses to account for these types of fixed costs across the City’s budget.

248

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 13

4. The City commissioned the following three studies recently to identify if desired levels of serve (LOS) were being met, or could be met:

 Fire Service Impacts Review of Proposed Regional Warehouses , prepared by Citygate Associates, dated December 13, 2022.

 Police Department Staffing and Facility Assessment , prepared by Matrix Consulting Group, dated March 15, 2021.

 Pavement Management Report , prepared by AMS Consulting, dated April 29, 2021.

The Fire analysis did not suggest that additional staffing or other operating costs would be required to provide a higher or desired LOS, assuming a built-in sprinkler system and other fire suppression equipment are installed and perform as designed. However, t he Police analysis and the Pavement Management analysis indicated that additional staffing and related costs would be necessary to enhance the LOS to more desirable levels. Table B-5 captures the additional costs associated with these LOS adjustments , as described more fully later in this chapter.

REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS

Case Study Method

Secured and Unsecured Property Tax

Property taxes are allocated to public agencies and special districts based on the various allocation factors within a Tax Rate Area ( TRA). Table A-3 in the Appendix identifies the allocation factors for the variety of districts, funds, and agencies included within the one applicable TRA for the Project (TRA 060-002), both before and after revenues have been shifted to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).

The County General Fund is allocated 40.75% of the basic 1% property tax on a pre-ERAF basis.

Also, the Suisun Fire Protection District is allocated 7.74% of the basic 1% property tax, which together with the County’s allocation produces a total of approximately 48.5% available to split between the City and County, prior to ERAF . Pursuant to the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement between the County and its seven constituent cities, Suisun City would receive

14.47% of the pre -ERAF allocation, while Solano County would retain its former pre -ERAF allocation minus the City’s allocation (40.75% – 14.47% = 26.28%), plus the allocation to the Suisun Fire Protection District, which will no longer provide services to the annexed Project area (26.28% + 7.74% = 34.02%). After the ERAF shift, the City allocation of 14.47% is reduced to

13.3%; the County allocation of 34.02% is reduced to a post-ERAF 21.6%.

These allocation amounts are shown in Table A -3, and the City allocation is shown again in Table B-2.
249

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 14 Sales and Use Tax

Several methodologies can be used to estimate taxable retail sales. One method measures taxable sales based on the supply of retail, office, and industrial square footage. Under this approach, a taxable sales per square foot estimate is multiplied by the total proposed retail, office, or industrial square footage planned , sometimes adjusted to account for stabilized occupancy. Another approach looks at the demand side of the equation. In this approach, household income, percentage of household income spent on taxable goods and services, and a taxable sales capture rate for the Project are estimated to determine taxable sales.

Since there is no residential development integrated into this Project, the analysis estimates sales tax revenue using a supply side approach. Light industrial/warehouse land uses are assumed to produce only minimal taxable sales (from a few point -of-sale businesses operating out of these uses), estimated to be $5 per building square foot, as shown in Table B-2. Total annual taxable sales projected for the Project are estimated to be $6.4 million.

In addition to the 1.0% local sales tax, all governing jurisdictions also receive a portion of the County’s and State’s pooled revenues. When a sale cannot be identified with a permanent place of business in California, the local sales tax is allocated to local jurisdictions through countywide or statewide pools. Accordingly, certain sellers are authorized to report their local sales tax either on a countywide or statewide basis. These may include auctioneers, construction contractors making sales of fixtures, catering trucks, itinerant vendors, vending machine operators, and other permit holders who operate in more than one local jurisdiction but are unable to readily allocate taxable transactions to particular jurisdictions. Use tax is also allocated through a countywide pool. Examples of taxpayers who report use tax allocated through the countywide pool include out -of-state sellers who ship goods directly to consumers in the state from a stock of goods located outside the state, and California sellers who ship goods directly to consumers in the state from a stock of goods located outside of the state. The countywide pools are prorated, first among the cities and the unincorporated area of each county using the proportion that the identified tax for each city and unincorporated area of a county bears to the total identified for the county as a whole. Next, the combined total of the direct sales tax allocation and the prorated countywide pool amount is used to allocate the statewide pool amount to each city and county.

Countywide and statewide pooled s ales tax revenue is calculated to be 1 4.1% of the basic 1% sales tax revenue, as shown in Table B -2. These two sources of sales tax revenue are combined to produce a total sales tax revenue estimate for the Project.

Note that Measure S revenue is not included in the analysis since it is anticipated to sunset in 2026. In addition, gas tax revenues are not incorporated into the analysis because they are not General Fund revenues and are offset by City expenses that are also not included in the analysis.

Proposition 172 Public Safety Sales Tax

Proposition 172 created a one half cent sales tax for local public safety. In fact, it was designed as a means of softening the impact of the ERAF shift on local agencies. Each county allocates 250

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 15 Prop 172 revenues to each city and the unincorporated area of the county based on their proportionate share of net property tax loss due to ERAF. Since counties bear the brunt of the ERAF property tax loss, counties receive most of the public safety sales tax revenue. In Solano County, the County is allocated approximately 95% of the Prop 172 revenue that flows to the County as a whole , and the cities within the County share in the remaining 5%. Suisun City receives approximately 0.5% of the Prop 172 revenue.

Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees

The November 2004 election and the passage of Proposition 1A enacted a constitutional amendment that introduced the property tax for vehicle license fee (VLF) swap, which results in a new methodology to calculate property taxes in lieu of vehicle license fees. Under this law, the VLF backfill from the state general fund used to supplement taxpayer VLF revenues is eliminated and replaced with a like amount of property taxes, dollar -for-dollar. In subsequent years after the FY 2004-05 base year, the property tax in lieu of VLF amount grows in proportion to the growth rate of gross assessed valuation in a city or county, rather than in proportion to population, as previously used to determine VLF.

The City’s property tax in lieu of VLF ( PTILVLF) for FY 2022-23 is shown in Table B -2. The same table also shows the C ity’s net assessed value for FY 2022-23, which can be used in combination with the C ity’s PTILVLF to determine PTILVLF as a percentage of net assessed value associated with future development. The City’s ratio of PTILVLF to net assessed value is

0.096% ($2,887,192 ÷ $2,999,272,407), which produces the incremental PTILVLF when multiplied by the Project’s anticipated value of $204.2 million (shown in Table A-2).

Citywide Services CFD No. 2

In 2005, Suisun City established citywide services Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2 to fund additional expenses associated with providing municipal services to new developments within the incorporated C ity area. These General Fund services include public safety (police, fire, and paramedic) and parks, open space, and storm drainage maintenance. Annual special taxes are levied on and collected from residential dwelling units and non -residential buildings within the boundaries of the CFD. FY 2022- 23 annual special tax rates were $ 949.80 per 1,000 building square feet for non- residential structures, as shown in Table B -2. It is assumed that the Project will annex into CFD No. 2 and will generate annual special tax revenues to help offset the costs of providing a variety of City services to the Project.

Multiplier Method

Of the different revenue sources itemized in the fiscal analysis, several are calculated using the multiplier method. The revenue multip liers are presented in Table B -3 and are applied to the appropriate residents, employees, or persons served in the Project area to analyze the annual impacts associated with future development within the Project. Franchise fees, licenses and permits, charges for services, and fines and forfeitures are included among the fiscal revenues estimated using the average revenue multiplier approach.

251

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 16

EXPENSE ASSUMPTIONS

Multiplier Method

All City expenses are calculated using the multiplier method. C itywide expense multipliers are applied to the number of residents, employees, or persons served to analyze the annual impacts associated with the P roject. The choice of resident s, employees, or persons served, as the basis for a given multiplier, reflects the type of population being se rved and is summarized in Tables B-4 and B-5.

Eight primary budget categories are evaluated using the multiplier method. Those categories, and a sampling of the types of services integrated into those categories, are as follows:

1. General Government, which includes the City Council, City Clerk, and City Treasurer (all elected officials) and the City Manager Department, which includes the office of the City Manager and Human Resources . This multiplier is reduced by 25% to account for fixed costs that are not expected to grow significantly, or at all, due to new development.

2. Administrative Services , which includes Accounting Services and Information Technology. This multiplier is also reduced by 25% to account for Citywide fixed costs.

3. Development Services , which includes the Economic Development, Property Management, Planning, Housing, and Building and Safety Divisions, as well as responsibility for coordinating dissolution efforts and related activities associated with the former Redevelopment Agency.

4. Fire, which includes fire suppression and prevention, firefighting operations , emergency medical response, fire investigations, disaster preparedness/response/mitigation/recovery, and related support services.

5. Non-Departmental, which is a citywide cost center that accounts for expenses not attributable to a specific department or program, including Citywide memberships, City Attorney expenses, and other costs.

6. Police, which includes police patrol , calls for service, crime prevention, detective operations and investigations, community services, school safety traffic officers, dispatch and other command operations, and other support services . The Police Department Staffing and Facility Assessment study recommended that five new positions be added to the police force to provide the needed LOS in the City. One of those new positions (the Dispatcher position) is already incorporated into the City budget, leaving an additional four positions, or approximately 10% of the police department staff, still unfunded. This additional cost is incorporated into the analysis with an additional line item toward the bottom of Table B-5.

7. Public Works , which includes maintenance of all City -owned properties, engineering services for capital improvement projects and private development projects, and 252

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 17 maintenance of street, landscape, sewer, and storm drain facilities and City vehicles and equipment. The Pavement Management Report recommended that an additional $6 million be added to the street maintenance budget to move the pavement condition index (PCI) from a current level of 58 up to a level of 63, which would transition Citywide pavement conditions from “At Risk” to “Fair.” The additional budget would also bring approximately 50% of City streets to a PCI greater than or equal to 70; a PCI of 70 is at the bottom end of the “Good to Excellent” pavement condition category, which ranges from 70 to 100 (100 being a brand new pavement). The additional $6 million is also incorporated into the analysis with an additional line item in Table B-5.

8. Recreation, Parks & Marina, which includes recreation programs and services, special events, Community Center and Senior Center operations, and marina management and operations.

253

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 18 Chapter 5

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

REVENUES

The fiscal analysis indicates that significant fiscal revenues will be generated to the General Fund by the Highway 12 Logistics Center project. Annual property tax and property tax in l ieu of VLF are estimated to reach $ 272,000 and $197,000 annually, or 15% and 11%, respectively, of total annual revenues once the Project is built out. By far the largest source of revenue, though, will be t he citywide services CFD No. 2 special tax revenue, which is estimated to total $1.2 million (66% of the total revenue) at buildout of the Project . Total revenue is estimated to be $1.8 million annually at buildout. These amounts are shown in Table B-6 of the Appendix.

EXPENSES

The primary expenses that the General Fund will experience as a result of the Project relate to public safety. Table B -6 indicates that Fire and Police services will account for $108,000 and $206,000, respectively, of annual expenses once the Project is completed, or 22% and 42% of total General Fund expenses. Total yearly expenses are estimated to reach $635,000 at buildout.

NET FISCAL IMPACTS

As described above , the completed Project is expected to g enerate over $1.8 million in fiscal revenues and $635,000 in fiscal expenses to the City’s General Fund, creating an annual surplus of $1.2 million, as presented in T able B-6. That translates into a surplus of approximately $941 per 1,000 building square feet within the Project, which coincidentally is practically the same amount as the $950 per 1,000 building square feet special tax levied by CFD No. 2. In other words, the Project would likely produce a neutral fiscal impact to the City without the CFD No. 2 revenue. This anticipated surplus may be crucial to the City , allowing it to encourage development of various housing products with a balance of affordable and market-rate units , which could produce fiscal deficits and offset this Project’s surplus to some extent.

Table B-7 presents the results of the analysis on a building-by-building basis. The phasing of the Project will probably involve one or more buildings being constructed at a time . During the course of Project completion, it appears that fiscal impacts will be positive as well.

Based on the analysis in this report, the Project is anticipated to generate more than suffici ent revenues for the City to provide the appropriate services to new development in the Project area.

These results are summarized in Table 5 following this page.

254

City of Suisun City November 7, 2023
Highway 12 Logistics Center Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 19 TABLE 5

CITY ANNUAL NET FISCAL IMPACTS SUMMARY

City
General
Annual
Impacts
Fund at Buildout

Revenues $1,835,549

Expenses ($634,714)

Annual Net Fiscal Impact $1,200,835

Annual Surplus per 1,000 Building Square Feet $941

NET FISCAL IMPACTS OF EIR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 2

As described above in Chapter 2, the EIR Alternative 2 scenario assumes development of approximately 530,000 square feet of building space, or approximately 42% of the proposed Project. The development area would entail two separate planning areas and three separate buildings: Buildings A, B, and C. Table C -1 in the Appendix summarizes the land uses, job generation, and Project valuation associated with EIR Alternative 2.

Table C -2 of the Appendix presents the results of the fiscal impact analysis for this scenario.

EIR Alternative 2 is expected to generate approximately $762,000 in fiscal revenues and $263,000 in fiscal expenses per year to the C ity’s General Fund, creating an annual surplus of $499,000. Table C-3 presents the results of the analysis on a building- by-building basis , indicating that EIR Alternative 2 would be fiscally positive during the phasing of development as well.

255

APPENDIX

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLES

PROPOSED HIGHWAY 12 LOGISTICS CENTER

256
Table A-1
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
General Assumptions
Year of Study 2023
Constant Dollar Analysis (2023 $)
Jurisdiction Statistics
City of
Suisun
2023 Estimated Residential Population 28,471
2023 Estimated Employee Population 3,732
2023 Persons Served (Residents + 50% of Employees) 30,337 Source: California Department of Finance; Claritas; Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023 257
Table A-2
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Land Use, Demographic, and Related Assumptions
Average
Total Developed Projected
Estimated Building Estimated Persons Value per Developed Land Uses Acres (Bldg) SF Employees /1 Served /2 Bldg SF /3 Value /2 Warehouse Uses
Building A 152,305 152 employees $160 $24,368,800
Building B/C 710,489 710 employees $160 $113,678,240
Building D 56,880 57 employees $160 $9,100,800
Building E 56,880 57 employees $160 $9,100,800
Building F 172,380 172 employees $160 $27,580,800
Building G 127,303 127 employees $160 $20,368,480
Total 93 1,276,237 1,275 employees 638 $204,197,920 Preserved Open Space 69 Assumed to be privately managed and funded. /1 Assumes employment density of 1,000 sf per employee. /2 Persons served equals residents plus 50% of employees. /3 Includes secured and unsecured assessed values.

Source: City of Suisun City; EPS; Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023 258
Table A-3
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Property Tax Allocations
Pre-ERAF Property Tax Distribution
Tax Rate Area (TRA): 060-002 Weighted Allocation Post ERAF Property Tax Fund Acres: 162.0 ac. Average to ERAF Allocation /1 General County 0.40744 0.40744 /2
County Free Library 0.03568 0.03568
Accumulated Capital Outlay 0.01050 0.01050
Mosquito Abatement District 0.00764 0.00764
Aviation 0.00155 0.00155
Recreation 0.00263 0.00263
Suisun Resource Conservation -- --
Solano County Water Agency 0.01986 0.01986
Library Special Tax Zone 1 0.01593 0.01593
B A A Q M D 0.00285 0.00285
Special Road 0.03359 0.03359
Suisun Fire (assumes detachment) 0.07746 0.07746 /2
Solano Cemetery District 0.00641 0.00641
County Supt-Co School Ser Fund Sup 0.01334 0.01334
County Supt-Development Center 0.00282 0.00282
Solano Community College M & O 0.03587 0.03587
F-S Unified School District M & O 0.32069 0.32069
County Supt-Co School Ser Fund Supp 0.00142 0.00142
County Supt-Board of Education 0.00434 0.00434
Total 1.00000 1.00000
Property Tax to be shared between the City of Suisun and Solano County General Funds /2 48.49% Pre-ERAF
Property Tax Allocated to the City 14.47% 8.0806% 13.30% Property Tax Allocated to the County 34.02% 36.4677% 21.61% /1 The reallocation of property taxes away from counties, cities, and other agencies to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fun d (ERAF) is based on certain formulas; the allocations to the various funds shown above represent allocations after ERAF reduction factors were applied. /2 Assumes the City receives 14.47% of the Pre-ERAF allocation, while the County retains it's former Pre-ERAF allocation minus t he City's allocation, plus the allocation to the Suisun Fire Protection District (which will no longer provide services to the annexation area).

Source: County of Solano Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement; Solano County; Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023 259
Table B-1
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Revenue Calculation Methodology
Reference Modeling
Revenue Table Methodology
Property Tax Table B-2 Case Study
General Fund Sales & Use Tax Table B-2 Case Study
Prop 172 Sales Tax Table B-2 Case Study
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (PTILVLF) Table B-2 Case Study Franchise Fees Table B-3 Multiplier Method: Persons Served Licenses & Permits Table B-3 Multiplier Method: Persons Served Charges for Services Table B-3 Multiplier Method: Persons Served Fines & Forfeitures Table B-3 Multiplier Method: Persons Served Real Property Transfer Tax Not Included in Analysis /1
Transient Occupancy Tax Not Included in Analysis /1
Cannabis Tax Not Included in Analysis /1
Intergovernmental Revenue Not Included in Analysis /1
Use of Money and Property Not Included in Analysis /1
Miscellaneous Revenue Not Included in Analysis /1
Gas Tax Not Included in Analysis /2
CFD No. 2 Special Tax Revenue Table B-2 Case Study
/1 Assumes proposed development will not affect this revenue source. /2 Assumes these non-General Fund revenues are offset by expenses (which are also not included in the analysis).

Source: City of Suisun City FY 2022-23 Budget; Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023 260
Table B-2
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Revenue Assumptions - Case Study Method
Property Tax (Secured & Unsecured) Allocation to City (post-ERAF) 13.3% Sales and Use Tax
Base Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Countywide and Statewide Pooled Tax Revenue as a Percentage of Base Sales Tax Revenue 14.1% Public Safety (Prop. 172) Sales Tax Rate 0.5%
Percentage of Prop. 172 Sales Tax Allocated to City 0.5% Measure S (not included due to 2026 sunset) Not Included Gas Tax Not Included /1
Taxable Sales per Improved Square Foot Amount per SF
Warehouse Uses $5
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (PTILVLF)
City Fiscal Year 2022-23 Net Assessed Value $2,999,272,407 City Fiscal Year 2022-23 Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee $2,887,192 Existing or Proposed LMD/CFD Revenue
CFD No. 2 FY 2022-23 Rate per 1,000 Bldg SF $949.80
/1 These non-General Fund revenues are offset by expenses (which are also not included in the analysis).

Source: California City Finance; California Board of Equalization; Solano County; City of Suisun City; Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023 261
Table B-3
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Revenue Assumptions - Multiplier Method
Estimated Average Average Average
General Fund Revenues General Fund Revenue per Revenue per Revenue per - Multiplier Method Revenues Resident Employee Person Served Franchise Fees $953,600 -- -- $31.43
Licenses & Permits $869,942 -- -- $28.68
Charges for Services $1,699,728 -- -- $56.03
Fines & Forfeitures $386,600 -- -- $12.74
Source: City of Suisun City FY 2022-23 Budget; Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023 262
Table B-4
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Expense Calculation Methodology
General Fund Reference Modeling
Function Table Methodology
General Government
City Council Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served City Clerk Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served
City Treasurer Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served City Manager Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served Administrative Services Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served Development Services Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served Fire Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served
Non-Departmental Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served Police Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served
Public Works Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Persons Served Recreation, Parks & Marina Table B-5 Multiplier Method: Residents Source: City of Suisun City FY 2022-23 Budget; Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023 263
Table B-5
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Expense Assumptions - Multiplier Method
Estimated Average Average Average
General Fund Expense per Expense per Expense per
Expenditures Resident Employee Person Served
General Government $783,540 -- -- $19.37 /1 Administrative Services $1,742,202 -- -- $43.07 /1 Development Services $1,186,090 -- -- $39.10
Fire $5,141,968 -- -- $169.49
Non-Departmental $2,989,560 -- -- $98.55
Police $9,810,221 -- -- $323.37
Public Works $2,177,566 -- -- $71.78
Recreation, Parks & Marina $1,441,202 $50.62 -- -- Total Budget $25,272,349
Additional 10% Police Staff $981,022 $32.34 /2
Additional Pavement Maintenance Expense $6,000,000 $197.78 /3 Total Adjusted Budget $32,253,371
/1 Assumes 25% of these expense categories will not grow significantly, if at all, due to new development. /2 Pursuant to the Police Department Staffing and Facility Assessment conducted March 2021, an additional four positions (not including the newly funded Dispatcher position) is recommended. /3 Pursuant to the Pavement Management Report conducted April 2021, an additional $6M is recommended to move the pavement condition index (PCI) from 58 to 63, and to bring ~50% of the City streets to a PCI >= 70.

Source: City of Suisun City FY 2022-23 Budget; Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023 264
Table B-6
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Summary of Annual Net Fiscal Impacts
Annual Revenues/Expenses Annual Impact % of Subtotal
Revenues
Property Tax $271,598 15%
General Fund Sales & Use Tax $72,821 4%
Prop 172 Sales Tax $166 0%
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (PTILVLF) $196,567 11% CFD No. 2 Special Tax Revenue $1,212,170 66%
Franchise Fees $20,055 1%
Licenses & Permits $18,295 1%
Charges for Services $35,746 2%
Fines & Forfeitures $8,130 0%
Total $1,835,549 100%
Expenses
General Government ($12,359) 3%
Administrative Services ($27,479) 6%
Development Services ($24,944) 5%
Fire ($108,138) 22%
Non-Departmental ($62,872) 13%
Police ($206,313) 42%
Public Works ($45,795) 9%
Recreation, Parks & Marina $0 0%
Subtotal ($487,900) 100%
Additional 10% Police Staff ($20,631)
Additional Pavement Maintenance Expense ($126,183)
Total ($634,714)
Net Fiscal Impact $1,200,835
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023
265
Table B-7
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center
Annual Net Fiscal Impacts by Building/Phase
Annual Revenues/Expenses Building A Building B/C Building D Building E Building F Building G Revenues
Property Tax $32,412 $151,200 $12,105 $12,105 $36,684 $27,092 General Fund Sales & Use Tax $8,690 $40,540 $3,246 $3,246 $9,836 $7,264 Prop 172 Sales Tax $20 $93 $7 $7 $22 $17
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (PTILVLF) $23,458 $109,430 $8,761 $8,761 $26,550 $19,607 CFD No. 2 Special Tax Revenue $144,659 $674,822 $54,025 $54,025 $163,727 $120,912 Franchise Fees $2,393 $11,165 $894 $894 $2,709 $2,000
Licenses & Permits $2,183 $10,185 $815 $815 $2,471 $1,825 Charges for Services $4,266 $19,900 $1,593 $1,593 $4,828 $3,566 Fines & Forfeitures $970 $4,526 $362 $362 $1,098 $811
Total $219,053 $1,021,861 $81,808 $81,808 $247,926 $183,094 Expenses
General Government ($1,475) ($6,880) ($551) ($551) ($1,669) ($1,233) Administrative Services ($3,279) ($15,298) ($1,225) ($1,225) ($3,712) ($2,741) Development Services ($2,977) ($13,886) ($1,112) ($1,112) ($3,369) ($2,488) Fire ($12,905) ($60,201) ($4,820) ($4,820) ($14,606) ($10,787) Non-Departmental ($7,503) ($35,001) ($2,802) ($2,802) ($8,492) ($6,271) Police ($24,621) ($114,856) ($9,195) ($9,195) ($27,866) ($20,579) Public Works ($5,465) ($25,494) ($2,041) ($2,041) ($6,186) ($4,568) Recreation, Parks & Marina $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal ($58,226) ($271,617) ($21,745) ($21,745) ($65,900) ($48,667) Additional 10% Police Staff ($2,462) ($11,486) ($920) ($920) ($2,787) ($2,058) Additional Pavement Maintenance Expense ($15,059) ($70,247) ($5,624) ($5,624) ($17,043) ($12,587) Total ($75,746) ($353,349) ($28,288) ($28,288) ($85,730) ($63,312) Net Annual Fiscal Impact $143,307 $668,512 $53,519 $53,519 $162,196 $119,782 Source: Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023
266

F

ISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLES

EIR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 2

267
Table C-1
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center - EIR Alternative 2
Land Use, Demographic, and Related Assumptions
Average
Total Developed Projected
Estimated Building Estimated Persons Value per Developed Land Uses Acres (Bldg) SF Employees /1 Served /2 Bldg SF /3 Value /2 Warehouse Uses
Building A 170,120 170 employees $160 $27,219,200
Building B 187,208 186 employees $160 $29,953,280
Building C 172,380 172 employees $160 $27,580,800
Total 51 529,708 528 employees 264 $84,753,280
Preserved Open Space 110 Assumed to be privately managed and funded. /1 Assumes employment density of 1,000 sf per employee. /2 Persons served equals residents plus 50% of employees. /3 Includes secured and unsecured assessed values.

Source: City of Suisun City; EPS; Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023 268
Table C-2
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center - EIR Alternative 2
Summary of Annual Net Fiscal Impacts
Annual Revenues/Expenses Annual Impact % of Subtotal
Revenues
Property Tax $112,728 15%
General Fund Sales & Use Tax $30,225 4%
Prop 172 Sales Tax $69 0%
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (PTILVLF) $81,586 11% CFD No. 2 Special Tax Revenue $503,117 66%
Franchise Fees $8,298 1%
Licenses & Permits $7,570 1%
Charges for Services $14,791 2%
Fines & Forfeitures $3,364 0%
Total $761,749 100%
Expenses
General Government ($5,114) 3%
Administrative Services ($11,371) 6%
Development Services ($10,322) 5%
Fire ($44,747) 22%
Non-Departmental ($26,016) 13%
Police ($85,371) 42%
Public Works ($18,950) 9%
Recreation, Parks & Marina $0 0%
Subtotal ($201,890) 100%
Additional 10% Police Staff ($8,537)
Additional Pavement Maintenance Expense ($52,213)
Total ($262,640)
Net Fiscal Impact $499,109
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023
269
Table C-3
City of Suisun City
Highway 12 Logistics Center - EIR Alternative 2
Annual Net Fiscal Impacts by Building/Phase
Annual Revenues/Expenses Building A Building B Building C Revenues
Property Tax $36,204 $39,840 $36,684
General Fund Sales & Use Tax $9,707 $10,682 $9,836
Prop 172 Sales Tax $22 $24 $22
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (PTILVLF) $26,202 $28,834 $26,550 CFD No. 2 Special Tax Revenue $161,580 $177,810 $163,727 Franchise Fees $2,665 $2,933 $2,701
Licenses & Permits $2,431 $2,676 $2,464
Charges for Services $4,750 $5,228 $4,814
Fines & Forfeitures $1,080 $1,189 $1,095
Total $244,642 $269,215 $247,892
Expenses
General Government ($1,642) ($1,807) ($1,664)
Administrative Services ($3,652) ($4,019) ($3,700)
Development Services ($3,315) ($3,648) ($3,359)
Fire ($14,371) ($15,814) ($14,562)
Non-Departmental ($8,355) ($9,194) ($8,466)
Police ($27,418) ($30,172) ($27,782)
Public Works ($6,086) ($6,697) ($6,167)
Recreation, Parks & Marina $0 $0 $0
Subtotal ($64,838) ($71,351) ($65,700)
Additional 10% Police Staff ($2,742) ($3,017) ($2,778)
Additional Pavement Maintenance Expense ($16,769) ($18,453) ($16,992) Total ($84,349) ($92,822) ($85,470)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $160,293 $176,394 $162,422
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group 11/07/2023
270
September 13, 2024
Sent via email
City of Suisun City
Attn: Jim Bermudez
Development Services Director
701 Civic Center Boulevard
Suisun City, CA 94585
[email protected]
Re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Report for the Highway 12 Logistics Center Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021040016)
Dear Mr. Bermudez:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the Highway 12 Logistics Center Project (“Project”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021040016).

