Fairfield City Council
September 16, 2025

CITY OF FAIRFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 174
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM ( ER- 2025- 004) TO THE VILLAGES AT FAIRFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ( SCH 2O04032064) AND HAWTHRONE MILL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ( SCH 2O09032001) AND APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ( GPA2025- 001) TO REDESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE LAGO VISTA PROJECT SITE, A VACANT 37. 3- ACRE SITE EAST OF GOLDEN WAY AND HIGH LINE DRIVE ( ASSESSOR' S PARCEL NUMBER 0170- 050- 540 AND 0170- 050- 550 OR PORTIONS THEREOF), FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO

RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY
WHEREAS; On January 29, 2025, applications for Zone Change ( ZC2025- 001), Tentative Subdivision ( TS2025- 001), Development Review ( DR2025- 002), Development Review ( DR2025- 003), and Environmental Review ( ER2025-004) were properly filed with the Department of Community Development for a proposed project consisting of 151 single-family residential units and 224 multi -family residential units located north of Air Base Parkway, east of the Stanton Correction Facility, and west of the McCoy Basin (Project), and an amendment to the Villages at Fairfield Design Guidelines. An additional application for a General Plan Amendment ( GPA2025- 001) was filed on April 7, 2025. The applications were filed in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the official filing of such applications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 13, 2025. City staff presented substantial factual information regardingthe proposed Project in the staff reports and through oral presentations before the Commission, and the Commission considered public testimony and information presented during the public hearing regarding this application; aind WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 2, 2025. City staff presented substantial factual information regarding the LagoVista project in staff reports and through oral presentations before the council; and
WHEREAS, the council has reviewed the proposed revisions to the General Plan Land Use Diagram and finds these revisions beneficial and consistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) Addendum has been prepared for the Project that satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA); and WHEREAS, the EIRAddendum prepared for the Project applies to the council's actions aswell as the project actions during the public hearing of the Planning Commission on August 13, 2025.

RES. NO. 2025- 174

NOW, THEREFORE,_THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELDHEREBYRESOLVES:

Section 1. The EIRAddendum, as contained in Exhibit A, is hereby adopted.

Section 2. The General Plan Amendment, as contained in Exhibit B, is hereby adopted.

PASSEDAND ADOPTEDthis 2ndday of September 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: MOY / BERTANI / CARR / PANDURO / TONNESEN/ SANDHU / WILLIAMS NOES: MEMBERS: Q0VN- Q'
ABSENT: MEMBERS: 1J O' t\
ABSTAIN: MEMBERS: Q CDs,
MAYOR
ATTEST:
141 Z'
I
ClfY C ERK
l
Exhibit A
CEQA Addendum for the Villages at Fairfield Project
VAF EIR: E. R. 2003- 29; 2011 Addendum; 2015 Addendum; 2018 Addendum) Hawthorne Mill EIR: E. R. 2014- 23)
August 2025

1. 0 BACKGROUND
The Lago Vista project ( herein, " Project" or " proposed Project") would be removed from the Hawthorne Mill project and added into the Villages at Fairfield project. The evaluation of the proposed Project is therefore subject to both underlying approvals and their respective CEQA certification. SeeExhibit X, Project Location and Boundary. This 2025 Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Project, as described below.

The Hawthorne Mill project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified in November 2015 (City Council Resolution No. 2015-246). The Hawthorne Mill EIR analyzed the development of 172 residential units on Hawthorne Mill West (location of the proposed Project) with 825 units planned for Hawthorne Mill East. The approvals proposed for the Hawthorne Mill project and analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR included a General Plan Amendment ( GPA 2014-4) changing the land use designations for the Project site from Industrial & Business Park IBP) to Residential Low - Medium ( RLM) and Open Space Conservation ( OSC) for the remainder of the site. Also considered and not finalized were a corresponding Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Maps, a Development Review and Community Design Plan, and a Development Agreement.

The Villages at Fairfield EIR was certified in 2005 (City Council Resolution No. 2005-296), and subsequently modified in 2011 and 2015, in consideration of the following actions:

On September 20, 2005, the Fairfield City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005- 296 certifying an EIR for the Villages at Fairfield ( the " VAF EIR"). As also recommended by the Planning Commission, the City Council approved the following actions:
o General Plan Amendment ( Resolution No. 2005- 297);
o Zoning Code Amendment ( Ordinance 2005- 15);
o Tentative Subdivision Map ( Resolution 2005- 33); and o Development Agreement for the Villages of Fairfield ( Ordinance No. 2005- 14).

On May 3, 2011, the City adopted an Addendum to the EIR in conjunction with its approval of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement (" First Amended DA," Ordinance 2011- 09).