The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law.

The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people throughout Solano County. The Center frequently participates in environmental review for industrial development projects in Solano County, and frequently reviews and submits comment letters on draft environmental impact reports prepared pursuant to CEQA for warehouses throughout the state.

The Center is concerned with the Project’s significant impacts to biological resources, water quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. The City must revise and recirculate an EIR that complies with CEQA.

I. The Primary Mitigation Mechanism for Impacts to Biological Resources is Inadequate.

Late1-1
271
September 13, 2024

The primary mitigation strategy for biological impacts is the formation of the Managed Open Space, a 437-acre area of the Reduced Footprint Alternative Project site that would be protected with a deed restriction or conservation easement. However, the majority of the proposed Managed Open Space area (331.7 acres, or 76%) already lies within the Primary and Secondary Management Areas of the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act area (DEIR at 4.3-3), which severely limits development. As described in the EIR, in the Primary Management Area “Urban development is precluded and other uses such as oil and gas exploration and construction and operations of utilities and other facilities are highly regulated by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission” (DEIR at 4.3-60). Citing the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan, the EIR further explains that “Within the Primary Management Area ‘… land and water areas should be managed so as to achieve the following objectives: Preservation and enhancement of Marsh habitat; Provision of habitat attractive to waterfowl; Improvement of water distribution and levee systems; Encouragement of agricultural and grazing practices consistent with wildlife use, waterfowl hunting, and elimination of mosquito breeding; Restoration of historic wetlands’” (DEIR at 4.3-60, 61). The proposed Project would not accomplish any of these goals. Therefore, most of the land that is purported to be preserved via the Managed Open Space is land that would not be developed in any case. The proposed Managed Open Space only additively protects 105 acres of open space habitat – and while this is certainly greater than the initial proposed Project, the variety of habitats within this area does not guarantee effective mitigation for all of the affected species, which have diverse habitat needs.

The Managed Open Space serves as the primary mechanism for mitigating impact to many of the species and habitats listed in the EIR, including but not limited to Contra Costa goldfields, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, Suisun shrew, upland refugia, and wetlands. However, because the Managed Open Space sits on land that is not at risk of future development, it does nothing to compensate for the habitat that will be lost, and therefore does not serve as sufficient mitigation for any of these species or habitats.

Additionally, a deed restriction does not provide sufficient guarantee that the land that in the proposed Managed Open Space will be protected in the future. Deed restrictions are not a substitute for conservation easements because, inter alia, there is no third-party organization charged with regularly monitoring the relevant land and ensuring that it remains in compatible use and retains its conservation value. Additionally, a deeded conservation easement grants the third-party steward legal remedies to enforce compliance with the terms of the easement. Thus, in order for there to be substantial evidence that relying on this mitigation measure will reduce the Project’s impacts to upland annual grassland, seasonally saturated annual grassland, vernal pools, alkali seasonal wetlands, and perennial brackish marsh, and any other impacted habitats to less-than-significant levels, the EIR must, at a minimum: (1) identify and describe the exact boundaries of the property to be preserved, (2) demonstrate that there is a qualified third-party steward willing to acquire and hold the conservation easement, and (3) require that a conservation easement be recorded prior to any ground-breaking activity on the project site. (Cf.

Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 [plan for habitat Late1-2
272
September 13, 2024

management failed to describe future management actions or include standards or guidelines for future actions and was therefore inadequate as a mitigation measure].) II. The Project Does Not Adequately Mitigate for Impacts to Biological Resources
We are encouraged to see the City is considering the Reduced Footprint Alternative, as a opposed to the full Project. However, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would still have significant impacts on biological resources. The Project lies on and adjacent to important wetland, upland, and marsh wildlife habitat. Numerous special-status species are present or possibly present in the Project area and its surroundings. The EIR addresses some of these species, but its analysis of impacts to wildlife is incomplete. Therefore, the mitigation measures included in the EIR are also incomplete, as they do not account for impacts to species that were not fully analyzed. Additionally, for those species that were analyzed in the EIR, several proposed mitigation measures are insufficient.

A. Numerous Special-Status Species are Inappropriately Excluded from Analysis or Mitigation
The EIR improperly excludes several species based on faulty conclusions. For example, the Delta ground beetle and special-status vernal pool invertebrates (vernal pool tadpole shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp) are discussed in the EIR but are excluded from any analysis. The basis for the exclusion of these species is flawed; the EIR inappropriately concludes that these species do not exist in the Project area without sufficient evidence. The EIR also excludes California red-legged frog and western pond turtle from analysis, ignoring potential sightings in the California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”) from the area, without any further discussion.

The EIR provides no evidence for its claim that the Project would have no impact on the delta green ground beetle. The EIR acknowledges that the beetle can be found in small vernal pools, hog wallows, or grassy swales, especially in wet years, but is unlikely to breed in these areas (EIR at 4.3-66). The EIR goes on to conclude that because the beetle does not breed in these habitats, and because drought years diminish habitat quality, there is no suitable habitat present at the site. This logic is erroneous – it is still entirely possible that delta green ground beetles are present at the Project site, even if their presence is temporary or seasonal. The EIR notes that the suitability of vernal pools as habitat for delta green ground beetles varies based on precipitation; in dry years, pools may be less suitable (DEIR at 4.3-67). The EIR does not, however, acknowledge the corollary: in wet years, pools may be more suitable, and may serve as habitat for the delta green ground beetle. It is therefore inappropriate to conclude that the Project would have “no impact to the delta green ground beetle, and no mitigation is warranted” (DEIR at 4.3-67). Furthermore, the natural history of the delta green ground beetle – including behavior, Late1-3
Late1-4
273
September 13, 2024

habitat use, and dispersal among other factors – is not well understood. It is not safe to assume that they are not present based on our limited understanding of the species. Instead, the Application must actually assess whether this endangered species is present using species- appropriate surveys during the beetle’s active season (February through May) over wet and dry years before making any conclusions about potential impacts. Of course, if such surveys reveal that the delta green ground beetle is present in the Project area at any time, the EIR must provide adequate mitigation for impacts to the delta green ground beetle.

The EIR also concludes that special status vernal pool crustaceans are not present in the Project area. Unlike the case of the delta green ground beetle, the EIR does cite results from several targeted surveys; several of which occurred before 2005, and two of which occurred in 2020-2021 (DEIR at 4.3-69). While we appreciate that surveys were conducted for these species, these surveys are not sufficient to conclude absence of vernal pool crustaceans. These species, including the federally-listed vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, can be dispersed between vernal pool habitats by birds and mammals, as well as through movement of water between habitats. It is therefore possible that negative survey results from 2021 and earlier do not reflect current conditions. The EIR must therefore include pre-construction surveys of suitable habitat, and must include potential mitigation measures in the case that special-status vernal pool crustaceans are found in the Project area.

Two additional special-status species were also excluded from analysis. The EIR states that both California red-legged frog (a federally-threatened species) and western pond turtle (recently proposed as federally-threatened) are “Not present” in the Project area. For the western pond turtle, the EIR states that the species is “Not present. No CNDDB records in the vicinity of the property” (DEIR at 4.3-24). However, a query of the CNDDB “Species in a Quad” tool centered on the Fairfield South quad, which contains the Project area, shows observations of both California red-legged frog and western pond turtle. These observations are classified as “unprocessed,” which means they have not yet gone through the full verification process; however, as suitable habitat for both species potentially exists at the Project site in the form of streams and wetlands, these observations should be assumed to be accurate, surveys should be performed to determine whether these two species are present at the Project site, and mitigation measures should be implemented if either is present.

B. The EIR Inappropriately Minimizes Impacts to California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat
The California tiger salamander (“CTS”) populations that inhabit Solano county are federally threatened. The EIR conducted surveys for this species and found no evidence of CTS in the Project area. However, the EIR also notes that the entire Project site lies within designated critical habitat for the species. The EIR goes on to explain that the habitat within the Project area is not likely to be suitable for the species, and concludes that “no impacts to California tiger salamander or designated critical habitat for this species would result from construction of the Late1-4
cont.

Late1-5
274
September 13, 2024

proposed Project and no mitigation is warranted” (DEIR at 4.3-68). This statement is definitionally false – although the habitat present on the Project site does not represent ideal habitat for CTS, it still contains potentially suitable habitat, therefore any impacts to vernal pools present in the project area will impact designated critical habitat, and must be mitigated. (Guidelines § 15065, subd. (a)(1) [significance finding required when project has potential to “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species” or “substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species”].) C. The Proposed Mitigation for Contra Costa Goldfields is Insufficient The EIR acknowledges that impacts to Contra Costa goldfields are potentially significant, even under the proposed Reduced Footprint Alternative (DEIR at 6-26). The first mitigation measure proposed in the EIR (measure 4.3-1a) states that the Applicant will create a minimum 1:1 ratio of new Contra Costa goldfields habitat supporting a minimum of 51 plants at least 2 out of 10 years of the monitoring period (FEIR Errata 3-6). This mitigation ratio is insufficient. The EIR does not provide any information on whether such establishment of new populations has ever been attempted, or successful. Establishing new populations of endangered plants, especially plants with very particular habitat requirements like Contra Costa goldfields, can be extremely difficult, and often does not result in stable populations. A higher mitigation ratio should therefore be required for new Contra Costa goldfields habitat since it is likely not to provide the same quality of habitat for species as naturally occurring habitat. Moreover, this measure includes no provisions for how the Project will move forward if mitigation fails or unexpected mitigation is needed, failing to comply with CEQA’s mandate that the EIR provide the public with an understanding of what impact the project will have ahead of construction. (See id.; CEQA Guidelines § 21003. [requiring that environmental review documents provide information about the planned project in a way that provides the public and decisionmakers a meaningful understanding of how the project will be carried out].) This mitigation measure provides neither sufficient protections to ensure mitigation succeeds nor sufficient information to the public about how additional mitigation would be carried out if necessary.

D. The Lack of Information About Pesticide Use in the Managed Open Space Makes the EIR Inadequate as an Informational Document.

In its proposed mitigation for impacts to Crotch bumble bee (measure 4.3-6a), the EIR states that a Crotch’s Bumble Bee Avoidance and Minimization Plan will be developed if any individuals are discovered through targeted pre-construction surveys (DEIR at 4.3-77). The EIR notes that part of that plan may include reducing the use of harmful pesticides within the Managed Open Space Area, but provides no other details about pesticide use in the Managed Open Space Area in any other section of the EIR, including in Appendix C (Biological Resources Report). This description is troubling, as it suggests that harmful pesticides may be Late1-5
cont.

Late1-6
Late1-7
275
September 13, 2024

employed in the Managed Open Space, which is the EIR’s primary means of mitigating impacts to special status species and habitats throughout the Project. Many pesticides (including insecticides and herbicides) have significant harmful effects on non-target species, including the federally- and state-protected species that will be present in the Project’s proposed Managed Open Space. The EIR must therefore provide more detailed information about proposed pesticide use throughout the Project development and operation, especially in the Managed Open Space.

A “conclusory discussion” of a significant environmental impact makes an EIR “inadequate as an informational document.” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 514.) An EIR must provide information regarding the project's significant environmental impacts that is sufficient to allow decision-makers and the public to understand the environmental consequences of the project. (Id. at p. 520; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404; See CEQA Guidelines § 15151.) The document must include enough detail to enable the public “to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.” (Id. at 516 (citation omitted).) E. The EIR Inappropriately Minimizes Impacts to Nesting and Migratory Birds
The EIR notes that the Project has potentially significant impacts on numerous special- status nesting bird species, including northern harrier, short-eared owl, Swainson’s hawk burrowing owl, California black rail, loggerhead shrike, Suisun song sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, and tricolored blackbird (DEIR at 4.3-78 through 4.3-83). The EIR asserts that pre- construction nesting surveys for all of these species, and buffers around any existing nests, will reduce impacts to less than significant (Mitigation Measure 4.3-8b, 9a, 11; DEIR at 4.3-80, 81, 81). However, this analysis ignores the impacts of the loss of nesting habitat, as well as edge effects from Project operations on these special-status species. For example, field observations and controlled laboratory experiments have shown that traffic noise can significantly degrade habitat value for migrating songbirds (Ware et al., 2015). Subjects exposed to 55 and 61 dBA (simulated traffic noise) exhibited decreased feeding behavior and duration, as well as increased vigilance behavior (Ware et al., 2015). Another study found a 28% decrease in bird abundance in areas when traffic noise was present compared to when there was no traffic noise (McClure et al., 2013). For further discussion of the impacts of edge effects on wildlife, see the section of this letter on Wildlife Connectivity below.

Additionally, the EIR fails to assess impacts to migratory birds. The MND also fails to mention that the Project Area lies directly within an Audubon-designated Important Bird Area (“IBA”) for resident and migratory birds – the Suisun Marsh IBA – that sits within the Pacific Flyway, a north-south migratory corridor the extends from Alaska to Patagonia.1 IBAs are critical for regional, state, and global connectivity particularly for migratory birds that require 1 Audubon Important Bird Areas of California, available at https://www.audubon.org/important-bird- areas/state/california?field_iba_status=1&priority=2 (Accessed July 21, 2023).

Late1-7
cont.

Late1-8
276

September 13, 2024

habitat along their migratory path to find food, shelter, and nesting habitat. Of particular importance are the diverse habitats in the Project Area that provide essential nesting and resting habitat for both resident and migratory birds. Any reduction in natural habitat through new development in the Project area will reduce the native habitat present in this IBA and will have significant impact on the many bird species that use the Project area, including not only nesting birds but migratory birds as well. The Project’s impacts to migratory birds must therefore be analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated.

F. The EIR Fails to Mitigate Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk Swainson’s hawk is a raptor species native to California that is a threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (CDFW, 2016). Historically, Swainson’s hawk was common throughout most of California. Currently, there are estimated to be under 2,000 breeding pairs anywhere in the state—a 80% decrease from historic levels. (Ibid.) The primary threat to the hawk is habitat loss, which may have been the greatest factor in reducing its range and abundance in California over the last century. (Ibid.) Swainson’s hawk need natural grasslands, pasture, or hay crops to forage, which makes them dependent on land use patterns and vulnerable to development of incompatible land uses and to habitat fragmentation. (Ibid.) Therefore, maintaining large heterogenous areas of grasslands is a priority for protecting the species. (Ibid.)
In its proposed mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (Mitigation Measure 4.3-8a), the EIR claims that the Managed Open Space provides enough mitigation for the lost habitat that would result from Project construction (DEIR at 4.3-79). But, as noted above, much of the open space (331.7 acres) was already protected, and therefore cannot be considered effective compensatory mitigation. The additional acreage that is proposed as Managed Open Space under the Reduced Footprint Alternative (105 acres), while certainly preferable to the Project as initially proposed, still does not sufficiently mitigate for impacts to Swainson’s hawk. While it is not clear from information provided in the EIR how much suitable Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is additively protected within the 105 acres of additional open space in the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the vast majority of the proposed additional open space north of the railroad appears to be marsh, vernal pool and wetland (App. C, Draft Biological Resources Report, Fig 10). Swainson’s hawk is not typically associated with wetlands and foraging habitat is primarily open grassland, and marsh and wetlands are unlikely to provide enough suitable foraging habitat to compensate for the grassland that will be lost from Project construction. The EIR’s only other mitigation measures for Swainson’s hawk focus on buffer areas around observed nests, which do not address the area’s primary use to the hawk as foraging habitat.

In addition, the use of anticoagulant rodenticides in the Project area should be prohibited.

Secondary poisoning has been documented in many non-target animals, especially predators, including mountain lions (Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2018), coyotes (Riley et al., Late1-8
cont.

Late1-9
277

September 13, 2024

2003), bobcats (Riley et al., 2007; Serieys et al., 2015, 2018), San Joaquin kit fox (McMillin et al., 2008), California fishers (Gabriel et al., 2012), raptors (Lima & Salmon, 2010), and many more. Special-status species, including Swainson’s hawk, golden eagles, northern harriers, and others that are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the Project are vulnerable to poisoning. The poisons can also leach into the water and soils, harming other animals and plants across the landscape. Instead, alternatives to the use of harmful rodenticides, such as promoting the presence of natural predators, should be considered. A 2017 study conducted in the Ventura County Watershed Protection District found that attracting raptors to flood control facilities by installing raptor perches and nesting facilities (e.g., barn owl boxes, hawk nesting platforms) nearby was 50% more effective at preventing new rodent burrows compared to rodenticides (Ventura County Public Works Agency, 2017). The authors estimated that this technique could result in savings of about $7,500 annually. Not only is this method cost-effective, but it would also avoid exposing a multitude of non-target species to harmful rodenticides.

In sum, the proposed Project would permanently remove a large are of suitable foraging habitat, increase human activity and traffic around the project site, which could have significant impacts to Swainson’s hawk. Simply conducting pre-construction nesting bird surveys and protecting unsuitable habitat does not reduce the Project’s impacts on Swainson’s hawk to less than significant.

G. Impacts to Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Suisun Shrew are Significant

The EIR incorrectly states that the impacts of the Project on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR at 4.3-86). The EIR’s conclusion does not take into the account the impact of habitat loss that would result from Project construction on these two species, both of which have extremely small ranges and highly specific habitat requirements. Habitat loss from wetland modification and destruction, including for development, has been a primary driver of population decline in both of these small mammal species, and continues to threaten marsh and wetland habitat throughout California today (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010; Williams, 1986). The salt marsh harvest mouse is a federally- and state-endangered species, a status that reflects its significant vulnerability to population decline and extinction. As stated by (Smith et al., 2014), “Every remaining hectare of salt marsh harvest mouse habitat is crucial.” Any reduction in habitat for new development, including the proposed Project, would further reduce this endangered mammal’s range and drive it closer to extinction. The habitat requirements and range of the Suisun shrew, a California species of special concern, overlaps very closely with those of the salt marsh harvest mouse. Suisun shrew would therefore suffer similar negative impacts of any habitat loss through development in and adjacent to their marshland habitat.

For Mitigation Measure 4.3-13, the EIR claims that raising the elevation of portions of the upland area within the Managed Open Space will be sufficient to compensate for any loss in habitat (DEIR at 4.3-87). However, the EIR does not specify how much upland habitat will be Late1-9
cont.

Late1-10
278

September 13, 2024

altered, how it will be altered, or how it will be monitored to ensure success. This mitigation is therefore inadequate and improperly deferred. This improperly deferred mitigation violates CEQA. (see San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670 [EIR inadequate where the success or failure of mitigation efforts “may largely depend upon management plans that have not yet been formulated, and have not been subject to analysis and review within the EIR”]). In the limited circumstances in which deferred mitigation is appropriate, the agency must meet all of the following elements: (1) practical considerations prevented the formulation of mitigation measures during the planning process; (2) the agency committed itself to developing mitigation measures in the future; (3) the agency adopted specific performance criteria prior to project approval; and (4) the EIR lists the mitigation measures to be considered, analyzed, and possibly incorporated into the mitigation plan. (See POET, LLC v.

State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 736-37 [review denied].) Here, the DEIR fails to meet these criteria. The lack of adequate details provided in the Mitigation Measure 4.3- 13a does not allow the public and decisionmakers to evaluate the mitigation measures being taken; the EIR violates CEQA.

Additionally, the proposed 50-foot setback from the proposed Development Area and the adjacent brackish marsh (Mitigation Measure 4.3-12e; DEIR at 4.3-85), which is suitable habitat for both the salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew, is insufficient. As detailed further below, recommended buffers for wildlife often far exceeded 325 feet, well beyond the largest buffers implemented in practice (Fischer & Fischenich, 2000; Robins, 2002). The EIR must implement buffers at least 200 feet or greater to minimize impacts to these species.

H. The EIR Fails to Analyze or Mitigate Impacts to Wildlife Connectivity

Habitat connectivity is vital for wildlife movement and biodiversity conservation.

Limiting movement and dispersal with barriers (e.g., development, roads) can affect animals’ behavior, movement patterns, reproductive success, and physiological state, which can lead to significant impacts on individual wildlife, populations, communities, and landscapes (Ceia-Hasse et al., 2018; Cushman, 2006; Haddad et al., 2015; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000; van der Ree et al., 2011). Individuals can die off, populations can become isolated, sensitive species can become locally extinct, and important ecological processes like plant pollination and nutrient cycling can be lost. In addition, connectivity between high quality habitat areas in heterogeneous landscapes is important to allow for range shifts and species migrations as climate changes (Cushman et al., 2013; Heller & Zavaleta, 2009). Lack of wildlife connectivity results in decreased biodiversity and degraded ecosystems.

In addition to providing habitat connectivity, buffer zones around the County’s aquatic habitats are essential to protect the County’s high diversity of plants, fish, aquatic invertebrates, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Species that rely on these aquatic habitats also rely on the adjacent upland habitats (e.g., riparian areas along streams, grassland habitat adjacent to wetlands). In fact, 60% of amphibian species, 16% of reptiles, 34% of birds and 12% of Late1-10
cont.

Late 1-11
279

September 13, 2024

mammals in the Pacific Coast ecoregion depend on riparian-stream systems for survival (Kelsey & West, 2001). Many other species use riparian areas and natural ridgelines as migration corridors or foraging habitat (Dickson et al., 2005; Hilty & Merenlender, 2004; Jennings & Lewison, 2013; Jennings & Zeller, 2017). Additionally, fish rely on healthy upland areas to influence suitable spawning habitat (Lohse et al., 2008). Thus, to preserve the County’s valuable biodiversity in these habitats, it is important to develop and implement effective buffer widths informed by the best available science.

The EIR makes no effort to analyze the Project’s impacts to habitat connectivity. While the Project site lies adjacent to urbanized areas of Fairfield and Suisun City, it is bordered on the southern side by the Suisun Marsh, an extremely biodiverse and important ecosystem that connects marine, estuarine, freshwater, and terrestrial habitats. Additionally, Pennsylvania Avenue Creek and Ledgewood Creek both run through the Project site and drain into Peytonia Slough and Suisun Marsh. As noted above, riparian areas such as these provide important connectivity for many aquatic, semi-aquatic, and terrestrial species.

Edge effects like noise and light from Project construction and operation will have impacts on wildlife and wildlife movement as well. Negative edge effects from human activity, traffic, lighting, noise, domestic pets, pollutants, and invasive weeds have been found to be biologically significant up to 300 meters (~1000 feet) away from anthropogenic features in terrestrial systems (Environmental Law Institute, 2003). This is important to consider when open space is immediately adjacent to the Project Area, as is the case with the proposed Project, as birds and other wildlife have been found to be sensitive to edge effects. For example, field observations and controlled laboratory experiments have shown that traffic noise can significantly degrade habitat value for migrating songbirds (Ware et al., 2015). Subjects exposed to 55 and 61 dBA (simulated traffic noise) exhibited decreased feeding behavior and duration, as well as increased vigilance behavior (Ware et al., 2015). Such behavioral shifts increase the risk of starvation, thus decreasing survival rates. Another study found a 28% decrease in bird abundance in areas when traffic noise was present compared to when there was no traffic noise (McClure et al., 2013).

The EIR fails to analyze how the Project would impact connectivity for species that use these riparian corridors and waterways, an egregious oversight considering the sensitivity and importance of Suisun Marsh for regional and statewide biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

I. Riparian and Marsh Setback Buffers Are Inadequate

The EIR attempts to mitigate the Project’s impacts on riparian areas and marsh habitat by implementing limited setbacks of 50 feet (Mitigation Measure 4.3-12e, targeted towards impacts to salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew habitat; 4.3-16b targeted towards riparian areas).

A 50-foot buffer is too insignificant to properly mitigate the Project’s effects; 50-foot setbacks are insufficient to preserve habitat for riparian species, many of which are likely to use habitat far from the actual water source. A literature review found that recommended buffers for wildlife Late1-11
cont.

Late1-12
280

September 13, 2024

often far exceeded 325 feet, well beyond the largest buffers implemented in practice (Fischer & Fischenich, 2000; Robins, 2002). For example, (Kilgo et al., 1998) recommend more than 1,600 feet of riparian buffer to sustain bird diversity. In addition, amphibians, which are considered environmental health indicators, have been found to migrate over 1,000 feet between aquatic and terrestrial habitats through multiple life stages (Cushman, 2006; G. M. and Fellers & Kleeman, 2007; Semlitsch & Bodie, 2003; Trenham & Shaffer, 2005). For example, the California red- legged frog was found to migrate about 600 feet between breeding ponds and non-breeding upland habitat and streams, with some individuals roaming over 4,500 feet from the water (G. M.

Fellers & Kleeman, 2007), while western pond turtles have been documented to move regularly between aquatic habitats with long-distance movements of up to 2,018 feet (Sloan, 2012) (both of these species have the potential to occur in the Project area; see above). The limited buffers proposed in the EIR do not leave sufficient habitat species living in and around Pennsylvania Avenue Creek, Ledgewood Creek, Peytonia Slough, and other water bodies on the Project property to thrive.

Further, more extensive buffers provide resiliency in the fact of climate change-driven alterations to these habitats, which will cause shifts in species ranges and distributions (Cushman et al., 2013; Heller & Zavaleta, 2009; Warren et al., 2011). This research emphasizes the need for sizeable riparian and upland buffers around streams and wetlands in Solano County, as well as connectivity corridors between heterogeneous habitats. The EIR should consider the steps that need to be taken to protect potential habitat, while supporting the regional biodiversity by minimizing its impact on crucial riparian habitats and adjacent terrestrial habitats.

III. The EIR Fails to Analyze Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources

As courts have explained, “[o]ne of the most important environmental lessons evident from past experience is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources.” (Kings Cty. Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) Consequently, CEQA requires analysis of cumulative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, §§ 15130, 15355.) The DEIR acknowledges this requirement: in its “Methodology” section at

4.3-65, the DEIR states that “This section analyzes potential direct and indirect, temporary and permanent, and cumulative impacts to biological resources that have the potential to be affected by implementation of the proposed Project” (emphasis added). However, no cumulative impacts analysis is presented. The EIR fails to analyze cumulative impacts to biological resources at all.

This is an egregious oversight that misleads the public and fails to comply with CEQA.

IV. The Proposed Project Puts People and Wildlife At Risk by Developing in a Flood Zone

As stated in the DEIR (p. 4.8-5), the majority of the Project site falls within the 100-year flood zone as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Late1-12
cont.

Late1-13
Late1-14
281

September 13, 2024

Development in flood zones puts people in harm’s way and puts ecosystems at risk.

Floodplains naturally flood periodically, although the interval between flood events varies significantly. Such periodic flooding provides important ecosystem services, including habitat (aquatic and terrestrial) for sensitive species including fish and birds, surface water filtration and purification, groundwater recharge, nutrient retention, and greenhouse gas sequestration, among others. (Jakubínský 2021.) Much of the Central Valley and Delta regions consist of historical floodplains, but they have been extensively developed for agriculture and urbanization, and dams and levees have been built to control water flows and prevent flooding. This has led to the destruction of nearly all historic riparian and floodplain habitat in these areas. Without these functioning natural ecosystems, when flows are exceptionally high, agricultural and urban areas in historical floodplains experience extreme floods and significant damage, including destruction of buildings and infrastructure as well as direct human harm. Such destruction also introduces debris, pollutants, and toxins into aquatic environments during floods, compromising water quality and harming aquatic and semi-aquatic flora and fauna. With climate change, extreme floods are expected to become more common, and the impacts on human developments and ecosystems in floodplain areas will only get worse. Developments such as the proposed Project compromise the functionality of floodplains and place more people and wildlife at risk of harm.

Development in this area is in violation of the County’s General Plan, which says the County will “protect existing open spaces, natural habitat, floodplains, and wetland areas that serve as groundwater recharge areas” (Policy RS.P-68) and will “preserve open space and agricultural areas that are subject to natural flooding and are not designated for future urban growth; prohibit permanent structures in a designated floodway where such structures could increase risks to human life or restrict the carrying capacity of the floodway” (Policy HS.P- 9).The EIR fails to address the inconsistency between these General Plan policies and the plan to build 1.28 million square feet of industrial development almost entirely in a 100-year flood zone.

Thus, the EIR violates CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (d), Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 361.)

V. The EIR Fails to Analyze and Mitigate Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality

The Suisun Marsh is the largest brackish water wetland in western North America and makes up 10% of California’s remaining wetlands.2 It is an important component of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a critical component of California’s water system. The Suisun Marsh supports an incredible amount of aquatic, semi-aquatic, and terrestrial biodiversity that relies on the marsh’s habitats and ecosystem functions. The Delta region, including the Suisun Marsh, has experienced significant declines in ecosystem health due to human activity, including

2 Water Education Foundation, Suisun Marsh. Accessed 4 April 2024. https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/suisun-marsh
Late1-14
cont.

Late1-15
282

September 13, 2024

water conveyance and urban development. It is therefore critically important that any potentially damaging impacts to the hydrology or water quality of the Marsh be avoided, to protect this sensitive ecosystem from further decline or collapse.

A. The EIR Fails Adequately Analyze Impacts to Water Quality

Water quality is a key factor in wetland health, including that of the Suisun Marsh. It is therefore extremely important that any new development in or near the Marsh fully mitigate any potential impacts to water quality. The EIR describes the existing regulations around water quality, and posits that by adhering to these regulations, the Project will sufficiently minimize pollutants entering waterways. However, the EIR does not provide any actual detail about the potential sources or quantities of pollutants that will be introduced to the area through construction or ongoing operation of the Project. The EIR therefore fails to provide decision- makers with the information needed to make an intelligent judgment concerning a project’s environmental impacts, and is inadequate. (14 Cal Code Regs §15151. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 CA4th 342, 356.) The Project is a logistics/warehouse development and will experience high volumes of vehicle travel to and from Project facilities. Trucks and other vehicles will introduce vehicle- related toxins to the area, and into the surrounding waterways via runoff, including Suisun Marsh. One pollutant source of particular importance is rubber tires. Tire particles, including the chemical 6PPD-quinone (“6PPD”), have been shown to have significant negative impacts— including mortality—on multiple species of fish, including developmental abnormalities, morbidity, and mortality (Brinkmann et al., 2022; Chang et al., 2023; McIntyre et al., 2021; Tian et al., 2021). Research on non-fish species is limited, although tire particles have been shown to inhibit growth and cause mortality in one plant and one invertebrate species, respectively (Kim et al., 2023). When it rains, stormwater flushes bits of aging vehicle tires left on roads into neighboring streams and watersheds, and 6PPD and other tire materials leach into the water.

Leaching of 6PPD in particular has directly been implicated in widespread death of coho salmon before they can spawn (Tian et al., 2021). The EIR fails to even mention this important potential source of toxicants that is likely to diminish water quality in and around the Project area.

Additional pollutants would come from construction and operation of the Project as well.

As noted in the DEIR (p. 4.8-29, 30):

As indicated in Table 4.8-2, several streams adjacent to and downstream of the Project Site and the off-site improvement areas are included on the SWRCB’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for a variety of pollutants such as pesticides, salinity, total dissolved solids, chlorides, and PCBs (among others). These streams include Ledgewood Creek, Suisun Marsh wetlands, and Suisun Bay (SWRCB 2022a).

Late1-15
cont.

Late1-16
283

September 13, 2024

Sediment, trash, organic contaminants, nutrients, trace metals, and oil and grease compounds are common urban runoff pollutants that can degrade receiving water quality. Sources of these pollutants may be erosion from disturbed areas, deposition of atmospheric particles derived from automobiles or industrial sources, corrosion or decay of building materials, rainfall contact with toxic substances, and accidental spills of toxic materials on surfaces that receive rainfall and generate runoff.

While the EIR acknowledges these potential sources of pollution, it does not even attempt to quantify the potential impacts of these pollutants or their sources. The EIR therefore provides no support for the claim that impacts to water are less than significant. The EIR must disclose information necessary to a reasonable analysis of the issue. (Save Our Capitol! v Department of Gen. Servs. (2023) 87 CA5th 655, 695.) An EIR’s impact findings are legally inadequate if they are unsupported by evidence in the record. (Spring Valley Lake Ass’n v City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91, 103; City of Maywood v Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 CA4th 362, 391.) Here, that would require at least a detailed analysis of the potential pollutants that may be introduced into waterways in and around the Project area.

The fact that the EIR has provided no details on potential Project impacts to water quality makes it impossible to mitigate for these potential harms. As such, the EIR fails in its duty to accurately analyze and mitigate the potential impacts of the Project to water quality. (Pub Res C §§21002.1(a))

IV. The EIR’s Greenhouse Gas Analysis Fails To Disclose, Analyze, Or Mitigate Significant Impacts.

Despite the dire urgency of addressing climate change, the EIR does not properly analyze the Project’s GHG impacts and fails to adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant GHG impacts. The Center urges the City to correct these errors and produce an EIR in compliance with CEQA.

A. Climate Change Is a Catastrophic and Pressing Threat to California.

A strong, international scientific consensus has established that human-caused climate change is causing widespread harms to human society and natural systems, and that climate change threats are becoming increasingly dangerous. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international scientific body for the assessment of climate change, concluded in its 2023 Sixth Assessment Report that: “[u]nsustainable and unequal energy and land use as well as more than a century of burning fossil fuels have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020.” (IPCC 2023.) The increase in global surface temperature has resulted in sea level rise, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and has resulted in “irreversible losses” at the species and ecosystem levels. (IPCC 2023.) These findings were echoed in the United States’ own 2023 Fifth Late1-16
cont.

Late1-17
Late1-18
284

September 13, 2024

National Climate Assessment, prepared by scientific experts and reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and multiple federal agencies. The 2023 Assessment concluded that “[t]he global warming observed over the industrial era is unequivocally caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities–primarily burning fossil fuels” and long-term responses include “sea level rise, ice sheet losses, and associated disruptions to human health, social systems, and ecosystems.” (Jay 2023.)

Immediate and aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions are necessary to keep warming well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and other expert assessments have established global carbon budgets, or the total amount of carbon that can be burned while maintaining some probability of staying below a given temperature target. According to the IPCC, “[t]he best estimates of the remaining carbon budgets from the beginning of 2020 are 500 GtCO2 for a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to 1.5°C and 1150 GtCO2 for a 67% likelihood of limiting warming to 2°C.” (IPCC 2023 at 19.) Additionally, “[i]f the annual CO2 emissions between 2020-2030 stayed, on average, at the same level as 2019, the resulting cumulative emissions would almost exhaust the remaining carbon budget for

1.5°C (50%), and deplete more than a third of the remaining carbon budget for 2°C (67%).” (IPCC 2023). As of 2023, climate policies by the world’s countries would lead to an estimated

2.7°C of warming, and possibly up to 3.4°C of warming, well above the level needed to avoid the worst dangers of climate change. (Climate Action Tracker, The CAT Thermometer 2023.)

In California, climate change will transform our climate, resulting in increased temperature and frequency of wildfires, and a reduction in snowpack, precipitation levels, and water availability. (Turco 2023.) California has taken steps through legislation and regulation to fight climate change and reduce statewide GHG emissions. Enforcement of and compliance with these steps are essential in order to stabilize the climate and avoid catastrophic impacts to our environment.

California has a mandate under AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, to achieve net zero GHG emissions by no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 85% the level in 1990. (AB 1279 2022.) In 2019, Governor Newsom issued an executive order to leverage state investments to further California’s climate goals (Executive Order N-19-19 (2019).) Newsom has continued to issue climate-related executive orders, such as a 2020 order requiring that, by 2035, all passenger vehicles will be zero-emission, in addition to other motor vehicle emission goals. (Executive Order N-79-20 (2020).) Through these bills and orders, California has laid a path that may allow the state to achieve tangible climate solutions, but there is still work to be done.

Late1-18
cont.
285

September 13, 2024

Although some sources of GHG emissions may seem insignificant, climate change is a problem with cumulative impacts and effects. (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (“the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis” that agencies must conduct).) One source or one small project may not appear to have a significant effect on climate change, but the combined impacts of many sources can drastically damage California’s climate as a whole. Therefore, project-specific GHG emission disclosure, analysis and mitigation is vital to California meeting its climate goals and maintaining our climate.

B. The EIR’s Greenhouse Gas Analysis Is Inadequate Because the Employment Estimate is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

The EIR’s finding that the GHG emissions are not significant relies on an unsupported estimate of how many jobs the Project will generate. The main body of the DEIR says “[t]he proposed Project would create approximately 1,275 new jobs (EPS 2021).” (DEIR at 7-2.) However, the references section does not seem to contain a citation corresponding to “EPS 2021.” Appendix B, the section that is meant to contain “modeling details, assumptions, inputs and outputs” for the GHG significance threshold, does not provide evidence for the estimate either. (DEIR at 4.6-21.) The Appendix says that the jobs estimates is “per Economic Impact Analysis” (e.g. Appendix B at 109) but does not explain what the Economic Impact Analysis is or cite to any supporting evidence. The City selects a GHG threshold of significance that comes down to a ratio between two numbers—the total GHG emissions and the total service population (here meaning the warehouse employees). (DEIR at 4.6-18-21, 23.) Therefore, if either the total emissions or the estimated number of employees are not supported by substantial evidence, then the finding of significance is not supported. Because the EIR does not explain how the jobs estimate was made nor provide any evidentiary support for the estimate, the City “fail[ed] to disclose the analytic route the . . . [City] traveled from evidence to action and is thus not sufficient to allow informed decision making.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, 40 Cal.4th at p. 445, internal citation and quotation marks omitted.) “The reader attempting to understand the [City]’s plan . . . [was] left to rely on inference and speculation.” (Ibid.) For this reason, the analysis is inadequate under CEQA.

In fact, it is likely that the jobs estimate is too high, and therefore that the GHG impacts are more significant than the EIR finds. The Project proposes 1.28 million square feet of warehouse space, so an estimate of 1,275 jobs created seems to assume roughly one job per 1,000 square feet. The United States Energy Information Administration estimated 2,222 sf per employee in warehouse and storage land uses. (USEIA, 2018 p10.) Using that estimate, the Project would only employ 576 people—less than half what is assumed by the EIR. The efficiency would be much lower, and the resulting GHG impacts much higher.

Late1-18
cont.

Late1-19
286

September 13, 2024

D. The EIR’s Mitigation Measures for Greenhouse Gas Impacts Are Inadequate.

The EIR concludes that the emissions per worker after mitigation will be 21.8 MT CO2e in 2026, far above the significance threshold.3 (DEIR 4.6-27-28.) Even setting aside the likely undercounting of emissions, this is a profoundly significant GHG impact. CEQA therefore requires the City to adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant GHG impacts. The EIR must sufficiently detail mitigation measures to gauge their effectiveness, and the EIR must show by substantial evidence that the measure will be effective. (See, e.g.

Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 [plan for active habitat management did not describe anticipated management actions or include standards or guidelines for actions that might be taken]; Sacramento Old City Ass n v City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1027.)

The EIR here relies on GHG emissions credits to bring the Project’s emissions to a less than significant level (DEIR at 4.6-25-26), but it admits that the City cannot guarantee such credits will be available and will effectively reduce emissions. (DEIR at 4.6-28.) Further, even if the credits were available, offsets must be a last resort after every feasible on-site mitigation has been implemented. Here, there is feasible mitigation that the DEIR does not adopt.

The City argues in the FEIR that the Attorney General’s recommended mitigation measure of requiring zero-emission vehicles is not feasible, without sufficient evidence. (FEIR 2- 245.) The City argues that imposing “onerous” requirements on future users would “put the Project at a competitive disadvantage.” (Ibid.) The City is effectively arguing economic infeasibility, but does not meet CEQA’s standard for making this determination. A finding of economic infeasibility must be supported by substantial, specific evidence that allows the public to compare costs and profits. (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 599.) Because the EIR is prepared for the public and decision-makers, it must include the basis for a finding of unfeasibility so that the public can, from the information presented, independently judge whether the measure is feasible. (Kings County Farm Bureau v City of Hanford (1990) 221 CA3d 692, 736). Conclusory statements are not enough. (Center for Biological Diversity v County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 CA4th 866, 884) What is required is a “quantitative, comparative analysis” showing that the additional costs and lower profits of the mitigation are so severe that the alternative would be impractical. (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, at p. 735.)

3 The DEIR says that this number includes “mitigation as applicable in 2026 (i.e. not yet implementing Mitigation Measure 4.6-1m for all zero-emissions trucks.)” (DEIR at 4.6-27.) It’s not clear what this means, as Mitigation Measure 4.6-1m does not seem to have any requirements that change over time and is not about zero -emissions trucks. (DEIR at 4.6-25.)
Late1-20
287

September 13, 2024

The City also argues that the mitigation measure of installing solar photovoltaic systems sufficient to supply the Project’s energy needs is already included in the Draft EIR, but the City misses an important aspect of that recommended mitigation measure. (FEIR at 2-247.) The EIR requires the Project to use carbon-free power, but does not require it to generate that power on- site through solar panels. (FEIR at 2-247.) Installing solar on the roofs of large warehouses in California is a crucial opportunity to use miles of flat, sunny space that would otherwise be wasted. In order to meet its decarbonization targets, California needs to double its clean energy generation in the next decade, which will require a “record-breaking” expansion of clean energy infrastructure. (Cart, California Energy Commission.) The Joint Agency SB 100 Report calls for building 2.8 GW/year of solar every year for 25 years, which is higher than the previous maximum annual build. (California Energy Commission at 116.) The biggest obstacle to increasing solar energy capacity as fast as it’s needed is the large amount of flat, sunny land that solar farms require. (Groom.) Building solar infrastructure across undeveloped land is an imperfect solution that hurts important ecosystems, eliminates opportunities for natural carbon sinks, and is often opposed by local residents. (Groom, Courage.) The Project would use up to 32,634 MWh of electricity per year. (DEIR at 4.6-29) If it consumes that amount of renewable energy without generating it, the City misses an opportunity to contribute to the urgently needed solar buildout. Each warehouse built with the capacity to provide 100% of its own clean energy via rooftop solar brings California closer to the clean energy targets we must meet in order to avoid the most devastating effects of the climate crisis. The California Attorney General recommends that new warehouses are built with this capacity, and companies and municipalities are realizing it makes sense. (AGO 2021.) The City of Fontana already requires that every warehouse over 400,000 square feet get all its power from rooftop solar. (City of Fontana at 9-

73.4) The FEIR does not establish that this recommended mitigation measure is not feasible.

VIII. CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Highway 12 Logistics Center Project. We urge the City to correct these errors and recirculate an EIR that complies with CEQA.

Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue legal remedies in order to ensure that the City complies with its legal obligations including those arising under CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its statutory duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record” of this proceeding. (§ 21167.6(e); Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (July 30, 2020, Nos. D076605, D076924, D076993) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 710.) The administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications that relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Late1-20
Late1-21
288

September 13, 2024

Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further includes all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees, that relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the Applicant’s representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.

Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below.

Sincerely,

Frances Tinney Sofia Prado-Irwin, Ph.D.

Attorney Scientist
Center for Biological Diversity Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway, Suite #800 1212 Broadway, Suite #800 Oakland, CA 94612 Oakland, CA 94612
(509) 432-9256 (510) 844-7100 x548
[email protected] [email protected]

Late1-21
289

September 13, 2024

References
Borenstein, S. (2022, February 28). UN climate report: ‘Atlas of human suffering’ worse, bigger.

AP News. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-europe-united- nations-weather 8d5e277660f7125ffdab7a833d9856a
Brinkmann, M., Montgomery, D., Selinger, S., Miller, J. G. P., Stock, E., Alcaraz, A. J., Challis, J. K., Weber, L., Janz, D., Hecker, M., & Wiseman, S. (2022). Acute Toxicity of the Tire Rubber-Derived Chemical 6PPD-quinone to Four Fishes of Commercial, Cultural, and Ecological Importance. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 9(4), 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00050
California Energy Commission. (2021.) SB 100 Joint Agency Report: Charting a path to a 100% Clean Energy Future. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/2021- sb-100-joint-agency-report-achieving-100-percent-clean-electricity California Office of the Attorney General (AGO) (2021, March). Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Available at: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf.

Cart, Julia. Wrangling over renewables: Counties push back on Newsom administration usurping local control, CalMatters, August 4, 2022, Available at:
https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/08/renewable-energy-california-counties/ CDFW. (2016). Five-Year Status Review for Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) (Five-Year Status Report). California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Ceia-Hasse, A., Navarro, L. M., Borda-de-Água, L., & Pereira, H. M. (2018). Population persistence in landscapes fragmented by roads: Disentangling isolation, mortality, and the effect of dispersal. Ecological Modelling, 375, 45–53.

Chang, J., Jiao, M., Zhang, Z., Liu, W., Li, W., Xu, P., & Wan, B. (2023). Mechanistic insight into the adverse outcome of tire wear and road particle leachate exposure in zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae. Environment International, 178, 108053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.108053
City of Fontana. (2022, April 12). Ordinance No. 1891. Available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-
docs/Final%20Signed%20Fontana%20Ordinance.pdf
Climate Action Tracker, Public data – emissions pathways (November 2021). Available at:
https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/.
290

September 13, 2024

Climate Action Tracker, USA (last updated 16 August 2022), http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.

Courage, Katherine Harmon. Solar farms are often bad for biodiversity but they don’t have to be, VOX, August 18, 2021, Available at: https://www.vox.com/2021/8/18/22556193/solar- energy-biodiversity-birds-pollinator-land
Cushman, S. A. (2006). Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 128, 231–240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.031
Cushman, S. A., McRae, B., Adriaensen, F., Beier, P., Shirley, M., & Zeller, K. (2013).

Biological corridors and connectivity. In D. W. Macdonald & K. J. Willis (Eds.), Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 (First Edit, pp. 384–403). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Department of Pesticide Regulation. (2018). An Investigation of Anticoagulant Rodenticide Data Submitted to the Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Dickson, B. G., Jennes, J. S., & Beier, P. (2005). Influence of Vegetation, Topography, and Roads on Cougar Movement in Southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(1), 264–276.

Environmental Law Institute. (2003). Conservation thresholds for land use planners (Environmental Law).

Fellers, G. M. and, & Kleeman, P. M. (2007). California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii) Movement and Habitat Use: Implications for Conservation. Journal of Herpetology, 41(2), 276–286.

Fellers, G. M., & Kleeman, P. M. (2007). California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii) Movement and Habitat Use: Implications for Conservation. Journal of Herpetology, 41(2), 276–286.

Fischer, R. A., & Fischenich, J. C. (2000). Design Recommendations for Riparian Corridors and Vegetated Buffer Strips.

Gabriel, M. W., Woods, L. W., Poppenga, R., Sweitzer, R. A., Thompson, C., Matthews, S. M., Higley, J. M., Keller, S. M., Purcell, K., Barrett, R. H., Wengert, G. M., Sacks, B. N., & Clifford, D. L. (2012). Anticoagulant rodenticides on our public and community lands:

Spatial distribution of exposure and poisoning of a rare forest carnivore. PLoS ONE, 7(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040163
291

September 13, 2024

Groom, Nicola. Special Report-U.S. solar expansion stalled by rural land-use protests, REUTERS, April 7, 2022, Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-solar- expansion-stalled-by-rural-land-use-protests-2022-04-07/ Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., Lovejoy, T.

E., Sexton, J. O., Austin, M. P., Collins, C. D., Cook, W. M., Damschen, E. I., Ewers, R.

M., Foster, B. L., Jenkins, C. N., King, A. J., Laurance, W. F., Levey, D. J., Margules, C.

R., … Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth ’ s ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(e1500052), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052
Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change:

A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142, 14–32.

Hilty, J. A., & Merenlender, A. M. (2004). Use of Riparian Corridors and Vineyards by Mammalian Predators in Northern California. Conservation Biology, 18(1), 126–135.

IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)], Cambridge University Press (2013).

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer (eds.)], IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland (2014), http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf IPCC, Hicke, J.A., S. Lucatello, L.D., Mortsch, J. Dawson, M. Domínguez Aguilar, C.A.F.

Enquist, E.A. Gilmore, D.S. Gutzler, S. Harper, K. Holsman, E.B. Jewett, T.A. Kohler, and KA. Miller. (2022). North America. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V.

Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1929–2042, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.016.

IPCC, Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland (2018), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pd f.

Jakubínský, J., Prokopová, M., Raška, P., Salvati, L., Bezak, N., Cudlín, O., Cudlín, P., Purkyt, J., Vezza, P., Camporeale, C., Daněk, J., Pástor, M., & Lepeška, T. (2021). Managing 292

September 13, 2024

floodplains using nature-based solutions to support multiple ecosystem functions and services. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 8(5), e1545. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1545
Jennings, M., & Lewison, R. (2013). Planning for Connectivity Under Climate Change: Using Bobcat Movement To Assess Landscape Connectivity Across San Diego County’s Open Space.

Jennings, M., & Zeller, K. (2017). Comprehensive Mmulti-species Connectivity Assessment and Planning for the Highway 67 Region of San Diego County, California (Issue SANDAG No. 5004388 Task Order 3).

Kelsey, K. A., & West, S. D. (2001). Chapter 10: Riparian Wildlife. In River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer Science & Business Media.

Kilgo, J. C., Sargent, R. A., Chapman, B. R., & Miller, K. V. (1998). Effect of stand width and adjacent habitat on breeding bird communities in bottomland hardwoods. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 62(1), 72–83.

Kim, L., Kim, H., Lee, T.-Y., & An, Y.-J. (2023). Chemical toxicity screening of tire particle leachates from vehicles and their effects on organisms across three trophic levels. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 192, 114999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114999 Lima, L. L., & Salmon, T. P. (2010). Assessing some potential environmental impacts from agricultural anticoagulant uses. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 24(24), 199–203.

Lohse, K. A., Newburn, D. A., Opperman, J. J., & Merenlender, A. M. (2008). Forecasting relative impacts of land use on anadromous fish habitat to guide conservation planning.

Ecological Applications, 18(2), 467–482.

Maclean, Ilya M. D. & Robert J. Wilson, Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk, 108 PNAS 12337 (2011).

McClure, C. J. W., Ware, H. E., Carlisle, J., Kaltenecker, G., & Barber, J. R. (2013). An experimental investigation into the effects of traffic noise on distributions of birds:

Avoiding the phantom road. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1773), 20132290. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2290 McIntyre, J. K., Prat, J., Cameron, J., Wetzel, J., Mudrock, E., Peter, K. T., Tian, Z., Mackenzie, C., Lundin, J., Stark, J. D., King, K., Davis, J. W., Kolodziej, E. P., & Scholz, N. L. 293

September 13, 2024

(2021). Treading Water: Tire Wear Particle Leachate Recreates an Urban Runoff Mortality Syndrome in Coho but Not Chum Salmon. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(17), 11767–11774. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03569 McMillin, S. C., Hosea, R. C., Finlayson, B., F., Cypher, B. L., & Mekebri, A. (2008).

Anticoagulant rodenticide exposure in an urban population of the San Joaquin kit fox.

Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 23(23), 163–165.

Melillo, Jerry M, Terese (T.C.) Richmond & Gary W. Yohe (eds.), Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program (2014), http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/downloads at 7.

NRC [National Research Council], Advancing the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council (2010), www.nap.edu at 2.

Riley, S. P. D., Bromley, C., Poppengia, R. H., Uzal, F. A., Whited, L., & Sauvajot, R. M. (2007). Anticoagulant Exposure and Notoedric Mange in Bobcats and Mountain Lions in Urban Southern California. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(6), 1874–1884.

Riley, S. P. D., Sauvajot, R. M., Fuller, T. K., York, E. C., Kamradt, D. A., Bromley, C., & Wayne, R. K. (2003). Effects of Urbanization and Habitat Fragmentation on Bobcats and Coyotes in Southern California. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 566–576.

Robins, J. D. (2002). Stream Setback Technical Memo.

Semlitsch, R. D., & Bodie, J. R. (2003). Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology, 17(5), 1219–1228.

Serieys, L. E. K., Armenta, T. C., Moriarty, J. G., Boydston, E. E., Lyren, L. M., Poppenga, R.

H., Crooks, K. R., Wayne, R. K., & Riley, S. P. D. (2015). Anticoagulant rodenticides in urban bobcats: Exposure , risk factors and potential effects based on a 16-year study.

Ecotoxicology.

Serieys, L. E. K., Lea, A. J., Epeldegui, M., Armenta, T. C., Moriarty, J., Vandewoude, S., Carver, S., Foley, J., Wayne, R. K., Riley, S. P. D., & Uittenbogaart, C. H. (2018).

Urbanization and anticoagulant poisons promote immune dysfunction in bobcats.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285, 10`71533-10`71533.

Sloan, L. M. (2012). Population structure, life history, and terrestrial movements of western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in lentic habitats along the Trinity River, California.

Humboldt State University.
294

September 13, 2024

Smith, K. R., Barthman-Thompson, L., Gould, W. R., & Mabry, K. E. (2014). Effects of Natural and Anthropogenic Change on Habitat Use and Movement of Endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e108739. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108739 Thomas, Chris. D. et al., Extinction risk from climate change, 427 Nature 145 (2004).

Tian, Z., Zhao, H., Peter, K. T., Gonzalez, M., Wetzel, J., Wu, C., Hu, X., Prat, J., Mudrock, E., Hettinger, R., Cortina, A. E., Biswas, R. G., Kock, F. V. C., Soong, R., Jenne, A., Du, B., Hou, F., He, H., Lundeen, R., … Kolodziej, E. P. (2021). A ubiquitous tire rubber– derived chemical induces acute mortality in coho salmon. Science, 371(6525), 185–189.

Trenham, P. C., & Shaffer, H. B. (2005). Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecological Applications, 15(4), 1158–1168.

Trombulak, S. C., & Frissell, C. A. (2000). Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology, 14(1), 18–30.

U.S. Energy Information Administration [USEIA]. (2018). 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/pdf/CBECS_2018_Building_Ch aracteristics_Flipbook.pdf
Urban, Mark C., Accelerating extinction risk from climate change, 348 Science 571 (2015).

US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.

USGCRP [U.S. Global Change Research Program], Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J. et al. (eds.)], U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC (2017),
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ at 10.
van der Ree, R., Jaeger, J. A. G., van der Grift, E. A., & Clevenger, A. P. (2011). Effects of roads and traffic on wildlife populations and landscape function: Road ecology is moving toward larger scales. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 48.