On August 10, 2015, the City adopted an Addendum to the EIR in conjunction with its approval of the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (" Second Amended DA," Ordinance 2015- 19). The 2011 and 2015 Addenda analyzed shifts in residential densities and minor land use revisions, all in substantial conformance with the previously approved tentative tract maps (General Plan Amendment, Resolution 2015- 245).
0 On January 15, 2019, the City adopted an Addendum to the EIR ( Resolution No. 2019- 14) in conjunction with its approval of the First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement (" First Amendment to Second Amended DA," Ordinance 2019- 01), which adjusted the timing of certain infrastructure improvements described in Exhibit H of the Second Amended and Restated DA.

2. 0 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Rancho Tolenas Corporation, a subsidiary of Lewis Group of Companies ( herein, " Project Applicant") has filed applications with the City of Fairfield ( herein, " City") for the Villages at Fairfield (" VAF") Lago Vista project ( herein, " Project" or " Lago Vista"). VAF encompasses approximately 431 acres in the northeastern area of the City of Fairfield, located to the south of Cement Hill and the Putah South Canal, north of Air Base Parkway, east of the Woodlake Estates residential development, and west of the Gold Ridge residential development. VAF is divided into five separate development projects, including four residential projects: Village I, Village II, Village III, and Village IV, and the Laurel Creek Plaza commercial center. The Project would add an additional development area adjacent to Village II referenced as Lago Vista. The Project requires a reallocation of 295 residential units from Villages I and II, which have been developed with fewer units ( 806) than previously analyzed and approved ( 1,101), and an additional 80 residential units for a total of 375 units within Lago Vista. The original VAF approval included 2,327 total residential units, and the VAF EIR originally analyzed 1,101 units for Villages I and II and an additional 1,226 units for Villages III and IV. The Hawthorne Mill West project planned to develop 172 residential units on the Lago Vista site. The Project would not amend VAF total units but reallocate the additional 80 units to Lago Vista from the previously analyzed Hawthorne Mill West units that have not yet been developed on the Lago Vista site.

Moreover, as discussed in Transportation below, the traffic generated from development of the 375 units is less than generated from the 1,101 units considered in the VAF EIR for Villages I and II. The impacts for Lago Vista that vary based on intensity of unit count are determined by traffic trips for impacts to transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas, energy and noise. All of these impacts will be less significant since the traffic impacts will be less. The impacts to land are the same as considered in the Hawthorne Mill EIR. The other unit - based impacts such as utilities, recreation and population and housing are addressedby fees, which the Lago Vista will pay more according to having more units contributing. As such, the impacts will be the same or less for Lago Vista compared to what was studied in the VAF EIR.

The Project is comprised of 154.7 acres and planned for 151 single family units designated as Residential Low -Medium, 224 multifamily units designated as Residential High, and 42.2 acres of Public Facility and75.2 acresof OpenSpaceConservation. The Projectaccommodatespublic and private improvements to support the planned development. SeeExhibit X, Lago Vista Illustrative. The Project requires the following modifications and as further described herein:

General Plan Amendment
Zone Change
Vesting TentativeSubdivision/CondominiumMapl
Development Agreement ( DA) Second Amendment to the Second Amended DA The proposedVesting Tentative Subdivision Map includesa Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium Purposesfor Lot 3, the proposed multifamily parcel.
2 Development Review and Community Design Plan, Amended Land Use and Zoning
The Project requires a General Plan Amendment to redesignate approximately 15.8 acres of the site as Residential High, reducing the amount of Residential Low -Medium designated area by

9.4 acres and reducing the Open Space Conservation designated area by 6.3 acres. SeeExhibit X, General Plan Amendment.

The Project requires a Zone Change to redesignate 154. 7 acres comprised of Industrial Business Park, Residential Medium, Public Facility and Open Space Conservation to 21.5 acres of Residential Low -Medium, 15.8 acres of Residential High, 42.2 acres of public facility and 75.2 acres of Open Space Conservation. See Exhibit X, Rezone - Exhibit.

Circulation
The Project will connect to Village II via Horizon Drive. An Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) point, providing accessto Air Base Parkway is proposed in the southwest corner of Lago Vista.

The Project will also include an active transportation link from the northern edge of the residential development and connecting via a multi -use trail and associated open spaceto the existing Portland Drive. This active use transportation route encompassesapproximately 3.8 acres of the Residential Low -Medium and would support pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to Portland Drive that ultimately connects with the Linear Park system.

Infrastructure
Lago Vista will utilize the now - built Village II sewage infrastructure and route sewage to the west to the sewer lift station installed as part of the Villages at Fairfield infrastructure. Other utility connectionswill beroutedto the infrastructurethat hasalreadybeenbuilt or is under construction to serve Village II, with capacity to meet the demands of Lago Vista.