Ventura County Public Works Agency. (2017). Raptor Pilot Study for Levee Protection Integrated Pest Management Program.
https://vcportal.ventura.org/BOS/District2/RaptorPilotStudy.pdf Ware, H. E., McClure, C. J. W., Carlisle, J. D., & Barber, J. R. (2015). A phantom road experiment reveals traffic noise is an invisible source of habitat degradation. Proceedings 295

September 13, 2024

of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(39), 12105–12109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504710112
Warren, R., Price, J., Fischlin, A., de la Nava Santos, S., & Midgley, G. (2011). Increasing impacts of climate change upon ecosystems with increasing global mean temperature rise. Climatic Change, 106(2), 141–177.

Warren, Rachel et al. (2008). Increasing impacts of climate change upon ecosystems with increasing global mean temperature rise, 106 Climatic Change 141.

Wiens, J. J. (2016). Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biology, 14(12), 1–18.

Williams, D. F. (1986). Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California.

World Resources Institute, This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in the World's Top 10 Emitters (December 10, 2020). Available at: https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows- changes-worlds-top-10-emitters/.

296
September 30, 2024
City Council, City of Suisun C
ity
[submitted via electronic mail]
SUBJECT: Highway 12 Logistics Center Project
(agenda item #9 in meeting scheduled for 10/1/2024)
REFERENCE: Our letter of 10/14/2023 to Jim Bermudez RE: “Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Highway 12 Logistics Center”
Dear Councilmembers:

We remain convinced that the best option for Suisun City residents is for you to adopt the reduced-footprint alternative, as we explained in our referenced letter - - and as your own planning staff originally recommended.

However, if you decide to approve the project that is currently before you, we request that you add four additional mitigation measures to address “significant and unavoidable impacts” to air quality, greenhouse gases, and biological resources:

1. During the construction phase, at least 15 percent of the construction fleet shall be alternatively fueled or electric. We have copied this mitigation measure from the draft EIR for the “Suisun Logistics Center” project. The same mitigation measure should apply to both Buzz Oates projects.

2. For the operation phase, design specifications for truck-related infrastructure shall meet the standards necessary to accommodate zero-emission trucks, including electric trucks and alternatively-fueled trucks. Truck-related infrastructure does not include electric vehicle capable parking intended for passenger vehiclesi. California’s Air Resources Board requires that, by 2035, all drayage trucks within California shall be zero- emissionii. Let’s ensure that the logistics center is ready for this transition. Currently, electric trucks are substantially heavier than diesel trucks, which may require (for example) more- robust roadways within the logistics center site.
ht
tps://solanoorderlygrowth.org
Late2-1
Late2-2
297

3. The project applicant shall work with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to plan, and fund, air-monitoring stations sufficient to quantify air pollutant levels to which Suisun City residents are exposed. Air-quality monitoring within our air basin is under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD. Unfortunately, BAAQMD has no air- quality monitoring station within Suisun City, and none downwind of proposed logistics centers. The nearest BAAQMD monitoring station is located at 1010 Chadbourne Road in Fairfield, upwind of the project site. Worse, the Chadbourne Road station only monitors for ozone - - it does not monitor for other criteria pollutants such as particulate matter or nitrogen dioxideiii. Good news: sensors capable of monitoring particulate matter are available for less than $300 each.iv Let’s ensure we have actual data about projects’ impacts.

4. For biological resources, submission of each Annual Monitoring Report shall include a presentation at an open session of the Suisun City Council. The current Mitigation and Monitoring Planv already requires Buzz Oates, Inc. to submit annual reports on the success, or perhaps failure, of efforts to mitigate damage to rare plants and animals. Let’s make it easy for the public to track progress.

Our air district already is out of compliance with health standards for particulate matter and ozone, known to cause asthma and associated with lung cancer. To make matters worse, a large logistics center, LogistiCenter at Fairfield, recently began operation upwind of Suisun City.

In short, the risks of asthma and lung cancer are unacceptable now and will get worse in the near future. Nonetheless, the project that is currently before you proposes to add “significant and unavoidable impacts” to the air that we breathe.

Yes, Suisun City needs revenue to address its fiscal emergency. But at the same time, City Council has an obligation to protect residents’ health from air pollutants. In addition, as a municipality critically affected by sea-level rise, Suisun City has a special obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Please honor all of your responsibilities by adding the four mitigation measures we have proposed.

Your sincerely,

Michael Zeiss, Suisun City resident
On behalf of Solano County Orderly Growth Committee

Notes and references:

i Passenger vehicles. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1e requires electric vehicle capable parking consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2 standards. ii Electric trucks. Drayage trucks are, “in-use class 7 and 8 on-road vehicles that transport containers and bulk goods to and from seaports and intermodal railyards.” This definition applies even to trucks that visit a seaport or intermodal railyard as seldom as once per year.

Late 2-3
Late 2-4
Late 2-5
Late 2-6
298

The definition, and details about upcoming requirements for electric trucks, are available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-fleets-regulation-detailed- drayage-truck-requirements
To see how businesses in Southern California already have begun implementing the transition to electric trucks, visit: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2024-3-fall/feature/electric-big-rigs- are-poised-revolutionize-trucking-industry?tum_campaign=sierramagdigital iii Air quality: current monitoring. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2024. Table

4.9 - Fairfield Site Information, page 66. In: 2024 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan.

Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/technical-services/air-monitoring-network- plans/2024_network_plan-pdf.pdf?rev=03780ced2a2a41909338416d1b2bc527&sc_lang=en iv Air quality: inexpensive monitors for particulate matter. Purple Air Sensors. https://www2.purpleair.com/products/list
v Annual reports on biological mitigation. Annual reporting requirements are set forth in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which is Attachment 7 within Appendix C, “Biological Resources”:
https://www.suisun.com/files/sharedassets/suisuncity/v/1/departments/development- services/documents/highway-12/appendix-c-biological-resources_1.pdf 299
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 1 R eceived September 13, 2024
Comment Letter #Late1:

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER #LATE1
Comment Late1-1. Summary of Comment: The comment submitted on September 13, 2024, after the release of the Draft Final EIR and initial Planning Commission meeting on the EIR, summarizes the work that the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) does, including review and comment on environmental impact reports prepared pursuant to CEQA for warehouses throughout the State. The comment notes the Center’s concern regarding the Project’s impacts to biological resources, water quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, and requests that the City revise and recirculate the EIR.

Response: The City acknowledges the role that the Center has played reviewing and commenting on environmental documents for warehouse projects. Detailed responses to each of the Center’s comments related to biological resources, water quality, and greenhouse gas emissions are addressed in the comments and responses below. See Responses to Comments Late1-2 through Late1-21.

Comment Late1-2. Summary of Comment: The comment summarizes the Project’s proposed Managed Open Space and argues that protection of the Managed Open Space Area as proposed by the Project PUD and evaluated in the EIR and required by EIR mitigation does not serve as sufficient mitigation for the species or habitats identified as potentially impacted in the Draft EIR. The comment acknowledges that the Project proposes to protect the Managed Open Space with a deed restriction or conservation easement. The comment notes that a portion of the Managed Open Space Area is within the Primary and Secondary Management Areas of the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act area and that within the Primary Management Area “[u]rban development is precluded and other uses such as oil and gas exploration and construction and operations of utilities and other facilities are highly regulated by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission”…and within the Primary Management Area “… land and water areas should be managed so as to achieve the following objectives:

Preservation and enhancement of Marsh habitat; Provision of habitat attractive to waterfowl; Improvement of water distribution and levee systems; Encouragement of agricultural and grazing practices consistent with wildlife use, waterfowl hunting, and elimination of mosquito breeding; Restoration of historic wetlands.” The comment asserts that the Managed Open Space Area is on land that is not “at risk of future development” and, therefore, “does not compensate for the habitat that will be lost.”

The comment also asserts an additional 105 acres of open space habitat protected by the Project’s proposed Managed Open Space Area does not provide the habitat 300
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 2 R eceived September 13, 2024
that would guarantee effective mitigation for all effected species identified within the Draft EIR impact analysis.

The comment also asserts that a deed restriction does not guarantee protection of the land in the Managed Open Space Area into the future because “there is no third-party organization charged with regularly monitoring the relevant land and ensuring that it remains in compatible use and retains its conservation value” and argues that a conservation easement would provide greater protection.

The comment asserts that, in order to mitigate potentially impacted habitats to less-than-significant levels, the EIR needs to “(1) identify and describe the exact boundaries of the property to be preserved, (2) demonstrate that there is a qualified third-party steward willing to acquire and hold the conservation easement, and (3) require that a conservation easement be recorded prior to any ground-breaking activity on the project site.”

Response: With regard to the Managed Open Space Area serving as compensatory mitigation and including appropriate habitat for effective mitigation of potential impacts resulting from the proposed Project, these topics were covered in the Final EIR Response to Comments A7-4, A7-6, A7-7, A7-9 and A8-16.

With regard to the use of a deed restriction over the Managed Open Space Area, this topic was covered in the Final EIR Response to Comment A8-9.

Comment Late1-3. Summary of Comment: The comment references the Reduced Footprint Alternative that was evaluated in the Draft EIR and asserts that this Alternative would have significant impacts on biological resources. The comment asserts that the EIR analysis of impacts to wildlife is incomplete and that mitigation measures in the EIR do not account for impacts to some species or were otherwise insufficient.

More detail is provided in Comments Late1-4 through Late1-12.

Response: Although City staff recommended to the City of Suisun Planning Commission that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the Commission instead recommended that the Council approve the full proposed project, as was described in the Draft EIR. In doing so, the Commission emphasized the substantially greater fiscal benefits of the full project. Although the initial version of the proposed Final EIR, as published in June 2024, reflected that earlier staff recommendation favoring the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the updated version of the Final EIR, as published in September 2024, reflected the Planning Commission’s recommendation in favor of the full project. In light of the Commission action, City staff is no longer recommending approval of the Reduced Footprint Alternative.

The commenter is incorrect in suggesting that the Reduced Footprint Alternative 301
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 3 R eceived September 13, 2024
will cause significant unavoidable biological resource impacts. It will not; nor will the full project. The Draft EIR comprehensively analyzed potential impacts to all applicable biological resources and included mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. See Responses to Comments Late1-4 through Late1-12 for more detail.

Comment Late1-4. Summary of Comment: The comment asserts that the EIR does not provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion contained therein that the project would not impact the Delta ground beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal pool fair shrimp, California red-legged frog, and western pond turtle.

The comment references potential sightings in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the California red-legged from and western pond turtle.

The comment cites to the Draft EIR discussion of the Delta ground beetle on pages

4.3-66 to 4.3-67, but asserts that an assessment of whether this species is present using species- appropriate surveys during February through May over wet and dry years is needed before an impact determination could be made and, if the species is identified as present, the EIR must provide adequate mitigation for impacts to the Delta green ground beetle.

The comment cites to the Draft EIR results of target surveys (Draft EIR page 4.3- 69) and claims that the surveys do not represent current conditions. The comment states that pre-construction surveys and mitigation in the case that special-status species are identified during such pre-construction surveys must be included in the EIR.

The comment asserts that the EIR excluded evaluation of the California red-legged frog and western pond turtle and that additional surveys are implemented if presence is identified through such surveys, because of observations the commenter references from the CNDDB “Species in a Quad” tool centered on the Fairfield South quad, which contains the Project area, showing “unprocessed” observations of both California red-legged frog and western pond turtle.

Response:

The determination of presence and potential impacts to Delta green ground beetle (Elaphrus viridis) and special-status vernal pool invertebrates (vernal pool tadpole shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp) is based on the detailed Biological Resources Report prepared for the Project Site, inclusive of many past and more recent surveys, as well as expert information pertaining to the habitat and species. The CNDDB database was referenced and used to inform the analysis. The Biological Resources Report and the related surveys provide abundant substantial evidence regarding the conclusions reached regarding, among other things, the absence of suitable on-site habitat for the particular species mentioned by the commenter. 302
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 4 R eceived September 13, 2024

The commenter suggests that, because the delta green ground beetle is not well understood, surveys must be conducted during the beetle’s active season (February through May) over wet and dry years before making any conclusions about potential impacts. The commenter does not provide a specific protocol to conduct the surveys or define wet and dry years, likely due to the fact that currently there are no CDFW or USFWS protocol survey guidelines for conducting delta green ground beetle surveys.

The Draft EIR analysis is supported by the detailed Biological Resources Report (BRR) (Appendix C to the Draft EIR) which included additional detail about the surveys and this species.

In the absence of CDFW or USFWS “protocol survey guidelines,” the BRR relied on the best available science, which included: (1) a habitat assessment conducted by Vollmar Consulting; (2) several years of surveys for special status invertebrates and amphibians, which occurred during the beetle’s active season referenced by the commenter (February through May); and (3) documentation of known occurrences of Delta green ground beetle within a 10-mile radius of the Project Site. Additional details to these points are as follows:

1. As described in the BRR section 4.10.2.2, Vollmar Consulting assessed the habitat within the Project Site for the presence of potential habitat of the Delta green ground beetle during studies conducted in 2003. Based on discussions of preferred habitat characteristics with Larry Sherpa, a species expert with the Nature Conservancy, Vollmar Consulting assessed the vernal pools within the Development Area and the Managed Open Space Area as not appearing to provide suitable habitat for this species since the vernal pools onsite are mostly small and shallow, and lack barren areas (Vollmar Consulting, November 2003). Vollmar Consulting indicated that the large vernal pools in the southern portion of the property, which is within the Managed Open Space Area, appear to provide only marginally suitable foraging habitat for this species. This evidence, along with the fact that the pools are human-caused or enhanced, makes it very unlikely the beetles would occur on the site (Vollmar Consulting, January 2003).

2. Dr. Helm with May Consulting Services in 2000 and again with Helm Biological Consulting in 2021 conducted wet season surveys for several vernal pool invertebrates. Although the surveys did not focus on Delta green ground beetle, surveys were conducted during the beetle’s active season referenced by the commenter and Dr. Helm would have recorded any observations of the beetle if found during these surveys. Other technical biological reports 303
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 5 R eceived September 13, 2024
prepared for the 2006 HBG Biological Report included a protocol wet season survey for federally listed vernal pool brachiopods conducted by Dr. Brent Helm (then of May Consulting Services) in 2000, and dry season surveys by Dr. Helm of Helm Biological Consulting in 2002 and again by Dr. Helm of Area West Environmental in 2005.

3. Based on the CNDDB, the Delta green ground beetle is known to occur only at two sites south of Dixon, and at the Jepson Prairie Preserve.

Wildlife biologists with the Huffman Broadway Group, Inc., reviewed these findings and concluded, based on the best available science, (1) that the development site lacked suitable habitat; (2) that no delta green ground beetle have been found on the Project Site and the distance between the Project Site and the nearest known delta green ground beetle is within playa lake complexes at the Jepson Prairie; (3) that the Project Site is not within designated critical habitat; and (4) that, for these reasons, construction of the proposed Project will have no impact to the Delta green ground beetle and no mitigation is warranted.

Furthermore, as noted in the Draft EIR on page 4.3-69, despite the lack of vernal pool crustaceans within the Project Site, as demonstrated by multiple protocol surveys conducted between 2000 and 2021, the seasonal wetlands within the Project Site provide suitable (albeit marginal) habitat conditions for vernal pool crustaceans. Approximately 38 acres of unoccupied suitable habitats for vernal pool crustaceans would be impacted (filled) as a result of Project construction, but overall habitat conditions suitable for vernal pools crustaceans throughout the Project Site would remain because mitigation for wetland losses (see Impact 4.3- 15 and Mitigation Measure 4.3-15) includes creation of 38 acres of wetlands (including vernal pools) to achieve no net loss of these habitats. In addition, approximately 107.2 acres of seasonal wetlands (including vernal pools) will be preserved within the Managed Open Space Area.

Because the assessment and findings pertaining to Delta green ground beetle and special-status vernal pool invertebrates are supported by substantial evidence, no additional analysis or mitigation is necessary.

With regard to California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), the commenter incorrectly claims that the California red- legged frog and western pond turtle were excluded from analysis. The BRR does acknowledge western pond turtle in Section 4.10.2 and, although these two species are not addressed in the BRR at Section 5.2.2.1 (Special Status Animals Not Impacted by Project), California red-legged frog and western pond turtle are acknowledged and addressed in Attachment 2 Table 4 (Special Status Animal Species known to Occur within a 10-Mile Radius of the Project Site).

304
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 6 R eceived September 13, 2024
The commenter states that within a 10-mile radius of the Project Site, there is an observation of both California red-legged frog and Western pond turtle, and both of these observations are classified as “unprocessed,” which means they have not yet gone through the full verification process. The commenter further states that suitable habitat for both species potentially exists at the Project Site in the form of streams and wetlands; therefore, these observations should be assumed to be accurate, and surveys should be performed to determine absence or presence.

The City and its expert consultants, for multiple reasons, do not agree with the commenter’s contention that additional surveys are required to demonstrate the absence of suitable on-site habitat. First, it would be inaccurate to assume a species is present based on an unprocessed or unconfirmed sighting in the CNDDB. The CNDDB goes through a detailed vetting process that makes it a valuable tool to use when determining a potential impact of a project on a species.

CNDDB records show verified sightings of California red-legged frog within the 10-mile radius of the site, with the nearest approximately five miles southwest of the Project Site. The CNDDB also shows a record of Western pond turtle sighting approximately 3.5 miles east of the Project Site near the Potrero Hill Landfill.

Significant barriers between these sighting locations and the Project Site make it very unlikely individuals from these populations could migrate to the Project Site.

To determine the location of any “unprocessed” sightings near the Project Site, Huffman Broadway Group contacted CDFW directly and obtained data showing several “unprocessed” California red-legged frog and Western pond turtle sightings within the 10-mile radius of the Project Site. The nearest “unprocessed” California red-legged frog sighting is in the Cordelia quad – not the commenter’s referenced Fairfield South quad – five miles southwest of the Project Site. The nearest Western pond turtle is within the Fairfield South quad, approximately 1.5 miles to east of the Project Site. Regardless as to whether or not the referenced “unprocessed” sightings are valid and the locations accurate, similar to the confirmed or processed sightings, significant barriers between these sightings and the Project Site make it very unlikely individuals from these populations could migrate to the Project Site.

The BRR impact assessment is based on existing conditions, barriers between the development and adjacent habitat, processed CNDDB observations, and on a variety of special-status species surveys and assessments that have taken place for the Project Site over the last 20 years. Protocol-level wet season surveys were conducted by May Consulting Services in the winter/spring of 2000 for federally listed vernal pool branchiopods (vernal pool fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp).

These surveys also served to check for the presence of other invertebrates, as well as California tiger salamanders. Although the surveys were not specifically focused on the California red-legged frog or western pond turtle, if they were observed within the wetlands the species would have been noted in the survey reports, and they were not. Based on the nature of the existing habitat, past and recent aquatic surveys, numerous site visits by biologists over the past 20 years, 305
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 7 R eceived September 13, 2024
and CNDDB data, it was determined that California red-legged frog and western pond turtle occurrence is “Not present” on the Project Site.

That being said, although both California red-legged frog and western pond turtle are primarily species of freshwater habitats, there is the remote possibility that either of these species could occur within brackish slough channels in the area or within Ledgewood Creek. Should these two species move onto the Project Site from Ledgewood Creek or the brackish slough channel or other location prior to the start of construction, mitigation measures outlined in the EIR would minimize the potential for individuals of the species to be harmed during construction operations. For example, a biological monitor will be on-site during initial grading to minimize potential impacts to special status species; exclusion fencing will be installed down to the perennial brackish marsh slough channel; and a buffer will be provided adjacent to Ledgewood Creek. Mitigation measures outlined in the EIR would also offset any impacts to habitat for California red-legged frog or western pond turtle. For example, wetland mitigation measures would offset any potential loss of habitat for California red-legged frog. With respect to the western pond turtle, the perennial brackish marsh slough channel will be preserved in the Managed Open Space Area, should the turtle colonize the channel in the future.

Ledgewood Creek will not be directly impacted, and a 50-foot buffer will be maintained between the development and Ledgewood Creek, allowing protection of both aquatic and upland areas that could be used by the species. Also, any western pond turtle that may have wandered onto the Project Site prior to construction would be discovered during required preconstruction surveys and moved to a suitable location out of harm’s way.

In summary, the assessment and findings pertaining California red-legged frog and western pond turtle are supported by substantial evidence, and mitigation set forth in the Draft EIR would address any potential impacts to these species; no additional analysis or mitigation are necessary nor have been incorporated into the Final EIR.

Comment Late1-5. Summary of Comment: The comment asserts that the EIR conclusion regarding potential impacts to the California tiger salamander or critical habitat for this species is not accurate. The comment acknowledges that the habitat in the Project Site “does not represent ideal habitat” for the California tiger salamander but argues that the Project Site does include “potentially suitable habitat” and that any impacts to vernal pools present in the project area would impact designated critical habitat and needs to be mitigated, citing to CEQA Guidelines § 15065, subd. (a)(1).

Response: Page 4.3-68 of the Draft EIR describes the Project Site habitat and findings from site surveys to support the impact determination. The commenter- referenced CEQA Guidelines are addressed through the analysis and do not specifically state that a project within a designated Critical Habitat area would 306
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 8 R eceived September 13, 2024
result in a significant impact. The proposed Project would not substantially reduce California tiger salamander critical habitat nor substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of the California tiger salamander. The proposed Development Area would impact 93.4 acres (1.6 percent) of the 5,699-acre California tiger salamander Critical Habitat Jepson Prairie Unit and, as part of the wetland mitigation measures, preserve 393.24 acres (6.9 percent) within the Managed Open Space Area. In addition, as noted in Response to Comment Late1-4, Draft EIR mitigation measures for wetland preservation and habitat creation will ensure the avoidance of any net loss of vernal pools habitat and preserve existing vernal pool habitat within the Managed Open Space Area.

Comment Late1-6. Summary of Comment: The comment notes the EIR finding that potential impacts to Contra Costa goldfields are potentially significant under the full buildout proposed Project and the Reduced Footprint Alternative. The comment summarizes the mitigation proposed in the Draft EIR to reduce this potential impact, including revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a identified in the Final EIR Errata (page 3-6). The commenter asserts that the mitigation ratio of 1:1 is insufficient, and a higher mitigation ration should be required, simply because the commenter asserts, without evidence, that the proposed mitigation habitat is not likely to provide the same quality of habitat as naturally occurring habitat. The commenter also claims that the mitigation does not include provisions for mitigating actions if Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a is unsuccessful or additional mitigation is required.

Response: As outlined in Draft EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a, the Project applicant shall establish/create a minimum (emphasis added) of 0.03 acre (1:1 ratio) of Contra Costa goldfields habitat, and this would be accomplished in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If the USFWS and/or CDFW require(s) additional mitigation to obtain approval, then the Project applicant would establish Contra Costa goldfields habitat at a higher ratio and incorporate methods recommended by USFWS and CDFW to ensure Contra Costa goldfields populations are established for at least two years out of a 10-year monitoring period. To ensure successful establishment of Contra Costa goldfields habitat, the proposed location for establishment was selected based on the 0.03-acre area positioned adjacent to and supporting the same soil type as the core population of Contra Costa goldfields within Critical Habitat designation Subunit 5G. This area supports an approximately 17-acre area in the southwestern vicinity of the Project Site that hosts over 8,000 individual Contra Costa goldfields plants.

In the unlikely event that establishment for at least two out of 10 years is not met, then, like all performance standards when not met, an analysis would be conducted of why the plants did not establish, and a strategy for how to correct the problem will be developed and implemented. This strategy is provided in Section 11 in the 307
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 9 R eceived September 13, 2024
Permittee Responsible Preliminary Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and Long- Term Management Plan for the Highway 12 Logistics Center, Solano County, California (Appendix C to the Draft EIR). Section 11 outlines the Adaptive Management methods that will be used if performance standards are not met for a number of matrices, including the establishment of wetlands and rare plant habitat, including Contra Costa goldfields.

See also Final EIR Response to Comment A7-10 with regard to the creation of habitat, and Response to Comment A7-9 with regard to the mitigation ratio.

Comment Late1-7. Summary of Comment: The comment references the EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3- 6a that includes reducing the use of harmful pesticides within the Managed Open Space Area to minimize potential impacts to the Crotch’s bumble bee. The commenter asserts that this implies that harmful pesticides would be used in the Managed Open Space Area and that the EIR needs include additional information about the use of pesticides, citing to various court cases regarding provision of sufficient information within the EIR.

Response: Mitigation Measure 4.3-6a requires that if Crotch’s bumble bee is detected, a site-specific Crotch's Bumble Bee Avoidance and Minimization Plan will be prepared in coordination with CDFW that will include measures to reduce use of harmful pesticides within the Managed Open Space Area. This plan must include, among other components, “compensatory mitigation for the loss of potential nest sites, such as incorporation of appropriate native flower resources that would support this species throughout the flight period and promote development of queens (i.e., perennial plants)[.]” That being said, there is no indication that pesticides are being used or would be used in the proposed Managed Open Space Area.

Potential use of herbicides is discussed in the Project’s Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Appendix C to the Draft EIR). As outlined in Section 7.3.3 in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, herbicide use (with restrictions) is one of four methods listed that may be employed to control harmful invasive plants. The other methods are hand or mechanical removal, mowing, or use of focused grazing. As outlined in Section 7.3.3, only herbicides registered with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation would be applied. To prevent impacts to plants that are not the target species, herbicide application would be only localized spot treatments and would be conducted on calm days only with wind less than five (5) miles per hour. Other pesticides, including insecticides, are not proposed to be used within the Managed Open Space Area, as suggested by the commenter. If Crotch’s bumble bee is detected, the use of herbicides in the Managed Open Space area would be assessed in the Crotch's bumble bee Avoidance and Minimization Plan, prepared in coordination with the CDFW, to ensure methods of application do not harm Crotch’s bumble bee as required under Mitigation Measure 4.3-6a. For 308
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 10 Received September 13, 2024
example, an avoidance and minimization measure would include, at a minimum, (1) employing only hand or mechanical removal, mowing, or use of focused grazing to control invasive plants within habitat known to support Crotch’s bumble bee; (2) prior to implementation of invasive plant management activities, a minimum 50-foot buffer would be created around an active nest to reduce the risk of disturbance and protect foraging resources; and (3) in areas where management of invasive plants is required, Crotch’s bumble bee foraging habitat would be established by planting native flowering plants to replace the non-native invasive plants removed.

Comment Late1-8. Summary of Comment: The comment asserts that the EIR analysis of potential impacts to special-status nesting bird and migratory bird species does not account for the potential impacts of the loss of nesting habitat or edge effects from the proposed Project. The commenter states that traffic noise can degrade habitat value and affect behaviors.

The comment also referenced the impacts of edge effects as detailed further in Comment Late1-11 (regarding wildlife connectivity) below. With regard to migratory birds, the commenter asserts that the “MND” does not acknowledge the Project Site location within the Suisun Marsh Important Bird Area within the Pacific Flyway. The comment asserts that development in the Project area will reduce habitat in this Important Bird Area and the EIR must “analyze, disclose, and mitigate” such impacts.

Response: As described in the Draft EIR, the Project Site already includes existing roadways and related traffic noise, as well as existing railroad traffic. As detailed in the Noise section of the EIR, existing ambient noise conditions exceed 55 dBA for all monitoring locations within and around the Project Site except LT-02 and ST-01 – locations where there is no proposed development or new access roadways/circulation (Exhibit 4.10-2 and Table 4.10-2 of the Draft EIR). As shown in Table 4.10-22 of the Draft EIR, the modeling conducted shows that future development, in addition to existing conditions, would result in traffic noise level increases ranging from 0.1 dBA to 0.5 dBA Ldn, compared to noise levels without the Project, or an approximately 0.1- to 0.8-percent increase. Nesting and migratory birds that use the surrounding habitat are habituated to traffic and various noises produced by the adjacent industries; therefore, the minimal increase will have no additional adverse impacts.

With regard to migratory birds and the Audubon-designated Important Bird Area (IBA), the Draft EIR in Section 4.3.1 acknowledges the fact that the proposed Development Area is adjacent to the Suisun Marsh, that portions of the Open Space Management Area are located within the Suisun Marsh itself, and that the Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America. The Draft EIR also notes that the Project Site is a critical migratory stop for birds using the Pacific Flyway and is a critical part of 309
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 11 Received September 13, 2024
the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary ecosystem. The Draft EIR discusses migratory and non-migratory birds utilizing the Project Site (page 4.3-6, Wildlife Populations) and assesses the potential for special status birds to utilize the site (Table 4.3-4, Special Status Animal Species Known to Occur Within a 10-Mile Radius of the Project Site, and pages 4.3-41 through 4.3-46). Based on the location of the Project Site and Managed Open Space Area, existing habitats, and analysis in the BRR, the Draft EIR determines that significant impacts to migratory and non-migratory birds that may use the Project Site would be reduced to levels of insignificance through implementation of mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR. Impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in the Draft EIR section and include Mitigation Measures 4.3-7a and -7b, 4.3-8a and -8b, 4.3-9a and -9b,

4.3-10 and 4.3-11.

The commenter also states that the diverse habitats in the Project area provide essential nesting and resting habitat for both resident and migratory birds and suggests that any reduction in natural habitat within the IBA will have significant impact on the many bird species and should be analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated.

It should be noted that, while Audubon’s designation of a location as an IBA is useful information regarding the identification of areas that may be important to bird populations, such a designation provides no additional regulatory authority or requirements. As discussed in the Draft EIR and the BRR, CEQA provides guidelines and questions for determining whether impacts to biological resources are significant. Questions include whether a proposed project would have a substantial effect on or substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species.

The Project will result in the loss of uplands and wetlands that wildlife currently use; however, in light of the Project being adjacent to the 116,000-acre Suisun Marsh, the 93.4-acre loss does not rise to the level of substantial for any particular species that could be present in the Project area and would in fact would be reduced to a level of insignificance with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.

As discussed above, the Project impacts to special status species, nesting migratory birds, and foraging habitat for migratory birds is comprehensively addressed in the Draft EIR and BRR. In addition, to offset impacts to 93.4 acres of uplands, wetlands, and rare plant species habitat impacted by Project development, approximately 393.24 acres of open space abutting and within the Suisun Marsh primary and secondary management area and within the Audubon-designated IBA will be preserved, offsetting the loss of natural habitat and providing protected sites for resting, nesting, or foraging for migratory birds using the IBA and Pacific Flyway. Potential impacts to migratory birds are comprehensively analyzed in the Draft EIR; no revision to the Draft or Final EIR is necessary.

Comment Late1-9. Summary of Comment: The comment summarizes the status of Swainson’s hawk and its habitat needs. The comment asserts that EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-8a and the Project’s proposed Managed Open Space Area are not effective 310
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 12 Received September 13, 2024
compensatory mitigation. The comment notes that much of the proposed Managed Open Space Area “was already protected,” and asserts that the proposed open space north of the railroad is not appropriate habitat for Swainson’s hawk and not likely to “provide enough suitable foraging habitat to compensate” for impacts from the proposed Project, and that increased human activity on site could have additional impacts. The comment also asserts that the use anticoagulant rodenticides should be prohibited due to potential impacts to biological resources.

Response: Mitigation Measure 4.3-8a requires that foraging habitat mitigation be developed consistent with CDFW guidance set forth in the “1994 Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California. CDFW 1994 guidance provides that mitigation lands should be provided if an active nest is located within a 5-mile radius but greater than a 1- mile radius of the Project Site, mitigation habitat value shall be equal to or higher than what currently occurs on the Project Site, and at a minimum of 0.75:1 ratio.” This guidance specifically requires that the habitat be of equal value or higher than what currently occurs, ensuring that, contrary to this comment, it does “provide enough suitable foraging habitat to compensate for the grassland that will be lost from Project construction.” The Mitigation also provides actions if the onsite mitigation is determined insufficient: “If additional Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation is required by the 1994 CDFW guidance, the Project applicant shall purchase mitigation credits from an approved Swainson’s hawk mitigation bank which services the Project Site, or preserve suitable foraging habitat off-site at an approved CDFW location so as to satisfy the additional CDFW requirement to offset the permanent loss of foraging habitat.” HBG conducted a protocol level Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) nesting survey in 2023. Results indicated the nearest active nest is approximately 1.25 miles west of the Project Site. See also Response to Comment Late1-2 regarding the Managed Open Space Area serving as compensatory mitigation.

With regard to the use of rodenticides, the use of such will be prohibited on the Development Area and Managed Open Space. Mitigation Measure 4.3-17e has been revised to incorporate this requirement. The revised portion of the mitigation measure is shown below.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-17e: Implement Mitigation and Monitoring Plan To compensate for loss of wetlands and impacts to rare plant populations, the Project applicant shall implement an Agency-approved Mitigation and Monitoring Plan…. In summary, the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall:
…
 Prohibit the use of rodenticides within the Managed Open Space Area and the Development Area, and require appropriate signage in the development area noticing tenants and operators of this requirement.
311
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 13 Received September 13, 2024

Comment Late1-10. Summary of Comment: The comment summarizes the status of the Salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew. The comment asserts that the EIR conclusion that the impact of the Project on salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew would be less than significant with mitigation does not account for habitat loss from construction. The comment specifically identifies Mitigation Measure 4.3-13 of the Draft EIR to address these potential impacts, and asserts that it is inadequate and deferred mitigation because it does not define “how much upland habitat that would be altered, how it would be altered, or how it will be monitored…” The comment also asserts that the proposed setbacks identified in Mitigation Measure 4.3-12e are insufficient and must instead be 200 feet or greater. See also Comment Late1-12 regarding setbacks.

Response: As detailed in the Biological Resources Report, page 94, “[n]o habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse or Suisun shrew occurs within the proposed development area of the project site…. No habitat loss for salt marsh harvest mouse or Suisun shrew would occur from construction within the proposed development area or the proposed Managed Open Space portion of the project site, as no habitat for these species occurs in these areas. However, both the salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew have been known to inhabit uplands adjacent to areas of brackish marsh. If construction activities occurred in upland habitat near brackish marshes in areas in the proposed development area or the proposed Managed Open Space portion of the project site, direct construction impacts could occur to a wandering salt marsh harvest mouse or Suisun shrew in the adjacent upland areas.”

Taken together, Mitigation Measures 4.3-12a through 4.3-12h ensure that, through timing requirements, the use of buffers, fencing, monitoring, the creation of refugia, and other steps, any significant impacts on the Salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. These measures are formulated to ensure, among other things, that any ‘stray’ mouse or shrew would be avoided and not impacted during construction and to minimize any direct impacts from operational effects such as noise or attracting predator species through additional food available at the site. Although there is no habitat in the development area, Mitigation Measure 4.3-13 addresses the potential that the creation of wetlands could have an effect on upland refugia habitat. Because the details of wetland mitigation are subject to development of a mitigation plan in consultation with applicant agencies, it is not possible at this time to identify the specific size and location of any upland refugia. These are practical considerations that make it infeasible to develop a more detailed mitigation plan at present.

Because the Salt marsh harvest mouse is a species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and because Mitigation Measure 4.3-13, which also benefits the Suisun shrew, requires consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, legal standards and requirements under the ESA will guide 312
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 14 Received September 13, 2024
the formulation of mitigation details. As the courts have held, compliance with ESA standards and requirements is one means of ensuring satisfaction of the CEQA requirement that deferred mitigation be governed by enforceable performance standards (see, e.g., Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [2015] 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 246 [ESA regulations “provide sufficient performance standards to satisfy CEQA”]; Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto [2012] 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 943–946 [upholding mitigation measure requiring ESA “section 10” consultation despite the lack of identified performance standards in the mitigation measure]; and North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors [2013] 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 647 [mitigation measure requiring compliance with federal permitting process under the ESA and Clean Water Act was not impermissibly deferred]). See also Response to Comment A7-9 with regard to how the Biological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is consistent with mitigation requirements under CEQA and does not constitute deferred mitigation.

Draft EIR Impact 4.3-12 (pages 4.3-83 to 4.3-84) and Impact 4.3-13 (pages 4.3-86 to 4.3-87) describe the direct and indirect effects that could result in habitat loss and other threats to the salt marsh harvest mouse and Suisun shrew, identifying this as a potentially significant impact. The BRR (identify page) discusses the upland habitat that would be altered as a result of the proposed Project, how this habitat would be altered, and how it will be monitored to ensure success.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-13 does specify that the topographic elevation would be raised for portions of the remaining 60.2 acres of upland habitat within the Managed Open Space Area. Specific details regarding the widths, lengths, side slopes, top elevations of the enhanced upland areas to create refugia habitat, total acreage, and performance standards will be developed in consultation with the permitting agencies and provided with the final agency approved Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and Long-Term Management Plan for the Project. The specific location of the enhanced upland areas will consider the location of other sensitive habitats including special status plant species. See also Response to Comment A7- 9 with regard to the Draft EIR mitigation and impact analysis not constituting a deferral of mitigation. See also Response to Comment Late 1-12 regarding setbacks. No revision to the Draft or Final EIR is necessary.

Comment Late1-11. Summary of Comment: The comment summarizes the benefits of habitat connectivity and buffer zones around various habitats and claims that the EIR does not analyze the Project’s potential impacts to habitat connectivity or impacts from edge effects.

Response: The Conservation Analysis Unit (CAU) of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) develops and maintains spatial data and models of wildlife movement, corridors, and habitat connectivity across California. These 313
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 15 Received September 13, 2024
maps and models are used by scientists and decision-makers to inform how to best conserve habitat connectivity, or the ability of species and ecological processes to move through the landscape. The spatial data developed by CAU scientists is available in the CDFW spatial data library. Based on this special library, the proposed Development Area of the Project Site is identified as providing terrestrial connectivity of “Connections with Implementation Flexibility” and “Limited Connectivity Opportunity.”

Impact analysis in the Biological Resources section of the Draft EIR is based on the recognition of the Suisun Marsh value as habitat for species, including within the larger region for habitat connectivity. Mitigation measures to address impacts to sensitive habitats, most notably the on-site wetlands, are included in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR and include the obligation to prepare and implement a detailed Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan. Other mitigation measures are recommended to address indirect impacts to wildlife found in perennial marsh habitats and surrounding uplands in close proximity to the development during both construction and operational periods of the project. These measures include recommendations for setbacks, protective fencing, access restrictions, forms of on- site management and maintenance, and treatment of night lighting, among others.

Additional mitigation measures address possible impacts to the wildlife corridor along Ledgewood Creek through the establishment of a protective buffer zone in addition to erosion control and other measures. Impact 4.3-16 speaks directly to the value of Ledgewood Creek and related riparian corridor and Mitigation Measures 4.3-16a and 4.3-16b protect this corridor.

The Biological Resources Report discusses the potential of whether “[t]he 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 native wildlife nursery sites.” As noted in the Report, “[a]lthough a number of wildlife species, including a variety of bird species that potentially include special status species, were observed on the property during field surveys, the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to wildlife populations on the site. The proposed Project Site abuts the Suisun Marsh, which is 116,000 acres of grasslands, wetlands, bays, and sloughs providing habitat for a wide variety of fish and wildlife species. The development will impact 93.40 acres of grassland and wetland habitat suitable for a variety of wildlife species and preserve approximately 393.24 acres which abuts the Suisun Marsh. Based on the location of the proposed Development Area with urban uses on the north and west boundaries and the southern and eastern boundaries proposed for preservation as Managed Open Space and the southern portion of the site abutting the Suisun Marsh, the proposed project will not fragment existing wildlife habitat and will not substantially reduce wildlife habitat of species typically found in grassland and wetland habitat adjacent to and within the Suisun Marsh.” See also Response to 314
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 16 Received September 13, 2024
Comment Late1-8. No revision to the Draft or Final EIR is necessary.

Comment Late1-12. Summary of Comment: The comment references the setback of 50 feet identified in Mitigation Measures 4.3-12e and 4.3-16b of the Draft EIR and asserts that this buffer is not wide enough. The comment specifically references studies which suggest recommended buffers for wildlife often far exceed 325 feet, and discusses the ability of amphibians to migrate long distances including the California red- legged frog, with some individuals roaming over 4,500 feet from the water (G. M.

Fellers & Kleeman, 2007), while western pond turtles having been documented to move regularly between aquatic habitats with long-distance movements of up to 2,018 feet.

Response: Mitigation Measure 4.3-16a provides BMPs to avoid direct and indirect impacts to Ledgewood Creek and its riparian habitat. It would create a 50-foot fenced buffer from Ledgewood Creek riparian habitat and provide management funding. Under existing baseline conditions, Ledgewood Creek and its riparian habitat are currently subject to disturbance from encampments along the creek and associated pedestrian and vehicular activities that potentially interfere with wildlife movements and wildlife activities such as foraging and nesting. In addition to the trash the encampments generate, illegal dumping of household trash (appliances, old fiberglass boat, furniture, and many types of plastics) within this buffer likely contributes to trash entering Ledgewood Creek and eventually Peytonia Slough. Establishment of a riparian setback from Ledgewood Creek, along with funding to coordinate with law enforcement and to clean up the trash generated from illegal dumping and encampments, would improve baseline conditions and serve to protect the stream from current activities that result in environmental degradation.

The 50-foot buffers, along with preservation of the Managed Open Space Area, would allow animals to continue to migrate across the landscape to and from Ledgewood Creek, Peytonia Slough, and Pennsylvania Creek. The Project Development Area would not isolate adjacent habitats, and the Managed Open Space Area would provide good cover and accessibility across undeveloped and protected land to Ledgewood Creek, Peytonia Slough, and Pennsylvania Avenue Creek. In addition, funding will be provided in the Conservation Easement to manage trash and encampments that degrade the corridors and manage the native vegetation planted within the buffer that will provide good cover for terrestrial animals moving across the landscape. No revision to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, nor proposed mitigation is necessary.

Comment Late1-13. Summary of Comment: The comment cites to CEQA Guidelines requirements for the analysis of cumulative impacts and asserts that the Draft EIR acknowledges the requirement but does not present an analysis of cumulative impacts.

315
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 17 Received September 13, 2024
Response: Cumulative impacts are addressed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR.

Comment Late1-14. Summary of Comment: The comment references the Draft EIR (page 4.8-5) discussion of a portion of the Project Site being within the 100-year flood zone, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The commenter describes general potential hazards (not specific to this Project or the Draft EIR) associated with development in flood zones and development within flood zones throughout the Central Valley and Delta regions. The comment also discusses how flood events may change over time as a result of climate change.

The comment asserts that development, “such as the proposed Project,” reduce the floodplain functionality and increase risk of harm. The comment also asserts that development in the Project Site is inconsistent with the County’s General Plan Policy RS.P-68, and asserts that this inconsistency is a violation of CEQA Guidelines § 15125, subd. (d).

Response: See Final EIR Response to Comments IO-3-2 and IO-4-5. As detailed in Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” some of the Project Site is located in a 100-year flood zone (1 percent annual exceedance probability [AEP]), as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2016). Planning Areas 1 and 2 of the proposed Development Area and a portion of the proposed Management Open Space area are designated by FEMA as Zone AO, which is a 100-year flood zone where flooding is expected to occur via sheet flow, and with an average depth at the Project Site of 1 foot. Most of the remainder of the Project Site is designated by FEMA as Zone AE, which is a 100- year flood zone where the base flood elevation has been determined. Some of the proposed off-site improvements are also located in FEMA 100-year flood zones.

A small portion of the proposed Managed Open Space area in the southwest corner of the Project Site, a portion of the proposed off-site water line along Cordelia Street, and the southern end of the proposed off-site sewer line along Cordelia Road and Beck Avenue, are within FEMA Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard (Exhibit 4.8 2).

Consistent with City of Suisun City General Plan policies, the City will use the most current flood hazard and floodplain information from state and federal agencies (such as the State Department of Water Resources, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Army Corps of Engineers) as a basis for project review and to guide development, in accordance with federal and state regulations; the City will regulate development within floodplains according to state and federal requirements; the City has required evaluation of potential flood hazards as a part of the review of the proposed project; the City will require that structures intended for human occupancy within the 100-year floodplain are appropriately elevated and flood proofed for the profile of a 100-year flood event; and the City has required the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed project will not result in an increase to downstream flooding. The City required the 316
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 18 Received September 13, 2024
applicant to commission a drainage master plan to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards related to flooding and drainage. As explained in Section 3.4, page 3-3 of the project’s planned unit development document, “[f]inished floors will be 1ft above the high water mark.”

The commenter alleges that development in the vicinity of the proposed Project site is “in violation of the County’s General Plan, which says the County will “protect existing open spaces, natural habitat, floodplains, and wetland areas that serve as groundwater recharge areas” (Policy RS.P-68) and will “preserve open space and agricultural areas that are subject to natural flooding and are not designated for future urban growth; prohibit permanent structures in a designated floodway where such structures could increase risks to human life or restrict the carrying capacity of the floodway” (Policy HS.P-9).

As detailed in Section 4.9-10 of the Draft EIR, “Land Use & Planning, Population and Housing,” with approval of the proposed Project, approval of the proposed General Plan amendment, annexation of the Development Area into the City of Suisun City, and associated zoning changes, development of the proposed Project would not conflict with the City of Suisun City’s General Plan or zoning. With respect to the relationship between the proposed Project and other plans (the City’s General Plan, the County’s General Plan, Play Bay Area, etc.), policy inconsistencies are not physical effects on the environment under CEQA unless it relates to a physical impact on the environment that is significant in its own right.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted City General Plan policies or other land use plan, policy, or regulation that would generate any adverse physical impacts beyond those addressed in detail in the environmental sections of the Draft EIR. The Project is proposed to develop within the City of Suisun City and portions of the Project Site proposed to remain in Solano County are proposed as Managed Open Space. This is consistent with Solano County General Plan Policy RS.P-68 and Policy HS.P-9. As detailed in Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” and described above, the proposed Project is consistent with applicable regulations and City policy related to the floodplain.

There is no change needed, nor would any revision be appropriate to the Draft EIR or Final EIR in response to this comment.

Comment Late1-15. Summary of Comment: The comment describes the Suisun Marsh and its value to the Sacramento-Sam Joaquin Delta. The comment asserts that the ecosystem health of the Suisun Marsh has declined due to water conveyance and urban development, and that any potential impacts to hydrology or water quality of the Suisun Marsh must be avoided.

317
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 19 Received September 13, 2024
Response: The Draft EIR describes the Suisun Marsh, including noting it being the “largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America” and the importance to the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary ecosystem (Draft EIR Page 4.3-1). Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from implementation of the proposed Project are comprehensively addressed in Section

4.8 of the Draft EIR. See also Responses to Comments Late1-16 and Late1-17.

Comment Late1-16. Summary of Comment: The comment describes the importance of water quality to wetland health, including that of the Suisun Marsh. The comment asserts that the Project will result in tire particles and other pollutants entering surface water and diminishing water quality. The comment asserts that the EIR does not quantify the potential sources or quantities of pollutants related to Project construction or operations and, therefore, does not provide substantial evidence to support the EIR’s less-than-significant impact determination.

Response: Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the Draft EIR comprehensively analyzed potential Project impacts to water quality and included mitigation, as applicable, to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The commenter offers no legal authority for the contention that the analysis is deficient for failing to quantify various environmental inputs.

The Draft EIR section 4.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” summarizes and takes into account existing surface water quality, including identifying existing and potential beneficial uses designated in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan for surface waters in the Suisun Basin Hydrologic Unit that could receive runoff from the proposed Project. The section also identifies waters where the permit standards, any other enforceable limits, or adopted water quality standards are still unattained according to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (Draft EIR page

4.8-2 through 4.8-6). The analyses of impacts 4.8-1 through 4.8-6 in the Draft EIR take into consideration these existing conditions in the evaluation of the potential for the Project to result in impacts related to hydrology and water quality, including the degradation of surface or ground water quality, risk for release of pollutants, and potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Furthermore, as described in detail in the Drainage Master Plan for the proposed Project (provided as Appendix D to the Draft EIR), the proposed Project would implement a variety of Low Impact Development techniques such as bioswales and other stormwater biofiltration facilities throughout the Project Site, including within the parking lots, around the building perimeters, and along Ledgewood Creek (see for example, “Stormwater Quality Control Plan, Planning Area No. 1” presented on page 201 of Appendix D to the Draft EIR). These are the same types of stormwater treatment techniques suggested by the commenter. These LID stormwater treatment strategies would meet City requirements, as well as the 318
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 20 Received September 13, 2024
requirements of the MS4 permit issued to the Solano Stormwater Alliance (of which the City is a permittee). This information is also presented and evaluated in detail throughout Draft EIR Section 4.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality.”

See also Final EIR Response to Comment IO3-1 with regard to additional analysis of potential impacts associated with water quality and effects on biological resources, including Mitigation Measure 3.2-15a, which requires implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to water quality. No revision to the Draft or Final EIR is necessary.

Comment Late1-17. Summary of Comment: The comment asserts that the EIR does not ‘properly’ analyze GHG impacts and does not adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant GHG impacts. The comment provides additional statements around these points in Comments Late1-18 through Late1-20.

Response: See Responses to Comments Late1-18 through late1-20.

Comment Late1-18. Summary of Comment: The comment summarizes the global climate change phenomena, effects of climate change on the natural environment, assessments of global warming scenarios presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and California’s regulatory framework for greenhouse gas reduction targets. The comment acknowledges that a single project may not have a significant effect on climate change, but the combine impacts (i.e., cumulative) of many projects can influence climate, and emphasizes the importance of project- specific GHG emissions disclosure, analysis, and mitigation.

Response: The City acknowledges this background summary pertaining to climate change and state regulations for GHG reductions. The City also concurs with the commenter’s point regarding requirements under CEQA to evaluate GHG emissions. No revision to the Draft or Final EIR is necessary.

Comment Late1-19. Summary of Comment: The comment asserts that the less than significant finding for the GHG emissions relies on what the commenter states is an unsupported estimate of jobs that would be generated by the proposed Project, referencing the 2021 EPS report cited in the Draft EIR and the jobs estimate provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Appendix B to the Draft EIR. The comment notes that the EIR does not include a citation corresponding to the 2021 EPS citation. The comment points to a 2018 United States Energy Information Administration estimate of square feet per employee in warehouse and storage land uses and uses this data point to claim that the employment generated by the Project would be less than half that presented in the EIR. The comment concludes that, because the GHG threshold of significance in the Draft EIR is based on a ratio that utilizes the estimate of employees serving the Project and because the comment does not consider the estimate of employees to be substantiated, the 319
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 21 Received September 13, 2024
threshold is not supported by substantial evidence.

Response: The commenter is incorrect in stating that the EIR concludes that the Project’s GHG-related impacts will be less than significant. The EIR actually found that, even with feasible mitigation, the Project would result in GHG emissions that were cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. (See Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-28.)

The commenter is correct, however, that the citation for EPS 2021 is missing from the Draft EIR. This citation was inadvertently omitted and has been added to Chapter 3, “Errata,” of the Final EIR. The estimate of employees that would serve the proposed Project is based on substantial evidence and reflective of the anticipated operational use of the proposed Project and employment generation of similar operations. This estimate of employees was informed by both the ITE trip rate for the Fulfillment Center Warehouse land use category and the employee estimate of the Economic Impact Analysis conducted by Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., in support of the proposed Project. The evaluation contained within the Draft EIR and used to determine potential environmental impacts and necessary mitigation measures was based upon best available information, expert opinion, and reasonable assumptions for what would be considered a reasonable ‘worst-case’ or conservative analysis. (See also Response to Comment IO 1-6 [explaining why analyses of GHG and air pollutant emissions were “based on reasonable assumptions and expert opinion with regard to proposed operations and based upon what would be a ‘most-intensive-case’ scenario of operations pertaining to a given environmental resource”]).

As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, “substantial evidence” means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” As detailed above, the GHG analysis and quantification of GHG emissions and the related GHG threshold were conducted in accordance with industry standards and best practices.

Comment Late1-20. Summary of Comment: The comment references the Draft EIR’s estimate of GHG efficiency of the Project and notes that this is a significant GHG impact and, per CEQA, requires the adoption of all feasible mitigation. The comment goes on to note that the Draft EIR includes mitigation for the purchase of GHG emissions credits to reduce the Project’s emissions, and that the Draft EIR notes that the City cannot guarantee the availability of such credits. The comment suggests that offsets must be a “last resort after every feasibly on-site mitigation has been 320
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 22 Received September 13, 2024
implemented.” The commenter also references the explanation in the Final EIR that requiring zero-emission vehicles is not feasible and asserts that this finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

The comment also claims that the Fina l EIR states that mitigation requiring installation of solar photovoltaic systems sufficient to supply the Project’s energy needs is included in the Draft EIR. The comment also acknowledges the EIR mitigation requiring the Project to use carbon-free power but asserts that this power should be required to be generated through on-site solar to support the State’s goals for clean energy generation.

Response: The City agrees with the general legal principle that, under CEQA, public agencies faced with significant environmental impacts should adopt all feasible mitigation measures. As the courts have explained, however, agencies need not adopt mitigation measures determined to be infeasible. (See, e.g., San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego [2013] 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 19 San Diego Citizenry Group).

For example, as the commenter notes, mitigation or alternatives can be determined to be economically infeasible. (See, e.g., Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside [2007] 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 600 [alternative was infeasible where the marginal costs of the alternative compared to the costs of the proposed project were such that a reasonably prudent property owner would not proceed with the alternative]; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco [2002] 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 693-694 [an alternative is infeasible where the reduction in profits or additional costs would deter a reasonably prudent investor]).

Mitigation or alternatives can also be infeasible based on policy considerations. (See, e.g., ; City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [“‘[f]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors”];California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz [2009] 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [CNPS] [same]; San Diego Citizenry Group, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 17 [same, applied to both mitigation measures and alternatives]).

The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa [2004] 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506- 1509 [upholding CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives]; see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 [“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the 321
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 23 Received September 13, 2024
record’”]; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi [2012] 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315 [court upholds agency action where alternative selected “entirely fulfill” a particular project objective and “would be ‘substantially less effective’ in meeting” the lead agency’s “goals”]).

Here, the Final EIR explains that “Project end users are unknown at the time of Final EIR publication and, thus, it would be speculative to place restrictions on fleet equipment. Furthermore, imposing onerous requirements on the potential fleet of future unknown users could put the Project at a competitive disadvantage by limiting the breadth of potential future end users that could comply, and may be technologically infeasible due to the performance needs of the end user.” The City, as lead agency, was entitled to take these practical policy considerations into account when formulating proposed mitigation measures.

Furthermore, current regulations in California and those being developed acknowledge that the technology has to be available and financially competitive with alternatives to be feasible for businesses. On September 23, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-79-20 establishing a goal that 100 percent of new passenger cars and trucks sold in California shall be zero-emission by 2035. The Executive Order also sets a goal that, where feasible, all operations include zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2045, and drayage trucks by 2035. Off-road vehicles have a goal to transition to 100 percent zero- emission vehicles by 2035, where feasible. While in-state sales of electric vehicles will increase through 2045, the State does not have legislation that will restrict or preclude the use of fossil-fueled vehicles by or after 2045.