Drainage from the Project would be treated and detained onsite, with the discharge not to exceed 90 percentof thepre -project levels. Stormwaterinfrastructure, including a stormwaterbasin, would be located within the southeast corner of the Project site (Lot G). This water quality basin is anticipated to be dedicated to the City and included in the existing lighting and landscaping maintenance district for on -going maintenance. Storm drain connections from the proposed single-family lots (Lot 1to thewestandaportion of Lot 2 to thenorth) to the Lot G water quality basin will require an easementthrough the proposed multifamily lot ( Lot 3) for access* and maintenance. The City ( and related agencies) will also have on -going vehicularrand maintenance access rights to Lot G and the open space to the east of the Project through Lot 3.

Theexistingwater quality basinnext to Lot 3 in Village 2 would alsoservethe northernthird of the Project.

Grading & Construction
Massgradingof theentire Projectsiteis anticipatedto commenceby the endof 2025, with backbone infrastructure and site improvements commencing in 2026. The single family and multifamily lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3) are proposed to be constructed at the same time.

Regulatory
The Hawthorne Mill Project was also analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement under the 3 National Environmental Policy Act (" NEPA") in conjunction with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' ( USACE) issuance of an individual Clean Water Act Section 404 permit (" 404 Permit") for theproject. Accordingly, the original HawthorneMill Projectwasanalyzedin a joint EIS/ EIR. No 404 Permit is required for the Lago Vista project, so no further review under NEPA is required. The NEPA analysis in, the Hawthorne Mill EIR/ EIS is not relevant for this Addendum, which is only required to analyze the Lago Vista project under CEQA' s subsequent review provisions.

Development Agreement
The Lago Vista Project will also involve amendments to the Development Agreement, including to add the Lago Vista site to the Project area, modify the parkland dedication requirements, and accelerate the timeline of certain roadway improvements.

3. 0 DETERMINATION TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if changes or additions are necessary and when none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines ( which calls for the preparation of a Subsequent EIR) have occurred. Section 15162 requires preparation of a Subsequent EIR when:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changesoccur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severethan shown in the previous EIR; B) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
C) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative."
Where none of the above -referenced conditions requiring the preparation of a Subsequent EIR exist, the 4 CEQA Guidelines require a lead agency to prepare an Addendum to the previously certified EIR, including a brief explanation, supported by substantial evidence, of the decision to not prepare a Subsequent EIR CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164( a)).

The " project" at issue for purposes of CEQA' s subsequent review provisions is the residential development of Lago Vista. In this case, all of the environmental impacts associated with Lago Vista have effectively already been analyzed under a certified EIR as either (a) impacts already accounted for in the VAF EIR or b) site - specific impacts of residential development analyzed under the Hawthorne Mill EIR.

4. 0 MITIGATION MEASURES
All mitigation measures identified as part of the VAF EIR and HM EIR would continue to apply to the proposed Project, although many of the mitigation requirements would apply to future implementing developments not specifically applicable to the Project. Where applicable and appropriate, mitigation measures from the Hawthorne Mill EIR are incorporated into this Addendum, ensuring that there are no new or substantially more severe impacts associated with the modifications to the Project. A copy of the combined Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project is provided herein as Exhibit X.

5. 0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Project' s modifications to the previously approved development described above result in volume - based impacts such as traffic, air quality, roadway noise, utilities, water supply, and public services that are consistent with the those addressedby the VAF EIR. The footprint of the developed area remains the same or smaller than the development already analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR, so all land -based impacts, such as those related to agriculture, biology, cultural, geology, hydrology, and hazards. remain the same or less significant than those analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR.

Each impact area summarized below analyzes whether the proposed Project will result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the VAF EIR or Hawthorne Mill EIR, as applicable. On the basis of the evaluation below, the City determines that the potentially significant effects that could result from the proposed Lago Vista Project have been addressed in either the certified VAF EIR ( and subsequent addenda) or the certified Hawthorne Mill EIR, and that none of the conditions for preparation of a subsequent EIR set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have been triggered. Accordingly, an Addendum to the VAF EIR and HawthorneMill EIRshallbepreparedpursuantto CEQAGuidelinesSection15164, assetforthbelow2.