The Project provides for the electric hookups and to require newer model trucks, in alignment with state programs to influence an increasingly zero-emissions truck fleet, but this is not the standard at this time and would put the project at an economic disadvantage by requiring such of future tenants that could otherwise go elsewhere without such requirements to turnover their entire fleet. These are practical policy and economic considerations sufficient to support the City’s determination that requiring zero emission truck fleets as a mitigation requirement would be infeasible.

With regard to the commenter’s assertion that the EIR mitigation (Mitigation Measure 4.7-1f) requiring the Project to use carbon-free power should require such power be generated through on-site solar, the requirement to procure GHG-free power from the existing utility versus generate such power on-site would not result in a change in the Project’s GHG emission and therefore not provide any additional mitigating value relative to the potential impact. Mitigation Measure

4.7-1f provides flexibility for implementation such that the “sources may include, but are not limited to on-site renewable generation system(s) or Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) 100 percent solar electricity service option, or a similar 322
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 24 Received September 13, 2024
100 percent carbon-free utility option that becomes available in the future and meets the requirements of this mitigation measure,” so that the most appropriate source be selected at the time of implementation. There are no regulatory requirements, nor nexus with the potential impact, to require revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1f.

Comment Late1-21. Summary of Comment: The comment thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and reiterates the commenter’s belief that corrections to and recirculation of the EIR is needed. The comment also notes the City’s requirements for maintenance of the administrative record for the Project and requests that the Center for Biological Diversity be added to the Project’s noticing list for all future updates.

Response: The City appreciates the commenter’s review of the Draft and Final EIR and acknowledges requirements for the administrative record under CEQA.

For the reasons presented in Final EIR Responses to Comments IO2-1 through IO2-25, IO7-3 through IO7-25, and Responses to Comment Late1-2 through Late1-20, there is no support for recirculation of the Draft EIR and no change to the Final EIR is required to support the City’s review of the proposed Project.

323
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 1 Received September 30, 2024
Response to Comment Letter Late2:

MICHAEL ZEISS
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER LATE2
Comment Late2-1. Summary of Comment: The comment submitted on September 30, 2024, after the release of the Draft Final EIR and initial Planning Commission meeting on the EIR shares the opinion that the City should adopt Alternative 2, the Reduced Footprint Alternative and suggests additional mitigation. The commenter suggests that at least 15 percent of the construction fleet uses alternative fuels, including electricity.

Response: Although City staff recommended to the City of Suisun Planning Commission that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the Planning Commission instead recommended that the Council approve the full proposed project, as was described in the Draft EIR. In doing so, the Commission emphasized the substantially greater fiscal benefits of the full project. The Planning Commission, in recommending to the City Council to advance the proposed Project rather than Alternative 2, also cited the additional local employment benefits attributable to the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also addressed other advantages of the proposed Project compared to Alternative 2, including the circulation benefits related to the additional street frontage improvements that would be provided as a part of the proposed Project that would not be provided under Alternative 2 and the greater aesthetic improvements. The Planning Commission observed that biological resources impacts would still be able to be mitigated to less than significant levels under the proposed Project, and that, since only one impact (criteria air pollutant emissions of ROG from project operations) would be changed from significant and unavoidable to less than significant with mitigation under Alternative 2, and considering the fiscal, employment, circulation, and aesthetic benefits, it was appropriate to recommend the proposed Project rather than Alternative 2 to the City Council.

Although the initial version of the proposed Final EIR, as published in June 2024, reflected that earlier staff recommendation favoring the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the updated version of the Final EIR, as published in September 2024, reflected the Planning Commission’s recommendation in favor of the full project.

In light of the Commission action, City staff is no longer recommending approval of the Reduced Footprint Alternative.

With regard to the commenter’s request for a mitigation measure requiring at least 15 percent of the construction fleet uses alternative fuels, including electricity, the City has made this revision through amendments and additions to Mitigation 324
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 2 R eceived September 30, 2024
Measuer 4.6-1a. The revised mitigation measure is shown below.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a: Use Battery or Electric-powered Low or No Emission Construction Equipment

The Project applicant shall require that construction contractor(s):

 Where grid power is available, prohibit portable diesel engines and provide electrical hook ups for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools, unless such electric- powered tools would not meet the power or longevity requirements to achieve the construction task, or are otherwise infeasible due to site conditions such as wet or damp circumstances.

 Where grid power is not available, use alternative fuels, such as propane or solar electrical power, for generators at construction sites.

 Use battery-powered equipment for all off-road construction equipment with a power rating below 19kW (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) during construction.

 At least 15 percent of the construction fleet for each project phase shall be alternatively fueled or electric. Alternative fuels shall only include those that involve zero direct GHG emissions.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the Project, the Project applicant shall include all requirements in applicable bid documents (e.g., bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts), purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant on- or off-road construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.

Comment Late2-2. Summary of Comment: The comment references California regulations requiring zero-emission trucks and the fact that such trucks can be heavier compared to diesel trucks. The commenter also references the transition to zero-emission trucks.

Response: Approved by the Governor on September 12, 2024, AB 1953 modified Vehicle Code section 35551 and added a new section 35559. Both statutes address the weight of trucks. Existing federal law prohibits the maximum gross vehicle weight of a vehicle operated by an engine fueled primarily by natural gas or powered primarily by means of electric battery power from exceeding 82,000 pounds. Existing state law, to the extent expressly authorized by federal law, 325
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 3 R eceived September 30, 2024
authorizes a near-zero-emission vehicle or a zero-emission vehicle, as defined, to exceed the weight limits on the power unit by up to 2,000 pounds. Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1953 will clarify that the power unit of a near-zero emission or zero-emission vehicle, as defined, is authorized to exceed the allowable gross weight limits by up to a maximum of 2,000 pounds, as specified. This legislation clarifies that the maximum gross vehicle weight for a near-zero-emission vehicle or a zero-emission vehicle is 82,000 pounds.

No change to the design or materials of the Project’s internal circulation system or parking areas is needed due to AB 1953. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1e already requires the Project applicant to incorporate CALGreen Tier 2 Standards for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project Design. This measure will require the Project applicant to satisfy whatever CALGreen Tier 2 standards are appliable at the time of an application for a building permit for the proposed Project.

Comment Late2-3. Summary of Comment: The comment requests a monitoring station in Suisun City.

Response: Because air quality monitoring, by itself, does not reduce air pollutant emissions, this request is not directly related to the impact analysis and mitigation presented in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. For this reason, no change to the Draft EIR or Final EIR is needed to address this comment. Even so, the City has included, with the applicant’s consent, an additional Mitigation Measure 4.2-1k as follows:

Mitigation Measure 4.2-1k: Contribute to Air Quality Monitor if Requested

At least ten business days prior to issuing a grading permit, the City of Suisun City will contact the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) and inquire as to whether the Air District would have an interest in the installation of an air quality monitoring station within the City of Suisun City, or whether the Air District in coordination with the California Air Resources Board would have such an interest. If, prior to issuance of a building permit, the Air District identifies interest in the installation of an air quality monitoring station, the Project applicant shall offer suitable space on the project parcel for an air quality monitoring station in Suisun City. If no such interest is timely expressed through communication by the Air District to the City of Suisun City prior to issuance of a building permit, no further action is required.

The City declines to adopt the commenter’s recommendation that the City set up a monitoring station within Suisun City independent of the regional monitoring system operated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Data that may be collected by independent air monitor instruments, such as that 326
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 4 R eceived September 30, 2024
mentioned by the commenter, are not verified or validated and therefore do not undergo the same level of quality control as an air district-operated monitor and are geared toward providing near-real-time information. The data do not come from regulatory monitors and cannot be used to infer violations of the law or related health standards, such as those used to establish ambient air quality standards of NAAQS and CAAQS. The data provided by such air monitoring stations are typically instantaneous measurements of PM2.5 concentrations. This is in contrast to the annual average concentrations computed from the monitors operated by the air district, which collect data on an hourly basis and must meet minimum data collection requirements. On any given day, independent monitoring data may be unavailable, and data capture may be low and inconsistent.

The City acknowledges the importance of monitoring air quality impacts associated with the project. The project’s air quality analysis, as detailed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, includes a comprehensive assessment of potential air quality impacts during both construction and operational phases.

Within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, the BAAQMD is responsible for ensuring that emission standards are not violated. The BAAQMD maintains multiple air quality monitoring stations that continually measure the ambient concentrations of major air pollutants throughout the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Table 4.2-2 in the Draft EIR summarizes published monitoring data for 2019 through 2021. The nearest monitoring station to the Project Site is the Fairfield monitoring station, approximately 1 mile southwest from the Project site.

This station monitors ozone. Data for NO
2 and PM2.5 were obtained from the
Vallejo monitoring station, which is located approximately 14 miles southwest of the Project site. Data for PM10 was obtained from the Vacaville Merchant Street monitoring station approximately 8 miles to the north-northeast of the Project site.

In general, the ambient air quality measurements from this station are representative of the air quality in the Project vicinity.

To address potential air quality impacts, the Project will implement several mitigation measures, including dust control measures and use of low-emission construction equipment to reduce potential construction-related emissions to a less-than-significant level, as well as operational measures to reduce employee vehicle trips. These operational measures include requiring CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the project design, requiring the use of electric equipment and TRUs, prohibiting truck idling, requiring newer model-year trucks, and requiring use of Teir 4 engines for diesel backup generators and fire pumps. The construction- related measures will reduce construction emissions to a less-than-significant level and the operational measures will reduce all criteria air pollutant operational emissions to a less-than-significant level, with the exception of ROG emissions.

ROG is an ozone precursor that is considered a regional pollutant due to the manner in which it is transported and converted to ozone at a regional scale. As 327
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 5 R eceived September 30, 2024
such, monitoring at the local scale, as done by the BAAQMD air monitoring network in compliance with state and federal regulatory requirements, such as those under the Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act, is appropriate to monitor ambient air quality of ozone.

As noted by BAAMQD in the 2024 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan, the population centers throughout the Bay Area represent a variety of conditions in terms of population size, the mix of local emissions sources, topography, and meteorological conditions. While resources do not allow for monitoring sites in every city, EPA regulations require the Air District to place monitoring sites at locations that reasonably represent other areas with similar pollution sources. This approach allows the Air District to estimate air pollution levels to which many people throughout the region are exposed even if they are not near an actual monitoring site. Locations for permanent air monitoring sites are initially based on knowledge of population density, local wind patterns, topography, and sources of air emissions, while the final site selection is determined after considering logistical constraints and analyzing available air quality data from previous monitoring or modeling studies.

The Draft EIR Impact 4.2-3 describes that Project construction activities would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for excess cancer, chronic non-cancer, or acute risk, but the maximum annual PM

2.5 concentrations would
result in exceedances of the threshold for 2024 construction activities at the maximum worker receptor. Similarly, chronic non-cancer and acute impacts from the proposed Project operations would be below the BAAQMD thresholds for operational activities, but Project operational activities could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations for annual PM2.5 and excess cancer risk exposure. These potentially significant impacts are reduced to below their respective recommended thresholds of significance with implementation of mitigation, and therefore would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, proposed mitigation identified in the Draft EIR, and as modified through the Final EIR (See Chapter 3, Errata, to the Final EIR), are sufficient to reduce potentially significant impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The Draft EIR comprehensively evaluated potential Project impacts through detailed calculations and modeling consistent with industry standards. No further mitigation is required.

Comment Late2-4. Summary of Comment: The comment requests an annual presentation to the City Council related to mitigation monitoring.

Response: Certain mitigation measures require annual reporting. For example, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1d requires future tenants to report annually on required the success of transportation demand management actions. Mitigation Measure 328
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 6 R eceived September 30, 2024

4.3-1 requires annual reporting on inspections and maintenance practices to authorizing agencies in relation to wetlands mitigation. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be kept on file with the City of Suisun City and will be updated to document implementation of the required mitigation, as stipulated in each adopted mitigation measure. This is public information to which the commenter will have access. The applicant team will update City staff periodically in relation to ongoing permitting activities involving state and federal regulatory agencies. No change to the Draft EIR nor Final is needed in response to this comment, nor would any change be appropriate.

Comment Late2-5. Summary of Comment: The comment provides information related to nonattainment that is included, as appropriate, in the Draft EIR. The comment identifies operation of a logistics center.

Response: The commenter is correct that the region is in nonattainment for PM and ozone. The proposed Project’s significant unavoidable operational air quality impact is due to a potential exceedance of ROG emission, while PM emissions would be less than the recommended thresholds of significance. Additional feasible operational ROG reduction measures within the Project applicant’s control are not available because operational ROG emissions are primarily the result of operational consumer product use, which are reflected in a default emissions factor in the emissions estimating model based on existing emissions inventories. Notably, though, the California Air Resources Board is actively pursuing opportunities to support, incentivize, and require lower emissions limits for consumer products in order to reduce these emissions inherent in building operations; and such emissions will likely reduce over time compared to the emissions estimates presented in the Draft EIR for 2025. The inclusion of ROG emissions from consumer product use is consistent with the approach throughout the Draft EIR, which is conservative and may tend to overstate potential impacts.

ROG emissions are influenced by technological advances and availability of lower VOC products.

Comment Late2-6. Summary of Comment: The comment acknowledges that the City needs to increase revenues, and suggests that the City address public health concerns related to air pollutant emissions, concerns related to sea level rise, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The comment restates the request to incorporate four additional mitigation measures.

Response: The City agrees with the commenter regarding the need to focus on fiscal health, public health, and environmental health. Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, “Air Quality,” comprehensively addresses air quality impacts attributable to the proposed Project, including impacts related to the public health. Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy,” addresses impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter 7, “Other CEQA Considerations” comprehensively evaluates cumulative effects related to the proposed Project, 329
Highway 12 Logistics Center EIR Response to Letter
City of Suisun City 7 R eceived September 30, 2024
including impacts related to air pollutant emissions. Regarding the additional proposed mitigation measures, this is addressed in Responses to Comments Late2- 1 through Late2-5. No change to the Draft EIR nor Final is needed in response to this comment, nor would any change be appropriate.

330
11/14/2024
1 City of Suisun CityCity CouncilNovember 19, 2024Highway 12 Logistics CenterProject VisionHighway 12 Logistics Center is a warehouse and distribution complex that provides marketing flexibility to attract a variety of warehouse and distribution uses to support job growth and economic development within the City of Suisun City. 1 2
331
11/14/2024
2 Project ObjectivesEconomic Development• Promote economic growth through new capital investment, expansion of the tax base, creation of new employment opportunities, and payment of development fees.• Attract new employment-creating industries to Suisun City that generate new tax revenue and minimize demands on City services.Jobs/Housing Balance• Improve Suisun City’s jobs-housing ratio by locating new employment opportunities near existing infrastructure.Orderly Development• Continue the orderly development of the western gateway of Suisun City with a well-designed project.Project Objectives (Continued)Implement the General Plan• Further the goals and policies of the City of Suisun City General Plan by developing land contemplated to support urban development to its highest and best use.Biologic Preservation• Preserve the most biologically sensitive portions of the project site as open space.Infrastructure Improvements• Install circulation improvements along Pennsylvania Avenue and Cordelia Street that provide efficient ingress and egress to the proposed project while also ensuring these facilities operate at acceptable levels.Public Safety• Promote public safety by incorporating security measures into the project design.Environmental Protection• Mitigate impacts on the environment through implementation of feasible mitigation measures. 3 4
332
11/14/2024
3 Project Location
Proposed Project Summary•482 acres Total Area•161 acres annex to Suisun City•93 acres of developed area•389 acres of Managed Open Space 5 6
333
11/14/2024
4 Project Site Plan•1.28 million square feet of building area•High cube warehouse space Planned Unit Development (PUD)•The City will utilize this Planned Unit Development (PUD) document to guide and evaluate development proposals. •Projects consistent with this PUD will require only Administrative review for individual project approvals and building permits.•Potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Project are fully analyzed at the project level in the EIR. •No further environmental review is required for development applications consistent with this PUD.

The PUD regulates the project: •Land Use•Design Guidelines•Circulation•Infrastructure•Phasing•Implementation 7 8
334
11/14/2024
5 Fiscal Impact AnalysisCITY ANNUAL NET FISCAL IMPACTS SUMMARYAnnual Impacts at BuildoutAnnual Impacts at BuildoutCity General FundReduced Footprint AlternativeProposalProject will annex into CFD No. 2 and will generate annual special tax revenues to help offset the costs of providing a variety of City services to the Project.$762,000$1,835,549Revenues($263,000)($634,714)Expenses$499,000$1,200,835Annual Net Fiscal Impact$941$941Annual Surplus Per 1,000 Building Square FeetSource: Goodwin Consulting Group, September 2023General Plan Consistency• Findings• The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan’s policies for PUDs. • As a Planned Unit Development, the Project has provided a higher level of design than the City might otherwise have obtained for the site, as well as a high degree of certainty about that design. • As a result, deviation from the strict requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are justified under the General Plan’s policies for PUDs.• Subject Area of Consistency• Land Use• Transportation• Economic Development 9 10
335
11/14/2024
6 City of Suisun CityCity CouncilNovember 19, 2024Highway 12 Logistics CenterEnvironmental Impact ReportCalifornia Environmental Quality Act•Identify and disclose impacts•Focus on potentially significant adverse physical effects•Identify measures to reduce or avoid potential impacts•Examine feasible alternatives•Provide framework for mitigation monitoring 11 12
336
11/14/2024
7 CEQA Review ProcessScoping
• Invitation to consult to Affiliated Native American Tribal Representatives (completed in 2021)• Notice of Preparation (April 1, 2021, reissued May 14 2021)• Scoping Meeting (April 13, 2021)Draft EIR • Technical studies to inform project planning & environmental impact analysis• Prepare Draft EIR, including Alternatives and Mitigation Measures• Notice of Availability & Draft EIR Public Review and Comment Period (August 31 through October 17, 2023)Final EIR • Prepare Responses to Comments• Consider any necessary revisions. • Publish Final EIR.Certification • Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council, July 9th, 2024•City Council action Type of CEQA Document•“Full-scope” Environmental Impact Report (EIR)•Comprehensive study of all adverse physical environmental effects •Requires feasible measures to reduce or avoid impacts•Detailed analysis of alternatives to the proposed project 13 14
337
11/14/2024
8 Impact Analysis•Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis•Thresholds of Significance: criteria to differentiate less than significant from significant environmental effects•Impact Analysis: potential adverse physical environmental effects compared to existing conditions. •Mitigation Measures: requirements to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for significant impacts.Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant•Air Quality •Substantial Pollutant Concentrations (health risks)•Biological Resources •Contra Costa Goldfields + Critical Habitat, Alkali Milk-Vetch, Saline Clover, Long-styled sand-spurrey plants, Crotch Bumble Bee, Northern Harrier + Short-Eared Owl, Swainson's Hawk, Burrowing Owl, California Black Rail, Loggerhead Shrike, Suisun Song Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Tricolored Blackbird, Construction Impacts on Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Suisun Shrew, Loss of Upland Refugia, Nesting Birds, Special Status Fish Species, Riparian Habitat, Wetlands•Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources•Undiscovered historical resources or unique archeological resources, human remains, tribal cultural resources 15 16
338
11/14/2024
9 Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant (cont.)•Hazards, Hazardous Materials Wildfire•Exposure of People and the Environment to Existing Hazardous Materials, Including Cortese-listed Sites•Interference with Emergency Response or Evacuation Plans•Noise and Vibration•Construction vibration•Long-term, stationary-source noise•Transportation and Circulation•Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT)•Circulation System•Pedestrian and Bicycle SystemsSignificant and Unavoidable Impacts•Aesthetics and Visual Resources•Effects on Scenic Vistas•Substantial New Light and Glare and Skyglow Effects •Air Quality•Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan•Cumulative Increase of Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions•Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy•Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts •Noise and Vibration•Temporary, short-term construction noise 17 18
339
11/14/2024
10 Alternatives• CEQA requires the consideration of alternatives to a proposed project. • According to the CEQA Guidelines, the range of alternatives “shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]; see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]).• Alternatives Considered in Detail in the Draft EIR• No Project Alternative (Buildout of Existing Land Use Designations)• 73 acres developed – Commercial Mixed Use, 363,000 square feet; 726 employees; 0 acres of Managed Open Space• Reduced Footprint Alternative (Staff Recommendation)• 51 acres developed, 529,708 square feet; 528 employees; 437 acres of Managed Open Space• Reduced Criteria Air Pollutant and GHG Emissions and Transportation-Related Energy Consumption Alternative• 46 acres developed (office + warehouse space), 471,000 square feet; 1,275 employees; 0 acres of Managed Open SpaceAlternatives•The Planning Commission recommended the proposed project, found that the Reduced Footprint Alternative:•Would not provide sufficient fiscal and local employment benefits•All biological resources can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels (making environmental rationale for Alternative 2 less compelling)•Reduced Footprint Alternative is less effective in meeting the project objectives: •“[c]apitalize on the existing Interstate 80 and State Highway 12 transportation corridor, the existing rail facilities that can provide direct rail service unique to this logistics market area, and the increased demand for warehouse and distribution services in the City and region”•“[c]reate a master planned complex of buildings to accommodate the current and future need for warehouse and distribution uses in an economically viable project with coordinated infrastructure and landscaping”•“[o]ffer a project with the scale, location, amenities, and sustainability features necessary to create competitive advantages in attracting and retaining a variety of reputable warehousing and logistics users.”•Details on infeasibility of the Reduced Footprint Alternative in the CEQA Findings 19 20
340
11/14/2024
11 Final EIR•Draft EIR Comments: 8 Comment letters from public agencies and 8 comment letters from individuals and organizations (plus some late comments)•Final EIR Chapter 2: Responses to Comments•Final EIR Chapter 3: Errata•Revisions for clarity, including clarity of mitigation requirements •Based on comments from public agencies regarding topics in their purview •To apply biological resources mitigation to the Reduced Footprint Alternative •To clarify that a conservation easement is required for compensatory mitigation and a deed restriction for the balance of the Managed Open Space area•Add a discussion of irreversible changes (commitments of resources)•Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programimposes requirements during construction and operation. Findings of Fact + Overriding Considerations• Findings1. Mitigated2. In another agency’s jurisdiction, or 3. Infeasible to fully mitigate• Statement of Overriding Considerations• Promotes development and conservation consistent with the City of Suisun City and Solano County General Plans.• Strategically-located master planned complex of buildings to meet the increased demand for warehouse and distribution services in the City and region. • New local employment opportunities for existing and future residents of the City and region.• Increases the tax base of the City and includes fiscal benefits.• Ensure the permanent protection and preservation of 437 acres of open space. 21 22
341
11/14/2024
12 City of Suisun CityCity CouncilNovember 19, 2024Highway 12 Logistics CenterStaff RecommendationAnnexation AreaCity propose to LAFCO the annexation of 161 acres within the existing Sphere of Influcence to the City boundary.

PROPOSED ANNEXATION BOUNDARY23
24 342
11/14/2024
13 General Plan AmendmentThe Suisun City General Plan Map will be amended by adding 13.14 acres to the existing CMU designation.Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan Prezone•The Suisun City Zoning Map will be amended to add •63.7 acres of Commercial Services and Fabricating (CSF )•97.3 acres of Managed Open Space (OS) 25 26
343
11/14/2024
14 Conditions of Approval•Staff has prepared recommended conditions of approval for the consideration of the City Council. •These conditions are a culmination of work from the Fire Department, Development Services Department, and Public Works Department. Additionally, the Solano Irrigation District (SID) and Fairfield Suisun Sewer District (FSSD) have also provided conditions of approval. •Conditions apply in the following categories:•General•Public Works•The Project’s developer has reviewed and agreed to the conditions of approval. Project Update•Draft EIR proposed 14 mitigation measures to minimize GHG emissions.•The Applicant accepts 13 of the 14 measures, including the added costs associated with each.•Due to mobile source emissions that are primarily regulated by State and Federal actions, and truck travel including that outside the region, the Reduced Footprint Alternative GHG emissions would be Significant and Unavoidable with all mitigation.•Mitigation Measure 4.6-1n would require the purchase and retirement of GHG emissions credits.•Based on current credit costs that have shown an upward trend, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1n would add an estimated $14 million cost to the overall development costs.•Based on substantial evidence provided through evaluation of the project’s Internal Rate of Return by a third-party economic consulting firm, the added financial burden would result in the project being economically infeasible, or marginally infeasible with consideration of any bond financing. 27 28
344
11/14/2024
15 Proposed Project-related Document Modifications•The Project Applicant requests the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council consider this mitigation economically infeasible, consistent with CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a)(3), and precedent cases including •California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 981, citing CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a)(3).) •Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 600 (Uphold Our Heritage)•Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) •Others•Significant effects can be “acceptable” where agency decisionmakers conclude that a project’s economic or social benefits outweigh such significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a))•Requires two modifications to project-related documents in draft by City staff: •Remove Mitigation Measure 4.6-1n from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)•Modify the draft CEQA Findings to detail the infeasibility of this mitigation measure and finding of significance without its implementation (i.e., significant and unavoidable impact related the GHG emissions, no change from Final EIR and draft Findings)Staff RecommendationEIR Certification • Certify Final EIRGeneral Plan Amendment
• Approve amendment to General Plan MapPrezone
• Approve Prezone of zoning to be applied to annexed landsPUD • Approve PUD as land use and design standards Annexation • Recommend application to LAFCO for annexation
29 30
345
11/14/2024
16 City of Suisun CityCity CouncilNovember 19, 2024Environmental Impact ReportHighway 12 Logistics Center Additional slides only if needed31
32 346
11/14/2024
17 Additional Traffic Data• Cumulative• No project delay at SR 12/Pennsylvania is >120 seconds AM and 118 seconds PM; with Reduced Footprint Alternative and conditions, delay would be >120 seconds PM (no change) and 93 seconds PM (reduced by 25 seconds compared to no project• Similar scenario at SR 12/Beck Avenue, SR 12/Marina Boulevard, SR 12/Grizzly Island Road/Sunset Avenue, SR 12/Lawler Ranch, and Cordelia Road/Chadbourne RoadCumulative Traffic Conditions• Intersections would be below LOS thresholds under cumulative conditions with no project:• Intersection 3: SR 12/Pennsylvania Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)• Intersection 4: SR 12/Beck Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)• Intersection 5: SR 12/Marina Boulevard (AM and PM peak hours)• Intersection 6: SR 12/Grizzly Island Road/Sunset Avenue (PM peak hour)• Intersection 7: SR 12/Lawler Ranch Parkway/Emperor Drive (PM peak hour)• Intersection 12: W. Texas Street/Beck Avenue (PM peak hour)• Intersection 13: Cordelia Road/Chadbourne Road (AM and PM peak hours) 33 34
347
11/14/2024
18 Cumulative Queueing Conditions• The Reduced Project Alternative would add queues beyond storage or add more than 25 feet to locations without adequate storage. •Intersection 3, SR12/Pennsylvania Avenue: the westbound left turn lane queue in the AM peak hour would exceed available storage by ~60 feet, but excess queues use adjacent through lanes or shared through-and-turn lanes which have enough storage to absorb the excess queues.•Intersection 4, SR 12/Beck Avenue: the northbound left turn lane queue in the PM peak hour would exceed the available storage by ~50 feet, but would use adjacent northbound shared through-right lane which has storage to absorb the excess queue. •Intersection 11, W Texas Street/Pennsylvania Avenue: the westbound left turn lane queue in the PM peak hour would exceed available storage by ~10 feet, but can fit into the adjacent westbound through lane without spilling into the upstream intersection.•Intersection 14, Beck Avenue/Cadenasso Drive:the northbound left turn lane would exceed the available storage by ~10 feet in the PM peak hour, but can fit into adjacent northbound shared through-right lane without spilling into upstream intersection.Cumulative Traffic Improvements• Intersection 3: SR 12/Pennsylvania Avenue - Install a second eastbound left turn lane + optimize signal timings• Intersection 4: SR 12/Beck Avenue - optimize signal timings• Intersection 5: SR 12/Marina Boulevard - split phasing for the northbound and southbound movements and optimize signal timings• Intersection 6: SR 12/Grizzly Island Road/Sunset Avenue - modify northbound and southbound split phasing to include protected and permitted left turns and optimize signal timings• Intersection 7: SR 12/Lawler Ranch Parkway/Emperor Drive - optimize signal timings• Intersection 12: W. Texas Street/Beck Avenue - optimize signal timings• Intersection 13: Cordelia Road/Chadbourne Road – install a traffic signal 35 36
348
AGENDA ITEM NO. 22.