The Project modifications do not causenew or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed because all of the impacts of the Project have already been analyzed under either the VAF EIR or the Hawthorne Mill EIR with respect to impacts that are specific to the Project area. Therefore, this Addendum is an addendum to both the VAF EIR and the Hawthorne Mill EIR. As documented in this Addendum, ( a) the impacts of the Project related to Transportation, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas, Public Facilities & Services, Population & Housing, Recreation, Utilities & Service Systems, and Energy have been sufficiently analyzed by the VAF EIR such that no major revisions to the VAF EIR are required; and b) the impacts of the Project related to Biological Resources, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources & Tribal 2 Note that the VAF EIR andprevious addendato the VAF EIR followed the organizational structureof the PeabodyWalters EIR, which combined certain impact discussions into larger chapters, while the Hawthorne Mill EIR analyzed each CEQA impact area in individual chapters. For clarity, this Addendum is organized by individual impact area but references the previous VAF EIR analysis by its heading in the VAF EIR where applicable. 5 Cultural Resources, Hydrology & Water Quality, Noise, Geology & Soils, Agriculture & Forestry Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Land Use & Planning, Mineral Resources, Population & Housing, and Wildfire, have been sufficiently analyzed by the Hawthorne Mill EIR such that no major revisions to the Hawthorne Mill EIR are required. Where applicable, mitigation measures from each previously certified EIR are referenced and incorporated into this Addendum.

A. Aesthetics
The Hawthorne Mill EIR evaluated the potential aesthetics impacts of the development of residential uses and concluded that all impacts associated with development on the Lago Vista site related to aesthetics would be less than significant with the exception of potential impacts related to light and glare that could affect day and nighttime views in the project vicinity. The Hawthorne Mill EIR analyzed residential use on the site, and the Project is proposing,residential use with similar standardsand massing. As such, there are no meaningful differences between the potential aesthetic impacts of the Project and the previously analyzed Hawthorne Mill West project. Views of the proposed Project development from the surrounding area would be similar to those analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR, and the site itself contains no visual resources.

To addressthe potential impacts of the Hawthorne Mill West project related to light and glare, the Hawthorne Mill EIR included MM AES- 2, which is incorporated into this Addendum, as adapted to the Project ( modifications in str-ikeeut and underline):

MM AES- 2: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each phase of Haulier- ne Mill East and u.,•..« h,.me Mill WestLa o Vista, the applicant shall prepare and submit an outdoor lighting plan ( which includes a photometric analysis) to the City of Fairfield that includes a footcandle map illustrating the amount of light from the project site at adjacent light- sensitive receptors. The lighting plan shall provide directional shielding for all exterior lighting; automatic shutoff or motion sensors; and include minimal levels of street lighting.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Aesthetic Impacts - Would the Impact or Change from Change from project: Substantially Previous VAF Previous
More Severe EIR Analysis Hawthorne
Impact Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Have a substantial adverse x
effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic x
resources, including, but not
limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a
State - designated scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the x
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
0 d) Create a new source of X
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
B. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases
Since most of the units in the Project are being re -allocated from already approved Village I-11 units, this Addendum considers them Village 1-11units for the purposes of analyzing Air Quality impacts, and the Air Quality analysis in the VAF EIR would apply ( seeVAF EIR Chapter 7).

The VAF EIR concluded that the VAF project would contribute to an exceedance of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (` BAAQMD") significance thresholds for certain conventional pollutants and that this impact would be significant and unavoidable. By re- allocating Village I- 11units and adding additional units to the adjoining Lago Vista site, there is no change in this conclusion. This impact will remain significant and unavoidable as in the VAF EIR, but the VAF EIR included mitigation measuresto reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible. The Project would be required to comply with all VAF EIR mitigation measures relevant and applicable to Village I-11, ensuring that any air quality impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible and would be consistent with those analyzed in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the air quality impacts associated with the Project would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Air Quality - Would the project:

Impact or Change Change from
Substantially from Previous
More Severe Previous Hawthorne
Impacts VAF EIR Mill EIR
Analysis Analysis
a) Conflict with or obstruct X
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate an air quality standard or X
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in cumulatively considerable net X
increaseof any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
stateambient air quality standard
including releasingemission which
exceedquantitative thresholdsfor ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X
pollutant concentrations?
7 e) Createobjectionable odors affecting a x
substantialnumber of people?
With respect to GHG impacts associated with the Project, the VAF GHG analysis would also apply. In the 2010 and 2015 Addenda to the VAF EIR, the City concluded that although the 2005 EIR did not evaluate the VAF project' s GHG emissions, the later adoption of AB 32 and BAAQMD GHG thresholds did not constitute new information requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR since those regulatory developments did not reveal new site- specific impacts, and GHG impacts were known or knowable in 2005. As detailed in the Transportation Impact Analysis Memorandum prepared by Wood Rodgers and attached as Appendix B to this Addendum, the as -built Villages I and II plus the Project would result in substantially fewer daily trips than the trip generation for Villages I and II analyzed in the VAF EIR. Since traffic is the primary driver associated with volume -basedoperational impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions, and the proposed Project units can be accounted for in the VAF trip generation budget, the GHG analysis does not change. No GHG mitigation would be required under the VAF EIR. Nevertheless, as a matter of regulatory compliance, the Project is required to comply with current Title 24 energy efficiency standards, therefore, the Project units will be more energy- and GHG- efficient than the units originally analyzed in the VAF EIR. The Project units will also be solar -ready. Accordingly, the GHG impacts associated with the Project would not represent new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts and would remain below the Section 15162 thresholds.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Greenhouse Gas Impacts- Would the Impact or Change Change project: Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impacts VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, x
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, x
policy, or regulation adoptedfor the
purposeof reducing the emissionsof
greenhouse gases?
C. Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources related to development on the Project site were thoroughly analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR. Existing conditions on the Lago Vista site have not materially changed since the Hawthorne Mill EIR was certified. The proposed Project developmentfootprint hasbeendesignedto avoid potentiallyjurisdictional featuresin the areas nearMcCoy Basin, and, assuch, will entirely avoidwetland impacts. As a result, the Project will greatly reduce impacts to biological resources compared to Hawthorne Mill West, which assumed fill of 0. 30 acres of wetlands, with indirect impacts to 0. 82 acres of wetlands.

Hawthorne Mill West also assumed indirectly impacted 0.66 acres of Contra Costa Goldfields habitat, as well as direct and indirect impacts to 1.21 acres of pappose tarplant, due to the extension of Portland Drive. The proposed Project would indirectly impact 0.06 acres of Contra Costa goldfields and result in direct and indirect impacts to 0.43 acres of pappose tarplant. The proposed Project would also affect approximately 759 square feet (0.01 acre) of bearded popcornflower. The Hawthorne Mill EIR incorrectly assumed the bearded popcornflower was absent. Recent plant surveys confirmed that 0.01 acre of bearded popcornflower is located within the Hawthorne Mill West area. The bearded popcornflower occupies similar habitat as the pappose tarplant. As a result, the total amount of impacted special -status plant habitat is

0.50 acres, which is less than the 1.21 acres that would have been impacted by Hawthorne Mill West (See EIR Addendum Biological Summary Memorandum prepared by WRA, Inc., attached as Appendix A).

Based on these findings, the proposed Project will substantially reduce impacts to sensitive plant species as compared to Hawthorne Mill West, and impacts to these resources will be less than what was proposed for Hawthorne Mill West. This Addendum incorporates the relevant mitigation measures for special -status plant species from the Hawthorne Mill EIR. The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that all impacts to biological resources associated with the Hawthorne Mill West project would be less than significant with mitigation. Since all biological impacts of the proposed Project are less than those proposed for Hawthorne Mill West, there is no change to this conclusion, and in fact less mitigation is required with reduced impacts., For some biological resources, principally including raptor foraging habitat, impacts will be similar between Hawthorne Mill West and the Project since they would both develop approximatelythe sameamountof vacantlandthat currently providesforaging habitat. For those impacts, this Addendum incorporates the relevant mitigation measures from the Hawthorne Mill EIR, ensuring that those impacts remain less than significant, consistent with the Hawthorne Mill EIR. While the VAF EIR includes a project -wide mitigation measure for impacts to Swainson' s hawk foraging habitat requiring compensatory mitigation at a ratio of

0. 5: 1, the Project will implement the more conservative ratios ( 0. 75: 1 to 1: 1) consistentwiththe Hawthorne Mill EIR. On
October15, 2024, burrowingowl was listedas a statecandidatespecies by theCaliforniaFish and GameCommission. During the listingreview process, burrowingowl will be temporarily afforded the sameprotectionsas state -listed speciesthroughoutthe entiretyof California.

Impacts to burrowingowl wereevaluatedin theHawthorneMill EIR, and, as discussed in greaterdetail below, mitigationwas includedthat requiresprotocol -level winteringand nestingseason surveysprior to theinitiationof construction, pre - constructionburrowing owl surveyno morethan 30 daysprior to thefirstground -disturbingactivity, and avoidancemeasures pursuant to CDFWguidelinesin theeventowls are foundon - siteor within600 meters of a developmentarea. To
addressthe potentialimpacts of theHawthorneMill Westprojectrelated to biologicalresources, the HawthorneMill EIR includedvarious mitigationmeasures. 3 Asnotedabove, the Note that numerousmitigation measures in theHawthorneMill EIR appliedsolely to theHawthorneMill East site and are not relevant to thisAddendum.
proposed Project will avoid most of the biological impacts analyzed and mitigated in the Hawthorne Mill EIR, so only certain biological resource mitigation measures from the Hawthorne Mill EIR remain relevant and applicable to the Project. The following Hawthorne Mill EIR mitigation measures remain applicable and are incorporated into this Addendum, as adapted to the Project ( modifications in stfikee and underline):