AGENDA TRANSMITTAL

MEETING DATE:

November 19, 2024

AGENDA ITEM:

Council Introduction and Waive Reading of Ordinance No. _____; An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Suisun City Repealing and Replacing Section 2.08.110 (Power of Appointment) of Chapter 2.08 (City Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Suisun City Municipal Code with Section 2.28.020 (Power of Appointment).

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to the modifications to Chapter 2.08.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Provide Good Governance - Continuously improve the City’s governance process.

BACKGROUND:

The relevant section of the City of Suisun City’s Municipal Code Section 2.08.110 was originally enacted in 1967 and revised in 1985 to limit the authority of the City Manager to appoint, remove, promote, or demote department heads without prior approval by the City Council. On October 15, 2024, the City Council adopted the revised Council’s Norms & Procedures. Section 1.4 of the Council Norms & Procedures provides the City Manager shall appoint, remove, promote, and demote any and all officers and employees of the City except for the City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Treasurer without prior approval of the City Council. This Ordinance will make the Suisun Municipal Code consistent with the City Council Norms and Procedures.

STAFF REPORT:

Under the City Manager form of government (Government Code §§ 34851- 34859), the City Manager has the power to:

Administer the day-to-day affairs of the City;
Hire and fire City employees (except for the City Attorney and certain appointed positions); and Perform such other functions as the Council chooses to authorize by Ordinance.

Government Code § 34856 provides the City Manager may appoint and dismiss the Chief of Police and other subordinate appointive officers and employees except for the City Attorney. When City Clerk and City Treasurer's offices are appointed, appointments to such offices shall be made by the City Council unless the City Council vests such appointing power in the City Manager by Ordinance.

Government Code § 36506 further provides that the City Council shall fix the compensation for all appointed officers and employees.

The City of Suisun City Municipal Code § 2.08.100 does grant to the City Manager the authority to control, order, and give directions to all department heads and to subordinate officers and employees of the City under his jurisdiction through their department heads but makes the appointment, removal, promotion or demotion of department heads subject to City Council approval. This contradicts the Council’s Norms & Procedures and the statutory governance of a general law city.

The uniform practice among cities is that the city manager has the authority to hire and fire department heads, subject to personnel rules and federal and state labor laws. This ensures the smooth operations of the city. If the city council has concerns about the hiring and firing of department heads. In that case, 349
the city council’s control is through the personnel evaluation and hiring and firing of the city manager.

Since the City Manager and not the City Council has review authority over the performance evaluation of department heads, the City Manager is granted the authority to appoint, remove, promote, or demote department heads. The exceptions are for appointed or elected positions, namely City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Treasurer.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce and Waive the Reading of Ordinance No. _____; An Ordinance of the City Council
of Suisun City Repealing and Replacing Section 2.08.110 (Power of Appointment) of Chapter 2.08 (City Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Suisun City Municipal Code with revised Section 2.08.110 (Power of Appointment).

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
1 .

Ordinance No. ___:

Repealing and Replacing Section 2.08.110 (Power of Appointment) of Chapter 2.08 (City Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Suisun City Municipal Code with revised Section 2.08.110 (Power of Appointment). 2 .

Chapter 2.08 - City Manager
3 .

Council Norms and Procedures

PREPARED BY:

Patrick Enright, City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:

Bret Prebula, City Manager
APPROVED BY:

Bret Prebula, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Section 2.08.110
(Power of Appointment) of Chapter 2.08 (City
Manager) of Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Suisun City Municipal Code with revised Section 2.08.110

2. Chapter 208 - City Manager

3. Council Norms and Procedures
350
-1-
13152-0001\3036774v1.doc
ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUISUN CITY, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 2.08.110 (POWER OF APPOINTMENT) OF CHAPTER 2.08 (CITY MANAGER) OF THE CITY OF SUISUN CITY MUNICIPAL CODE WITH SECTION 2.08.110 (CITY MANAGER POWER OF

APPOINTMENT)
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.08 (City Manager) of the City of Suisun City Municipal Code was written and established in 1964; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Section 2.08.110 to be consistent with the Council Norms adopted on October 15, 2024; and WHEREAS, Section 2.08.110 of the City of Suisun City’s Municipal Code will be amended to reflect that the City Manager may appoint, remove, promote or demote department heads, except for City Clerk, City Attorney and City Treasurer without the prior approval of the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUISUN CITY AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Chapter 2.08.110 (Power of Appointment) is repealed and replaced with the following:
“2.08.110 - Power of Appointment
It shall be the duty of the city manager and shall have the power to appoint, remove, promote and demote any and all officers and employees of the city, except the city clerk, city attorney, and city treasurer, subject to personnel ordinances, rules and regulations.”
Section 3. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds, in the exercise of its independent judgment and analysis, that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to the General Rule (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)) because this Ordinance merely updates administrative regulations regarding the City Manager’s powers and duties. The amendments herein clarify administrative regulations and will not result in any changes to the physical environment. As such, the City Council finds, consistent with City staff’s conclusion, that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Municipal Code text amendments may have a significant effect on the environment. Staff is hereby directed to prepare and file a notice of exemption pursuant to Guidelines Section 15062.
351
-2-
13152-0001\3036774v1.doc
Section 4. Effects of Amendments. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Ordinance, all other provisions of Chapter 2.08 of the City of Suisun Municipal Code remain the same.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.

Section 6. Certification and Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause same to be published pursuant to state law within fifteen (15) days after its passage, and this Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Suisun City, California, on this ___ day of December, 2024. ________________________________
Alma Hernandez, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Patrick Enright, City Attorney
352
-3-
13152-0001\3036774v1.doc

CERTIFICATION
I, Anita Skinner, City Clerk of the City of Suisun City, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the said City Council held on November 19, 2024, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on December 3, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: _________________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers: _________________________________________ ABSENT: Councilmembers: _________________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: _________________________________________ WITNESS my hand and the seal of said City this ____ day of December 2024. _____________________________
Anita Skinner, City Clerk
353
354
355
356
357
358

01107.0012/1002427.7

SUISUN CITY COUNCIL:

Mayor Alma Hernandez
Mayor Pro Tem Princess Washington
Councilmember Jenalee Dawson
Councilmember Amit Pal
Councilmember Marlon Osum

ORIGINAL ADOPTION:

July 30, 2019

AMENDED:

FEBRUARY 18, 2020
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
JULY 19, 2022
OCTOBER 15, 2024

359

01107.0012/1002427.7
i

SUISUN CITY COUNCIL NORMS & PROCEDURES
Table of Contents
Section 1. GENERAL....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose. ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Code of Conduct............................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Overview of Council responsibilities. ............................................................................................ 1

1.4 Overview of City Manager responsibilities. .................................................................................. 3

1.5 Annual Review. ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.6 Ralph M. Brown Act. ..................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION ...................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Mayor Pro Tem Selection Process. ............................................................................................... 3

2.2 Duties of the Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Mayor .................................................................................... 4

2.3 Appointment of a Council Vacancy. .............................................................................................. 4 SECTION 3. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ....................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Attendance. ................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Correspondence. ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Regional Boards, Committees and Ad Hocs .................................................................................. 5

3.4 Distribution of Information. .......................................................................................................... 5

3.5 Reimbursement............................................................................................................................. 5

3.6 Ethics and Sexual Harassment Prevention & Education Training. ................................................ 6

3.7 City Seal. ........................................................................................................................................ 6

3.8 Use of City Email and Social Media. .............................................................................................. 6

3.9 Compensation. .............................................................................................................................. 7 SECTION 4. COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP WITH STAFF ........................................................................................ 7

4.1 City Manager. ................................................................................................................................ 7

4.2 Agenda Item Questions. ................................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Individual Council Member’s Requests. ........................................................................................ 8 SECTION 5. PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES ..................... 8

5.1 Definitions of Various City Bodies, including Task Forces, Committees, Ad Hocs, Commissions, and Boards. ............................................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Recruitment and Appointment Process. ....................................................................................... 9

5.3 Requirement for Appointment. .................................................................................................. 10

5.4 Council Notification. .................................................................................................................... 10

5.5 Incumbents. ................................................................................................................................ 10 360

01107.0012/1002427.7
ii

5.6 Attendance. ................................................................................................................................. 10

5.7 Norms and Procedures and Conflicts of Interest. ....................................................................... 10

5.8 Conflicts with Federal, State or Local Law. ................................................................................. 11 SECTION 6. MEETINGS ................................................................................................................................ 11

6.1 Open to Public. ............................................................................................................................ 11

6.2 Broadcasting of City Council Meetings. ...................................................................................... 11

6.3 Regular Meetings. ....................................................................................................................... 12

6.4 Cancelling Meetings. ................................................................................................................... 12

6.5 Special Meetings. ........................................................................................................................ 12

6.6 Closed Sessions. .......................................................................................................................... 12

6.7 Quorum. ...................................................................................................................................... 13

6.8 Minutes. ...................................................................................................................................... 13

6.9 Adjourned Meetings. .................................................................................................................. 13 SECTION 7. POSTING NOTICE AND AGENDA ............................................................................................... 13

7.1 Posting of Notice and Agenda. .................................................................................................... 13 SECTION 8. AGENDA CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. 13

8.1 Mayor’s Responsibility. ............................................................................................................... 13

8.2 Availability to the Public ad Description of Matters. .................................................................. 14

8.3 Limitation to Act Only on Items on the Agenda.......................................................................... 14

8.4 Order and Timing of Agenda – Regular Meeting. ....................................................................... 14

8.5 Order of Agenda – Special Meeting – Closed Session. ............................................................... 14

8.6 Change in Order of Business. ...................................................................................................... 14

8.7 Agenda Request Policy. ............................................................................................................... 14

8.8 Presentations. ............................................................................................................................. 15

8.9 Proclamations. ............................................................................................................................ 15 SECTION 9. PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS ........................................................ 15

9.1 Rules of Order. ............................................................................................................................ 15

9.2 Appeal Procedures. ..................................................................................................................... 15

9.3 Applicants. ................................................................................................................................... 16

9.4 Staff and Consultant Reports. ..................................................................................................... 16

9.5 Public Comment. ......................................................................................................................... 16

9.6 Council Member Respect. ........................................................................................................... 16 SECTION 10. CLOSED SESSIONS .................................................................................................................. 17

10.1 Purpose. ...................................................................................................................................... 17

10.2 Rule of Confidentiality. ............................................................................................................... 17 361

01107.0012/1002427.7
iii

10.3 Breach of Rule of Confidentiality. ............................................................................................... 17

10.4 Agenda. ....................................................................................................................................... 17

10.5 Permissible Topics. ...................................................................................................................... 17

10.6 Rules of Decorum. ....................................................................................................................... 18

10.7 Conduct of Meeting. ................................................................................................................... 18

10.8 Public Disclosure After Final Action. ........................................................................................... 18 SECTION 11. DECORUM .............................................................................................................................. 18

11.1 Council Members. ....................................................................................................................... 18

11.2 City Employees. ........................................................................................................................... 18

11.3 Public. .......................................................................................................................................... 19

11.4 Noise in the Chambers. ............................................................................................................... 19

11.5 Removal. ..................................................................................................................................... 19

11.6 Dangerous Instruments. ............................................................................................................. 19 SECTION 12. ENFORCEMENT OF DECORUM ............................................................................................... 19 SECTION 13. PUBLIC RELATIONS ................................................................................................................. 20

13.1 City Spokesperson. ...................................................................................................................... 20

13.2 Press Release............................................................................................................................... 20 SECTION 14. MAYOR’S OFFICE .................................................................................................................... 20 SECTION 15. VIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURES ............................................................................................... 20

362

01107.0012/1002427.7
1 SUISUN CITY COUNCIL

NORMS & PROCEDURES
Section 1. GENERAL

1.1 Purpose.

The purpose of these Norms and Procedures is to promote communication, understanding, fairness, and trust among the members of the City Council and staff concerning their roles, responsibilities, and expectations for management of the business of the City of Suisun City.

In the interest of promoting best practices in our local government as Municipal Legislators, this document will include operational procedures, policies, and practices.

1.2 Code of Conduct.

The residents and businesses of Suisun City are entitled to have a fair, ethical and accountable local government, which has earned the public’s full confidence for integrity. The effective function of our democratic government by law requires that:
 Our public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operations of government,  Our public officials will be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and action,  We will ensure the public office be used for the public good, and not for personal gain,  Public deliberations and processes will be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility, and
 Legally confidential discussions in closed sessions shall remain confidential to protect the City from liability and the processes of city governance.

In addition to the legal commitments noted above, the City of Suisun City Council agrees to the following governing norms:
 Be transparent and authentic; say what you mean and mean what you say.  Afford each council member the time and opportunity to share their interest, and refrain from dominating the discussion.
 Be cooperative and assume one another’s good intentions.  Work as a team on behalf of the community, and not as competitors.  Respect the Council / Manager form of government, including not directing staff.  Following a council vote, support the decision of the body.  No personal attacks or profanity.

1.3 Overview of Council responsibilities.

Suisun City is a California General Law city with a council/manager form of government. The City Council, which is elected directly by city voters, is assisted by a number of appointed and separately elected officials to provide services for City residents. The City Council has the following duties and responsibilities:

363

01107.0012/1002427.7
2 (a) Appointment of the City Manager and City Attorney. The City Council shall appoint the City Manager and the City Attorney. The City Manager shall implement City Council policy and run day-to-day operations of Suisun City. The City Attorney shall provide legal advice and act as counsel to elected officials and city staff in adherence to all federal, state and local laws pertaining to city operations and public policy. There should be an annual review for the City Manager and the City Attorney.

The City Manager’s annual review shall follow closely the format included in the City Manager’s contract and include goals for the next period. Less formal evaluations may take place quarterly or every six months at the pleasure of the Council. A separate procedure will be established for this evaluation.

The City Attorney’s annual review shall be at a format proposed by the Mayor and agreed upon by the Council informally.

The Mayor at his/her discretion may annually create an ad hoc to oversee annual review process and prepare a summary evaluation.

(b) Establishment of boards, commissions, and committees (each a “City Body” and together “City Bodies”). With the consent of the Council, the Mayor may establish City Bodies.

(c) Legislative decisions. The Council is the legislative body; its members are the community’s decision makers. Power is centralized in the elected City Council collectively and not in individual members of the Council. The City Council approves the budget and determines the public services. It focuses on the community’s goals, major projects and such long term considerations as community growth, financing and strategic planning. The City Council hires a professional City Manager to carry out administrative responsibilities and the City Council collectively supervises the City Manager’s performance.

(d) Legislative Advocacy. The City Council, as the governing body, should develop where possible, with or without the assistance of outside professionals, a state and federal legislative platform. This platform shall be the guiding principles, which the City Council and City Manager use to advocate for the needs of Suisun City. From time to time, support or opposition letters or actions may be needed from the City, and often such action is required in short order, thereby preventing review by the full City Council. In such cases the following shall be the process:
i. When a letter or action is needed to request funding for Suisun City, the Mayor shall have the authority to sign such a letter or provide such direction.
ii. If the letter or action is to support or oppose a specific state or federal action or legislation, the proposed Suisun City position must be taken to a smaller body, such as a legislative subcommittee of the City Council comprised of the Mayor and one other City Council Member. 364

01107.0012/1002427.7
3 iii. The additional subcommittee member is appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the Council consent. This appointment shall be made in December of each year for the following 12 months.

1.4 Overview of City Manager responsibilities.

The City Manager is hired to serve the City Council and the community and to bring the benefits of education, training and experience in administering the City’s projects, programs, and public services on behalf of the City Council. The City Manager follows the direction of the entire City Council and not individual members of the Council or the public, and serves at the sole discretion of the Council.

As the City’s Chief Executive Officer, the City Manager oversees:
 Department heads and department operations
 Budget development and fiscal management
 Policy implementation
 Personnel administration and human resources
 Labor relations
 Intergovernmental relations
 Service delivery
 Elected official support
 A variety of special projects and assignments

The City Manager appoints, removes, promotes, and demotes any and all officers and employees of the city except the City Clerk, City Attorney, and City Treasurer.

Among the chief duties, the City Manager will implement the Council’s policies, projects, programs, and public services in an effective and efficient manner, providing professional advice on policy matters, intergovernmental affairs, economic development, and environmental issues.

1.5 Annual Review.

The City Council shall conduct a review of this document annually within three months prior to the start of a new fiscal year, or whenever Council deems necessary, to assist Council Members in being more productive in management of the business of the City.

1.6 Ralph M. Brown Act.

All conduct of each City Body, as well as Task Forces and Ad Hocs shall be in full compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

SECTION 2. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION

2.1 Mayor Pro Tem Selection Process.

In December of each year, the Mayor shall select and appoint a Mayor Pro Tem, with consent of the City Council, from among all the members of the Council, irrespective of whether they were elected or appointed. Selection and appointment shall be at the first meeting of a new term following each General Municipal Election or at the first meeting in December during non- 365

01107.0012/1002427.7
4 election years. For all intents and purposes, the title Mayor Pro Tem and Vice Mayor are used interchangeably. The term of the appointment shall be for a 12-month period commencing on January 1st of each year, unless otherwise provided for by majority vote of the Council.

2.2 Duties of the Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Mayor
The Vice Mayor remains as one member of the City Council and has no rights or authority different from any other member of the Council. The Vice Mayor is the designated individual to represent the Mayor and perform any duties as required when the Mayor is unavailable. If the Mayor will be unavailable for an extended period of time, the Mayor shall provide notification to the Vice Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk, in addition to outlining any additional duties.

2.3 Appointment of a Council Vacancy.

In the event of a vacancy of office on the happening of any of the events provided in Government Code section 1770, the Council shall appoint a new Council Member,, within sixty (60) days after a vacancy or death or resignation becomes effective in compliance with the California Elections Code, unless the Council, by resolution, decides to instead call a special election. In the event of appointment, the Mayor, with the consent of the Council, shall determine by resolution the process for appointment prior to the application process and in accordance with State law.

SECTION 3. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

3.1 Attendance.

City Council Members acknowledge that attendance at lawful meetings of the City Council is part of their official duty. Council Members shall make a good faith effort to attend all such meetings unless unable. Council Members will notify the Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk, if they will be absent from a meeting.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36513, “if a city councilmember is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 60 days consecutively from the last regular meeting he or she attended, his or her office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy.”

3.2 Correspondence.

With some exceptions, proposed correspondence (including electronic) from individual Council Members/Mayor on City stationery shall be reviewed by the Council in draft form prior to release.

The City will provide stationary designated as “The Office of” for each member of the Council to use for correspondence as it relates to each Council Member’s elected position (e.g., thank you notes, letters of recommendation, direct communication to residents or businesses, etc.). This letterhead will have the same information as provided on their business card. Any views expressed in this correspondence (including electronic) are solely the Council Member’s own and do not represent the City's or the Council's views.

E-mails from Council Members should be respectful and professional. This form of correspondence is a public record subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. 366

01107.0012/1002427.7
5 3.3 Regional Boards, Committees and Ad Hocs
The role of the Council on regional boards will vary depending on the nature of the appointment.

Representing the interests of Suisun City is appropriate on some boards; this is generally the case when other local governments have their own representation. The positions taken by the appointed representatives are to be in alignment with the positions that the Council has taken on issues that directly impact Suisun City. If an issue should arise that is specific to Suisun City and the Council has not taken a position, the issue should be discussed by the Council prior to taking a formal position at a regional board meeting, to assure that it is in alignment with a majority of the Council’s position.

Council representatives to such various boards shall keep the Council informed of ongoing business through written reports to the Council during properly posted Council meetings. City Council Members shall report to the Mayor and City Manager, through an electronic means created and provided to the City Council members, any updates to the City Council and public, related to work as liaisons on Regional Boards, Commissions, Committees, or Ad Hoc Committees. These updates must be completed by 5 p.m. PST, the Wednesday before each City Council meeting. There may be weeks when no update is necessary, which should be noted in the document.

Council Members shall make a good faith effort to attend all regional meetings to which they are assigned. Attendance should not be less than 75% of all annual scheduled meetings and all absences should be reported to the Mayor. If a Council Member is unable to attend, the Council Member shall notify his/her alternate as far in advance of the meeting as possible so as to allow the alternate to attend.

A list of these assignments is maintained by the Deputy City Clerk and will be distributed to the Council when updated.

3.4 Distribution of Information.

It is essential that every member of the City Council have the same information from which to form decisions and actions. Any information distributed to one Council Member shall also be distributed to all Council Members.

The Mayor, by virtue of the position, may receive information in advance of other members of the Council in order for the City Manager to effectively proceed with the day-to-day operation of the City. The City Manager will make every effort to disseminate this information to the remaining members of the Council prior to the next City Council meeting or before the information becomes public, whether through the City Manager Weekly Update or at the City Manager’s meetings with individual Council Members.

3.5 Reimbursement.

Every effort shall be made to limit the need to reimburse Council Members for expenses. City Council Members may be reimbursed for personal expenses for travel to and lodging at conferences or meetings related to their role as a Council Member. The reimbursement of expenses is limited in the following manner: Members shall be reimbursed subject to the 367

01107.0012/1002427.7
6 Administrative Directive related to travel expense (AD1.) Any additional expenses that fall outside the scope of this policy may be reimbursed only if approved by the City Council, at a public meeting, before the expenses are incurred. Any request for reimbursement of expenses shall be accompanied by an expense form and receipts documenting the expenditure. These documents are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

3.6 Ethics and Sexual Harassment Prevention & Education Training.

Any member of the City Council or another City Body, Task Force or Ad Hoc formed by the City Council, shall receive at least two hours of ethics training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to his/her public service every two years, as mandated by AB 1234, and at least two hours of sexual harassment prevention training, as mandated by AB 1661. New members must receive this training within their first year of service for ethics and six months for sexual harassment prevention training and education, and file a certificate of completion with the Deputy City Clerk. Members shall attend training sessions that are offered through the League of California Cities or locally in the immediate vicinity of Solano County, or by completing online a state-approved public service ethics education program.

An individual who serves on multiple legislative bodies need only receive two hours of each training every two years to satisfy this requirement for all applicable public service positions. If the City offers either course, the City will use a course that has been reviewed and approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission and the California Secretary of State.

The Deputy City Clerk is required to keep ethics training records for five years to document and prove that these continuing education requirements have been satisfied. These documents are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

3.7 City Seal
The City Seal is an important symbol of Suisun City. No change to the City Seal shall be made without Council approval. Individual Council Members shall be careful in use of the City Seal so as not to create an appearance that the Council Member is acting on behalf of or with official endorsement of Suisun City.

The City Seal and any City Insignia shall only be used for purposes directly connected with the official business of the City of Suisun City, its City Council, boards and commissions, committees, officers or departments, except upon written authorization of the City Manager or his or her designee. City officers, employees, members of the City Council and members of City boards, commissions and committees may use stationary, printed materials and other articles with the City Seal or City Insignia while acting within the scope of their office or employment.

3.8 Use of City Email and Social Media.

Except for emergencies, public officials who are not City employees (“public officials”) conducting City business should not create any “public record” (as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 7920.530 by using any email account that is not a City email account, or by using any non-City-controlled social media account. Instead, public officials should use a City email or City-controlled social media account for City business. 368

01107.0012/1002427.7
7 Nothing in this policy is intended to limit a public official’s use of private email and social media accounts for non-City business such as personal communications and campaign related activities.

For purposes of this policy “City-controlled social media account” is an account on a social media platform (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) that is created and used by the City (e.g. the City’s official Facebook page, if any).

Use of City Electronic Devices. In general, when creating or modifying public records in the conduct of City business on an electronic device that can create and modify public records (e.g. computers, mobile phones, tablets), public officials should only use City-issued devices. However, public officials may use non-City electronic devices to access an official City account, such as City email and City-controlled social media accounts.

Exception: If using a City electronic device is clearly impractical or if a public official has not been issued or does not have in the public official’s possession a City electronic device, a public official may use a non-City device, but only if a copy of each affected public record is contemporaneously copied to a City account of that same public official, or to the related City-controlled social media account, or a hard copy is provided to the City for retention in City records.

Texting Only on City Devices. Except for emergencies or when communicating with the City Attorney’s Office, public officials conducting City business shall not send or receive texts on any device other than a City owned device. In an emergency, a public official may use a non-City device to text, but only if a copy of any public record that is created as a result is contemporaneously copied to a City account of that same public official, or a hard copy is provided to the City for retention in City records.

3.9 Compensation.

The Mayor and Council members are compensated in accordance with California Government Code Sections 36516 and 36516.1. The amount is memorialized in the City’s Municipal Code.

SECTION 4. COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP WITH STAFF

Suisun City is a Council/ Manager form of government. The Council establishes policy and the City Manager and their staff implement that policy. To effectively govern and maintain a healthy and productive relationship between City Council and all City Staff, the Council and staff alike must respect and abide by the roles and responsibilities of each and commit to work through the City Manager.

4.1 City Manager.

The City Manager serves as the City’s chief executive officer. They implement Council policy, provide professional recommendations and guidance to the Council, direct, supervise and manage all City staff, and manage day-to-day operations. The City Manager may delegate this responsibility to Department Heads, at their discretion.

369

01107.0012/1002427.7
8 City Council Members are always free to go to the City Manager to discuss City business. Issues concerning the performance of a department or any employee must be directed to the City Manager. The City Manager will be responsible for communicating with all Council Members.

4.2 Agenda Item Questions.

Council members are to work through the City Manager or City Attorney on all issues, concerns and questions. If a Council Member has a question on an agenda item, the Council Member should contact the City Manager, if at all possible, prior to any meeting at which the item may be discussed, to allow the City Manager and their staff time to provide the most complete answer to the Council Member’s question. This does not restrict Council Members from asking questions during a Council meeting.

4.3 Individual Council Member’s Requests.

Council Members shall make their requests for information to the City Manager or to a Department Head including the City Manager, to respond to an individual Council Member’s request for any purpose or information..

SECTION 5. PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO

BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES

5.1 Definitions of Various City Bodies, including Task Forces, Committees, Ad Hocs, Commissions, and Boards.
(a) Task Force: A temporary grouping of individuals and resources for the accomplishment of a specific objective.

(b) Committee: A group of people officially delegated to perform a function, such as investigating, considering reporting, or acting on a matter.