MM BIO- lb: To mitigate indirect effects to 0.606 acre of occupied Contra Costa goldfields ( CCG) habitat within the 14N4WLago Vista Ddevelopment Aarea, 0.606 acre of CCG preservation credits shall be purchased from an approved, off -site mitigation bank. To compensatefor direct andindirect impactsto papposetarplant 0.43 acre&34- aere and 0.88 ae-re, res eetively) and bearded popcornflower ( 0.01 acre), 0. 441. 21 acres of pappose tarplant and bearded popcornflower preservation credits shall be purchased from anapproved, off -site mitigation bank. Proof of purchaseof preservationcreditsor suitablelandprotectionmechanismshall beprovidedprior to issuanceof massgrading permits for Lago- HA4W.

MM 13I0- 1e: If an active Swainson' s hawk nest tree occurs within 1 mile of HMW- Lago Vista developmentarea, 1.0 acreof habitatmanagementland shallbeprovided for each acre of foraging habitat developed or removed within 1 mile of the active nest (1:1 ratio).

If anactive Swainson's hawk nesttree locatedwithin 5 miles but greaterthan 1mile of the P1N43AI-La ogVista development, 0..75 acre of habitat management lands shall be provided for each acre developed ( 0.75: 1 ratio) through fee title acquisition or conservation easement on agricultural lands, or other suitable lands that provide foraging habitat for Swainson' s hawk.

Currently, aAlI lands within the Lago VistaHMW development area occur greater than -I mile and less than 2.5 miles from a recently active ( within the last 5 years) Swainson' s hawk nest ( WRA 2025 CPF,' 2013 . To mitigate for the loss of 31. 1 acres of suitable foraging habitat within the Lago Vista 14M-3AIdevelopment area, 24—.3-523.33 acres shall bepurchasedat anapprovedoff -site mitigation bankor permanentlypreserved. Sincethe mitigation bank or permanent preservation will involve lie existing habitats, there will beno temporallossor uncertaintyregardingsuccessfulcompensation. Therefore, purchase of mitigation bank credits or permanent preservation at a 0.75: 1 compensation - to -impact ratio should meet agency objectives.

In addition, prior to the onset of activities, pre -construction surveys shall be performed in suitable habitats located within 0. 5 mile of the 14N4W Lago Vista development area during the nesting season (April 1 through September 30). If Swainson' s hawks are found nesting within this limit, activities shall be postponed until young have fledged or a reduced, no - disturbance setback is approved through consultation with CDFW or determined by a qualified biologist.

MM BIO- If: Protocol -level wintering and nesting seasonsurveys for burrowing owl will be conducted prior to the initiation of construction. Additionally, no more than 30 days prior to the first ground -disturbing activity within HME and LTLago
Vista development
areas, pre - constructionburrowing owl surveysshall be performedfor theProject area. If owlsare foundon - site in or within600 metersof a developmentarea, mitigation guidelines adopted in the2012Staff Reporton BurrowingOwl Mitigationshall be followed (CDFG 2012) or updatedguidancein accordancewith applicable10 regulations at the time of project construction. Measures may include the implementation of appropriate nest buffer areasthat shall be avoided during construction, as well as establishment of alternate burrow for any burrows directly impacted and conservation of foraging habitat in the Conservation Area, which shall be restored and conserved via conservation easement or fee title acquisition.

MM BIO- lh: When feasible, construction activities and vegetation removal for 14 LagoVistadevelopmentareas shall be doneoutsideof theraptorbreedingseason January 1 throughAugust 31). If workmust be conductedduring the breedingseason, a pre - constructionsurvey for nestingraptors with potentialto occurin theProjectArea shall be performedby a qualifiedbiologist within 14 daysof theonsetof activitiesin andwithin 500 feet of theProjectArea. If an activenest is found, a 500-foot buffershall be placed aroundthe activenest untilall younghave fledged, or thenesthas beennaturallypredated or abandoned. The buffersize may be - reducedby a qualifiedbiologist with approval from CDFWbased on proximityand natureof theactivityto thenest. To mitigate for the lossof 31.1 acresof suitableraptor foraginghabitat within the HA4WLago Vistadevelopmentarea, 31. 1 acresshallbe purchasedat an approvedoff -site mitigationbank or permanentlypreservedresulting in a 1: 1 ratioofmitigated -to - impacted habitat for foragingraptors. MM- BIO-
Ii: When feasible, constructionactivities and vegetation removalfor- d will be doneoutsideof the birdbreedingseason (January 1 through August15). If workmust be conductedduringthe breedingseason, then a pre - constructionsurveyfor nestingbirds, includinggrasshoppersparrow, loggerhead shrike, and other migratorybird species with potentialto occur in the ProjectArea, shall be performedby a qualifiedbiologistwithin 14 days of the onsetof activitiesin and within250 feet of the ProjectArea. If an activenestis found, a 250- footbuffershall be establishedaroundthe nest. The buffer size may be reducedby a qualifiedbiologistwith approval from CDFW, basedon site conditionsand the natureof the activity. Thebuffer shallbe maintaineduntilall younghavefledged, or the nesthasbeennaturallypredatedand abandoned. EnvironmentalIssues New No No No Impact SignificantSubstantial
Substantial Biological Resources -
Would the project: Impactor
Change Change Substantially from
from More Severe
PreviousPrevious Impacts VAF
EIR HawthorneAnalysis Mill
EIR Analysisa)
Have
a substantialadverseeffect, x either directly
or through habitatmodifications, on
any speciesidentifiedas
a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regionalplans,
policies, or regulations, or by
theCaliforniaDepartmentof Fish and
Wildlifeor U. S. Fishand WildlifeService?
11 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X
federally protectedwetlandsasdefined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the X
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife speciesor
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or X
ordinances relatedto protecting
biological resources, such as atree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an X
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or statehabitat conservation plan?
12 D. Cultural Resources ( including Tribal Cultural Resources) The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that potential impacts of the Hawthorne Mill West project related to cultural resources would be less -than -significant with mitigation. Existing conditions on the Project site have not materially changed since the Hawthorne Mill EIR was certified, and the potential cultural resources impacts of the Project development area are substantially similar to those analyzed and mitigated in the Hawthorne Mill EIR. The following Hawthorne Mill EIR mitigation measures remain applicable and are incorporated into this Addendum, as adapted to the Project ( modifications in strikeout and underline):

MM CUL- 1: If potentially significant historic resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities within a 100- foot radius of the resource shall ceaseuntil a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City and/or the United States Arm), Ger-ps of Engineers USAGE)-2shallrequirethattheapplicantincludeastandardinadvertentdiscovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation ( DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/ or California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resourcesconsistof but arenot limited to glass, cans, brick, stone, bone, and wood, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.

If the resourceis determinedto besignificant underSection106or CEQA, the City and/or- the USAGE and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in placeis feasible. Suchpreservationin placeis the preferredmitigation, if feasible. If such preservation is not feasible, the archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center ( California Historical Resources Regional Information Center), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

MM CUL- 2: If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities within a 100- foot radius of the resource shall ceaseuntil a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City and/or the United States Army Corps of Engineefs USAGE) shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.

If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and/or- the USAGE 2As notedabove, the City is preparingthis AddendumunderCEQA' s subsequentreview provisions, and the previous NEPA EIS prepared for the Hawthorne Mill Project is not relevant since the Project does not require a 404 Permit. Accordingly, references to USACE in Hawthorne Mill mitigation measures are deleted for purposes of their incorporation into this Addendum.
13 and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible.

Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center ( California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

MM CUL- 3: In the event that plant or animal fossils are discovered during subsurface excavation activities for the proposed project, all excavation within 100 feet of the fossil shall ceaseuntil a qualified paleontologist has determined the significance of the find and provides recommendations in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the City of Fairfield *" peTr~: toa States Army Ger-ps efEfigineeFs ( USAGE) to determine procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the find is determined to be significant and the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and implement a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The plan shall be submitted to the City and/or the USAGEA nE for review andapproval. Upon approval, theplan shall be incorporatedinto the project.

MM CUL- 4: If human remains are encountered during earth- disturbing activities for the project, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the Solano County Coroner' s office shall be notified. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MDL) of the deceasedNative American. The MDL may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097. 98.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Cultural Resources— Would the project: Impact or Change Change Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impacts VAF EIR Hawthome
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in x
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064. 5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in x
the significance of an archaeological
resourcepursuantto CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064. 5?
14 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique x
paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?
d) Disturb any humanremains, including x
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Specifically, regarding Tribal Cultural Resources, the Hawthorne Mill EIR analyzed potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources under the Cultural Resources impact category. Since the certification of the Hawthorne Mill EIR, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) added various provisions to the California Public Resources Code (PRC) that concern Tribal Cultural Resources, including § 21080. 3. 1( d). The adoption of AB 52 established the tribal cultural resources environmental factor and related thresholds for Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. On July 30, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted the final text for the tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on September 27, 2016. The addition of Tribal Cultural Resources as a separatecategory from Cultural Resources does not constitute new information requiring a revision to the Hawthorne Mill EIR. Moreover, the requirements of PRC Section 21080.3.1 only apply to the preparation of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR; they do not apply to project revisions that do not trigger subsequentenvironmental review pursuant to Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and require only an addendum under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. See PRC § 21080. 3. 1( b).