(c) Ad Hoc: Committees established for a specific purpose. Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose (e.g. ad hoc compensation committee); for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application; formed or used for specific or immediate problems or needs; often improvised or impromptu; contrived purely for the purpose in hand rather than carefully planned in advance.

(d) Commission: A group of people officially authorized to perform certain duties or functions with certain powers or authority granted; the act of granting certain powers or the authority to carry out a particular task or duty; the rank and powers so conferred.

(e) Board: A group of persons having managerial, supervisory, or advisory powers. In parliamentary law, a board is a form of deliberative assembly and is distinct from a committee, which is usually subordinate to a board or other deliberative assembly – in having greater autonomy and authority.

370

01107.0012/1002427.7
9 5.2 Recruitment, Nomination and Appointment Process.
(a) On or before December 31st of each year, the Deputy City Clerk shall prepare and post a list of all Council-appointed terms of City Bodies that expire during the next calendar year in compliance with Government Code Section 54972.
(b) The Deputy City Clerk shall annually advertise for applicants wishing to be considered for appointment to a City Body. All persons seeking appointment to a City Body must complete and submit an application form to the Deputy City Clerk. (c) Annually and if an unscheduled vacancy occurs on a City Body during the year, the following steps should be taken to publicize the vacancy and fill the position:

1. Public announcement of the vacancy at a Council meeting.

2. Newspaper advertisement announcing the vacancy.

3. A recruitment period of at least ten (10) days.

4. A vacancy notice posted at City Hall, the Nelson Center, and on the City’s website for at least 20 days.

5. Announcements in the local media, such a press releases , online news outlets and free weekly sales papers.

6. Distribution to appropriate professional and community organizations and all groups that have requested notification.

(d) All persons seeking appointment to a City board, commission or committee shall complete and submit an application form to the City Clerk as set forth in Section 5.6.

Applications shall be kept on file for two years in the City Clerk’s office and vacancies may be considered from the applications on file, as well as new applications.

(e) Each year, the Mayor shall appoint a two-member Ad Hoc Committee to be known as the Nominating Committee, which committee shall review all applications and interview selected applicants and, based on those efforts, shall make recommendations to the Mayor for appointments to the open positions ensuring that all recommendations meet the requirements of the City Body to which they are recommended for appointment. The Mayor may then, pursuant to Government Code Section 40605, appoint the applicants suggested by the Nominating Committee, choose to appoint another applicant from the pool of applicants, or nominate and appoint another person of their choosing, so long as the appointee meets the requirements of the City Body to which they would be appointed. All appointments to City Bodies must be approved by the City Council.

(f) If a vacancy occurs outside of the annual recruitment cycle, the Mayor may appoint from the previous recommendation of the Nominating Committee or from the existing applications already on file if there is more than four (4) months remaining on the vacant seat. If there are less than four month remaining, the Mayor may elect not to fill that seat and wait for the annual recruitment process, unless there is an urgent reason to appointment immediately such as need for a quorum. The Mayor may also request that a midyear recruitment be conducted to fill the vacancy if needed.

371

01107.0012/1002427.7
10 5.3 Requirement for Appointment.
(a) Any person appointed to a City Commission must be a resident of Suisun City. Should any person so appointed move from the City during their term of office, such office shall be forfeited.

(b) Any person appointed to any City Body other than a City Commission must be one of the following: 1) a resident of Suisun City, 2) a majority owner of a business located in Suisun City at the time of their appointment and shall remain so throughout their term of appointment, or 3) a subject matter expert on issues pertaining to the work of the City Body to which the person is appointed. Should any person appointed as a resident of Suisun City move from the City, or appointed as a business owner in Suisun City no longer hold majority ownership of that business, such office shall be forfeited.

(c) Except as provided by state or local statute, the appointee shall not be a current City employee or currently appointed to another City Body.

5.4 Council Notification.

By October 1 of each year, the Deputy City Clerk will notify all members of the City Council of expiring terms for members of City Bodies.

5.5 Incumbents.
(a) At the end of the first term, the incumbent City Body member may, at the discretion of the Mayor, be reappointed for an additional term without the need to apply or interview for re-appointment. In lieu of an application, the member shall submit to the Deputy City Clerk a letter or email expressing interest in re-appointment 60 days prior to the expiration of the member’s first term.

(b) Any incumbent interested in re-appointment who has served two or more terms must apply for reappointment as set forth in Section 5.2.

5.6 Attendance.
(a) Members of City Bodies are expected to regularly attend and participate on their respective City Body.

(b) All absences should be reported to the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk in advance of missing the meeting.

(c) A board, commission or committee member whose attendance is less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the required meetings over a period of a year may be subject to removal at the discretion of the City Council.

5.7 Norms and Procedures and Conflicts of Interest.
(a) All City Body members shall be expected to adhere to the Council Norms and Procedures.

372

01107.0012/1002427.7
11 (b) All City Body members shall comply with all state and local laws with respect to ethics and conflicts of interests to the extent that such laws apply to their position, including state and local requirements to timely file Statements of Economic Disclosure if the member is designated as a filer by state law or by the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

(c) The City Council may by majority vote expel a member from any City Body for behavior that violates a provision of these Norms and Procedures.

(d) City Body members shall not engage in political activity in any of the following scenarios:

1. While on duty for the City.

2. In any manner that states or implies the City official is speaking on behalf of the City or communicating a City position. This may include but is not limited to engaging in political activity in the following scenarios:
a. While wearing a City uniform or official City badge, insignia or logo;
b. Using a City title or position; or
c. While in a room or building that is owned by the City or primarily paid for or used by the City.
“Political activity” means activity directed at the success or failure of any ballot measure or candidate for elective office in a future election and includes but is not limited to: endorsing a candidate; engaging in fundraising; developing, displaying, or distributing campaign materials; conducting research; or posting comments on social media or other Internet sites. Political activities include advocating for or against any license, permit, land use licenses and permits and any other entitlements as defined in Government Code section 84308.

5.8 Conflicts with Federal, State or Local Law.

In case of a conflict between this section of the Norms and Procedure policy with federal, state or local law, such federal, state or local law shall be the controlling factor.

SECTION 6. MEETINGS

6.1 Open to Public.

All meetings of the City Council whether regular, special, or study sessions, shall be open to the public, unless a closed session is held as authorized by law. All meetings shall be noticed as required to allow action to be taken by the Council.

6.2 Broadcasting of City Council Meetings.

All regular Council meetings shall be scheduled in the Council Chambers to allow for web streaming, unless the number of participants exceeds room capacity. The final decision shall be the responsibility of the Mayor.
373

01107.0012/1002427.7
12 6.3 Regular Meetings.

At the first regular meeting in January, the City Council will approve the schedule of meetings for the calendar year, which in addition to the regular meeting schedule, may include the cancellation of regular meetings and the addition of special meetings and study sessions. This practice does not, however, preclude the Mayor from calling additional meetings pursuant to Section 6.5, if necessary.

The City Council shall convene its regular City Council meetings at 6:30 p.m. on the first and third Tuesday of each month. However, each Tuesday is a regular meeting day if necessary to carry out the business of the city and Council members should be prepared to meet on any Tuesday evening.

The City Council hopes to conclude its public business at Regular Meetings by 10:00 p.m. Before an item can be taken up past 10:00 p.m., a vote must occur to continue the meeting. The meeting will only continue if a super majority of the City Council approves such an action. If the decision is to not continue, all remaining agenda items will be moved to the next regular City Council meeting.

6.4 Cancelling Meetings.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36805, City Council shall hold a Regular Meeting at least once each month. Outside of this provision, the Mayor may cancel no more than four (4) Regular Meetings at his/her discretion no less than 7 days before the planned meeting. The Mayor may cancel a meeting at any time in the case of an emergency or when a majority of members have confirmed their unavailability to attend a meeting.

6.5 Special Meetings.

A special meeting may be called at any time by the Mayor or by a majority of the City Council in accordance with the Brown Act. Written notice of any such meeting must specify the purpose of the meeting. Notice of the meeting must be given at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting in accordance with law. Public comments at special meetings shall be limited to only those items described on the special meeting notice/agenda.

The City Council may hold study sessions or joint meetings with other City Bodies or agencies as deemed necessary to resolve City business. These meetings will be coordinated by the Deputy City Clerk. Study sessions are scheduled to provide Council Members the opportunity to better understand a particular item. While Council may legally take action at any noticed meeting, generally no formal action is taken at study sessions. If action is to be taken at a study session, then the agenda will state that action may be taken.

6.6 Emergency Meetings.

An emergency meeting may be called at any time by the Mayor or by a majority of the City Council in accordance with the Brown Act when an emergency situation, as defined by law, exists. In such circumstances, the 24 hour notice necessary for a special meeting is not required, although one-hour telephone notice to the media may be required.

374

01107.0012/1002427.7
13 6.7 Closed Sessions.
(a) The City Council may hold closed sessions at any time authorized by law (and in consultation with the City Attorney), to consider or hear any matter, which is authorized by law.

The Mayor or any three Council Members may call a closed session meeting at any time.

(b) In order for three Council Members to call a closed session the following procedure shall be followed. A Council Member shall email or call a meeting with the City Manager or the City Attorney outlining the desire and reason a closed session should be called. The City Manager or City Attorney will interview other Council Members as to their desire to hold such a closed session. If two other Council Members agree that a closed session is warranted, a closed session will be agendized as soon as practicable at a date and time acceptable to the Council Members requesting the closed session.

6.8 Quorum.

Three (3) members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum and shall be sufficient to transact business. If fewer than three Council Members appear at a regular meeting, the Mayor, Vice Mayor in the absence of the Mayor, any Council Member in the absence of the Mayor and Vice Mayor, or in the absence of all Council Members, the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk, shall adjourn the meeting to a stated day and hour.

6.9 Minutes.

The City Clerk shall prepare minutes of all public meetings of the City Council. Electronic copies will be distributed to the Council for review prior to being placed on the City Council agenda for approval.

6.10 Adjourned Meetings.

The City Council may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special, or closed session meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment and permitted by law.

SECTION 7. POSTING NOTICE AND AGENDA

7.1 Posting of Notice and Agenda.

For every regular, special, or study session meeting, the City Clerk or other authorized person shall post a notice of the meeting, specifying the time and place at which the meeting will be held, and an agenda containing a brief description of all items of business to be discussed at the meeting. This notice and agenda may be combined in a single document. Posting is to be according to law.

SECTION 8. AGENDA CONTENTS

8.1 Mayor’s Responsibility.

The Mayor is responsible for running a timely and orderly meeting. If the Mayor is unavailable to run a Council meeting, the Vice Mayor shall run the meeting. The Mayor, in consultation with the City Manager or his/her designee, shall organize the agenda and agenda forecast. The agenda forecast will be distributed with the City Manager’s report. 375

01107.0012/1002427.7
14 8.2 Availability to the Public ad Description of Matters.

The agenda for any regular, special, or study session meeting of the City Council shall be made available to the general public and all items of business to be discussed at a meeting of the City Council shall be briefly described on the agenda in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

8.3 Limitation to Act Only on Items on the Agenda.

No action shall be taken by the City Council on any item not on the posted agenda, subject only to the exceptions listed below:

(a) Upon a majority determination that an “emergency situation” (as defined by State Law) exists; or

(b) Upon determination by a 4/5 vote of the full City Council, or a unanimous vote if less than a full Council, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need to take the action came to the attention of the City Council subsequent to posting of the agenda.

8.4 Order and Timing of Agenda – Regular Meeting.

The prescribed order of the agenda for Regular Meetings of the Council will be as follows: Roll Call, Public Comment if a Closed Session is scheduled, Closed Session, Adjourn to Open Session, Pledge of Allegiance, Invocation, Conflict of Interest Notifications, Closed Session Announcement, if any, Informational Reports (City Manager/City Attorney), Presentations/ Appointments, Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda, Council Comment, Consent Calendar, Public Hearings, General Business Items, Non-presented Reports, and Adjournment.

The Mayor may "time" the agenda in a way that suggests how much time should be committed to any item such that the meeting may end at the established time.

8.5 Order of Agenda – Special Meeting – Closed Session.

The prescribed order of the agenda for a Special Meeting – Closed Session of the Council will be as follows: Roll Call, Public Comment, Conflict of Interest Notifications, Closed Session, Closed Session Announcement if any, and Adjournment.

8.6 Change in Order of Business.

The Mayor may decide to take matters listed on the agenda out of the prescribed order, and Council Members may make such a request. Council Members shall be given the opportunity to ask questions about Consent Items for clarification without having them removed.

8.7 Agenda Request Policy.

Requests for placement of items on the agenda can be submitted to the Mayor or City Manager at any time. The Mayor and City Manager will review the request and determine appropriate timing to bring the item forth.

Also, any member of the Council may request that an item be placed on a future agenda by indicating their desire to do so under the Council Member Report portion of the City Council 376

01107.0012/1002427.7
15 agenda. The request will require the consensus of the Council to have the item brought back at a certain time versus at the pleasure of the Mayor or City Manager.

8.8 Presentations.

Presentations are put on the agenda with concurrence of the Mayor or City Manager. The Mayor or City Manager will use their best judgment on scheduling presentations and recognitions. Time limits shall normally be 5 minutes. Presentations may be extended by special circumstances as needed. Exceptions can be made at the Mayor’s discretion.

8.9 Proclamations.

Requests for proclamations may be submitted to the Mayor at any time. The Mayor has full discretion in creating proclamations and issuing special recognitions on behalf of the City and the full City Council.

Council Members other than the Mayor may each create two proclamations and issue two special recognitions per calendar year to be presented on behalf of that Council Member. Council Members may petition the balance of the Council to be permitted to create additional proclamations or issue additional special recognitions if so desired.

To ensure Council Meeting efficiency, a maximum of three proclamations and two special recognitions may be presented at any regular meeting of the City Council. The meeting agenda will include proclamations and special recognitions to be presented during the council meeting, as well as a list of proclamations and special recognitions to be presented outside of the meeting, for informational purposes. Additionally, the Mayor and Council Members presenting proclamations and special recognitions may choose to read a portion of the full language of the item during the Council Meeting.

Attached hereto Appendix A, which is incorporated by reference.

SECTION 9. PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

9.1 Rules of Order.

Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, Revised 2011, govern all City Council Meetings. These Rules clearly and concisely set forth the important role of the chair (i.e., the Mayor) during a meeting; the process for making and voting on motions; the three standard motions, including the basic motion, the motion to amend, and the substitute motion; the process of debate; other procedural motions, including motions to limit debate, motions to table, and motions to adjourn.

All City Council Members are encouraged to review and familiarize themselves with the details contained in this seven-page document. A copy of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order is attached hereto and available on the City’s website.

9.2 Appeal Procedures.

Appellants shall be given the opportunity to speak first. Appellants and applicants responding to appeals may be given a total of up to 10 minutes each to present their positions to the City 377

01107.0012/1002427.7
16 Council prior to hearing public comments. Appellants shall be given up to 5 minutes of rebuttal time after public comments are heard.

9.3 Applicants.

Persons bringing to the City Council a request for approval shall be given a total of up to 10 minutes to present their positions/input prior to hearing public comments. An extension can only be granted by consent of a majority of the Council Members. Applicants shall be given up to 5 minutes of rebuttal time after public comments are heard.

9.4 Staff and Consultant Reports.

In general, staff and consultant reports should be clear, brief and concise. Staff is to assume that the Council has read all materials submitted. Council shall be given an opportunity to ask questions of staff prior to hearing public comments.

9.5 Public Comment.
(a) Persons present at meetings of the City Council, either in-person or participating remotely, may comment on individual items on the agenda at the time the items are scheduled to be heard. During Regular City Council meetings, comments may be offered on items not on the agenda under that portion of the agenda identified for Public Comment.

(b) The limit for speakers will be up to 3 minutes, depending on the number of speakers.

Speakers are not allowed to delegate their time to another speaker. The Mayor may limit the time to be spent on an item and may continue the item, with the approval of the majority of the Council, to a future meeting at his/her discretion.

(c) Upon addressing the Council, each speaker is requested, but not required, to first state his/her name, whom they represent and/or city of residence.

(d) After the speaker has completed their remarks, the Mayor may direct the City Manager or City Attorney to briefly address the issues brought forth by the speaker. Council Members shall be respectful of the speakers and shall not enter into a debate with any member of the public nor discuss amongst themselves.

(e) All Council Members shall listen to all public discussion as part of the Council’s community responsibility. Individual Council Members should remain open-minded to informational comments made by the public.

(f) The Mayor has the right to ask a member of the public to step down if over the allotted time or if the speaker’s comments are not within the city’s jurisdiction.

9.6 Council Member Respect.

At all times, Council Members in the minority on an issue shall respect the decision and authority of the majority.

378

01107.0012/1002427.7
17 SECTION 10. CLOSED SESSIONS

10.1 Purpose.

It is the policy of the City Council to conduct its business in public to the greatest extent possible.

However, state law recognizes that, in certain circumstances, public discussion could potentially jeopardize the public interest, compromise the City’s position, and could cost the taxpayers of Suisun City financially. Therefore, closed sessions shall be held from time to time as allowed by law. The procedures for the conduct of these meetings shall be the same as for public meetings, except that the public will be excluded.

Prior to convening the closed session meeting, the Mayor shall publicly announce the closed session items and ask for public input regarding any items on the closed session agenda.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54963, City Council Members shall keep all written materials and verbal information provided to them in closed session in complete confidence to insure that the City’s position is not compromised. No mention of information in these materials shall be made to anyone other than Council Members, the City Attorney or City Manager, except where authorized by a majority of the City Council.

10.2 Rule of Confidentiality.

The City Council recognizes that breaches in confidentiality can severely prejudice the City’s position in litigation, labor relations and real estate negotiations. Further, breaches of confidentiality can create a climate of distrust among Council Members and can harm the Council’s ability to communicate openly in closed sessions, thereby impairing the Council’s ability to perform its official duties.

The City Council further recognizes that confidentiality of discussions and documents are at the core of a closed session. Confidentiality is essential if the closed session is to serve its purpose.

Therefore, the City Council will adhere to a strict policy of confidentiality for closed sessions.

10.3 Breach of Rule of Confidentiality.

No person who attends a closed session may disclose any statements, discussions, or documents used in a closed session except where specifically authorized by State law. Any authorized disclosure shall be in strict compliance with these rules and the Ralph M. Brown Act. Violation of this rule shall be considered a breach of this rule of confidentiality.

10.4 Agenda.

The City Council agenda will contain a brief general description of the items to be discussed at the closed session, as required by law.

10.5 Permissible Topics.

All closed sessions will be held in strict compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. The City Attorney, or their designee, will advise in advance on topics that may be discussed in a closed session.

379

01107.0012/1002427.7
18 10.6 Rules of Decorum.

The same high standard of respect and decorum as apply to public meetings shall apply to closed sessions. There shall be courtesy, respect and tolerance for all viewpoints and for the right of Council Members to disagree. Council Members shall strive to make each other feel comfortable and safe to express their points of view. All Council Members have the right to insist upon strict adherence to this rule. The Mayor shall keep the discussion moving forward so that debate and discussion can occur in the time allotted for the closed session. The Mayor will determine the order of debate in a fair manner.

10.7 Conduct of Meeting.
(a) The Mayor will call the closed session to order promptly at its scheduled time.

(b) The use of handouts and visual aids such as charts is encouraged to focus debate and promote understanding of the topic. All such materials are strictly confidential.

(c) If the City Council in closed session has provided direction to City staff on proposed terms and conditions for any type of negotiations, whether it be related to property acquisitions or disposal, a proposed or pending claim or litigation, or employee negotiations, all contact with the other party will be through the designated City person(s) representing the City in the handling of the matter. A Council Member not so designated by the Council will not under any circumstances have any contact or discussion with the other party or its representative concerning the matter which was discussed in the closed session, and will not communicate any discussions conducted in closed session to such party.

10.8 Public Disclosure After Final Action.

The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that, as a body, the City Council make certain public disclosure of closed session decisions when those actions have become final. Accordingly, the Mayor or City Attorney shall publicly report any final action taken in closed session, and the vote, including abstentions, at a publicly noticed meeting.

The report may be oral or written. The report will state only the action taken and the vote.

Except for the action taken and the vote, all closed session discussions will remain confidential.

SECTION 11. DECORUM

11.1 Council Members.

Members of the City Council value and recognize the importance of the trust invested in them by the public to accomplish the business of the City. Council Members shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, City employees, and the public appearing before the City Council. The City Manager or his/her designee shall act as the sergeant-at-arms.

11.2 City Employees.

Members of the City staff shall observe the same rules of order and decorum applicable to the City Council. City staff shall act at all times in a business and professional manner towards Council Members and members of the public.
380

01107.0012/1002427.7
19 11.3 Public.

Members of the public attending City Council meetings shall observe the same rules of order and decorum applicable to the City Council. These Norms and Procedures shall apply to all City Council Meetings.

11.4 Noise in the Chambers.

Noise emanating from the audience, whether expressing opposition or support within the Council Chambers or lobby area, which disrupts City Council meetings, shall not be permitted. All cell phones and other electronic devices shall be muted while in the chambers. Refusal is grounds for removal.

11.5 Removal.

Any member of the public making personal, impertinent, and/or slanderous or profane remarks, or who becomes boisterous or belligerent while addressing the City Council, staff or general public, or while attending the City Council meeting and refuses to come to order at the direction of the Mayor/Presiding Officer, may be ordered by the Mayor/Presiding Officer, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.95, to be removed from the Council Chambers by the Police Chief, or his/her designee, and may be barred from further attendance before the Council during that meeting.

Unauthorized remarks from the audience, stamping of feet, whistles, yells, and similar demonstrations shall not be permitted by the Mayor/Presiding Officer. The Mayor/Presiding Officer may direct the Police Chief, or their designee, to remove such offenders from the room.

11.6 Dangerous Instruments.

No person may enter the chambers of a legislative body, as defined in Government Code Section 54852 or any place were such legislative body is in session, with any firearm, weapon, or explosive device of any nature. The provisions of this section shall not apply to authorized peace officers or to those persons authorized by the Penal Code of the State to carry such weapons.

SECTION 12. ENFORCEMENT OF DECORUM

In extreme cases, such as when a meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals as provided for herein, the Mayor/Presiding Officer may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session.

Duly accredited representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this Section. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City Council from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.
381

01107.0012/1002427.7
20 SECTION 13. PUBLIC RELATIONS

13.1 City Spokesperson.

The Mayor will serve as the general spokesperson for the City. When Council has not taken a position on an issue, neither the Mayor nor any Council Member will speak on behalf of the Council. In these situations, the Mayor or Council Member will use a phrase such as, “Council has not taken an official position, personally I think…”

13.2 Press Release.

Any proposed Press Release may only use the City Seal and picture of the Council Member issuing such release if the subject matter pertains to official government business of Suisun City.

The group picture of the Council may only be used on a Press Release if the release is being issued on behalf of the entire Council.

SECTION 14. MAYOR’S OFFICE

The opportunity to meet with a member of the public is an honor. It also creates an opportunity for our citizens to know that their elected officials are willing to listen and willing to act. There is a place for meeting over coffee or food, as some discussions are best had when “breaking bread.” However, some discussions should happen in a professional environment, free from distractions allowing for private discussion.

To help facilitate meetings with members of the public as a Council Member, the Mayor’s office is listed as a Resource Room in Outlook for advance scheduling.

Reach out to the Deputy City Clerk if you have questions regarding scheduling.

SECTION 15. VIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURES

Nothing in these Norms and Procedures shall invalidate a properly noticed and acted upon action of the City Council in accordance with State Law.

This document shall remain in effect until modified by resolution of the City Council.

382

Appendix A
Procedure for Councilmember Requesting a Proclamation to be Presented at a City Council Meeting
Purpose:

The purpose of this policy is to establish a process regarding the policy regarding the processing of requests by individuals, groups and organizations for City proclamations by individual Council Members. The intent of the policy is to ensure that meetings of the City Council are not encumbered with long requests for support on matters that do not confirm to the City’s policy.

Definition of a Proclamation:

A proclamation is an official declaration issued by the City Councilmember recognizing an event, individual, group, or cause of community-wide interest or significance. Proclamations should promote positive community engagement and reflect the City's values of respect, diversity, and inclusion.

Scope:

Proclamations are public acknowledgments issued on behalf of the City. They are symbolic and do not carry the force of law. The City reserves the right to deny requests that are inconsistent with the community's values or that violate any of the prohibitions outlined below.

Topics of Permissible Subjects for Proclamation
The policy attempts to focus the scope of potential city proclamations to City of Suisun City related matters, to municipal government matters and away from partisan political, religious or international policy matters. The following matters are within the scope of permissible subjects, but is not intended to be an exclusive list of permissible subjects.

A. Matters involving the operation of municipal government or the provision of municipal services to the citizens and businesses in the City.

B. County, state or federal legislation directly affecting municipal funding sources, operations or services.

C. County or state initiative measures directly affecting municipal funding sources, operations and services.

D. Requests submitted by the Board of the League of California Cities or the Board of the California Contract Cities Association.

E. Requests submitted by public entities on whose board, the City has a voting member.

383

F. Requests to honor businesses that are located in the City, service or philanthropic organizations that provide a significant level of services to residents or businesses in the City, and sports teams based in Artesia, upon the accomplishment of noteworthy achievements, programs or milestones.

G. Requests to honor the life of a long-time and/or prominent Artesia resident upon their death.

H. Requests to honor city officials, employees, and consultants for their achievements or milestones of service.

I. Requests to honor public officials from other public entities who have served on boards, committees or commissions on which members of the Artesia City Council also serve, upon the completion of their term of office or chairmanship.

J. If it is not clear whether a request for a proclamation falls inside or outside of a permissible category, the City Manager may submit the matter to the Mayor for its consideration.

Topics Excluded from Proclamation:

The following topics shall not be permitted for proclamations:

1. Hate Speech: Any proclamation that promotes hate or violence against individuals or groups based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected categories.

2. Racism: Proclamations that contain language or themes that degrade, dehumanize, or otherwise discriminate against individuals or groups based on race or ethnicity.

3. Discrimination of Protected Classes: Proclamations that promote or condone discriminatory behavior or treatment against individuals or groups protected by federal, state, or local anti-discrimination laws (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status).

Procedure:

Step 1: Submission of Request

1. A City Councilmember must submit a written request for a proclamation at least three weeks prior to the City Council meeting where the proclamation is to be presented.

2. The request should be submitted to the Mayor, who will facilitate the process.

3. The written request must include:
- Title of the proclamation.
- The proposed text of the proclamation, including background information. 384

- The date of the City Council meeting where the proclamation will be presented. - Information about any individuals or groups who will be receiving or accepting the proclamation.

4. A proclamation requested for presentation at an event should include specific details about the event.

Step 2: Review by City Staff

1. Upon receipt, the Mayor, City Manager’s Office or the City Clerk will review the proposed proclamation to ensure it aligns with the City's values and legal obligations.

2. Proclamations will be evaluated for:
- Relevance to the City's community and values.
- Compliance with prohibitions on hate speech, racism, and discrimination against protected classes.

Step 3: Scheduling and Presentation

1. Once approved, the proclamation will be placed on the agenda for the requested City Council meeting.

2. The Deputy City Clerk will ensure the proclamation is prepared and presented to the City Council.

3. During the meeting, the proclamation will be read aloud by the Councilmember who requested it, unless otherwise specified.

4. A formal copy of the proclamation will be presented to the recipient during the meeting, if applicable.
385