Environmental Issues
Tribal Cultural Resources - Would the
project:

New
Significant
Impact or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous

VAF EIR
Analysis
No
Substantial
Change
from
Previous
Hawthorne
Mill EIR
Analysis
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in x
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020. 1( k)?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in x
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is a resource determined
by the lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial evidence,
to besignificant pursuantto criteria set
forth in subdivision ( c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024. 1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision ( c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024. 1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe?
15 E. Geology & Soils
The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that potential impacts of the Hawthorne Mill West project related to geology and soils would be less -than -significant with mitigation. Existing conditions on the Project development areahave not materially changed since the Hawthorne Mill EIR was certified, and the potential geology and soils -related impacts of the Project are substantially similar to those analyzed and mitigated in the Hawthorne Mill EIR. The following Hawthorne Mill EIR mitigation measure remains applicable and is incorporated into this Addendum:

MM GEO- 1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit a design -level geotechnical study and building plans to the City of Fairfield for review and approval. The building plans shall incorporate all applicable recommendations of the design -level geotechnical study and comply with all applicable requirements of the most recentversionof the California Building StandardsCode. A licensedprofessional engineer shall prepare the plans, including those that pertain to soil engineering, structural foundations, pipeline excavation, and installation. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. All onsite soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Geology and Soils - Would the project:

Impact or Change Change
Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impacts VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Expose persons or structures to X
potential substantialadverseeffects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issuedby the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
ii. Seismic - related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
IR
b) Result in substantial erosion or loss of x
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil x
that is unstable, or that would become
unstableas aresult of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as x
defined in Table 18- 1- B of the
Uniform Building Code, creating
substantialrisks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapableof adequately x
supporting the use of septictanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewer is not available
for the disposal of waste water?
F. Hazards & Hazardous Materials
The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that potential impacts of the Hawthorne Mill West project related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less -than -significant. Existing conditions on the Project development area have not materially changed since the Hawthorne Mill EIR was certified, andthepotential impactsof the Projectrelatedto hazardsandhazardousmaterialsare substantiallysimilar to thoseanalyzedin theHawthorneMill EIR. No mitigation wasrequiredin the Hawthorne Mill EIR.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would Impactor Change Change the project: Substantially from from More
Severe Previous Previous Impacts
VAF EIR Hawthorne Analysis
Mill EIR Analysis
a)
Createa significanthazard to thex public
or theenvironmentthrough the routine
transport, use, or disposalof hazardous
materials? b)
Createa significanthazard to the x public
or theenvironmentthrough reasonably
foreseeableupset and accident
conditionsinvolving the likely
releaseofhazardousmaterials into
the environment? c)
Emithazardousemissions or handlex hazardous
or acutelyhazardousmaterials,
substances, or wastewithin one -
quartermile of anexistingor 17
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included x
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962. 5 and as a result,
would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) Be located within an airport land use x
plan, or where such a plan hasnot
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
t) Be located within the vicinity of a x
private airstrip, result in a safety
hazardfor people residing or working
in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or x
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Exposepeople or structuresto a x
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
G. Hydrology & Water Quality
Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality related to development on the Project site were thoroughly analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR. Existing conditions on the Project development areahave not materially changed since the Hawthorne Mill EIR was certified. The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that all impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the Hawthorne Mill Westproject would be lessthan significant with mitigation.

Hydrology and water quality impacts will be similar between Hawthorne Mill West and the Project. For example, potential stormwater impacts of the Lago Vista project will be substantially similar to those analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR since the amount of impervious surface area created by the project will be substantially similar to what was proposed and analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR. Potential flood risks are identical between the proposed Project and the previously proposed Hawthorne Mill West project. For those impacts, this Addendum incorporates the relevant mitigation measures from the Hawthorne Mill EIR, ensuring that those impacts remain less than significant, consistent with the Hawthorne Mill EIR. 18 To addressthe potential impacts of the Hawthorne Mill West project related to hydrology and water quality resources, the Hawthorne Mill EIR included various mitigation measures.' The following Hawthorne Mill EIR mitigation measures remain applicable and are incorporated into this Addendum, as adapted to the Project ( modifications in strikeout and underline):

MM HYD- la: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for either- the HavAherne Mill East Pfejeet of HavAherne Mill West the Lago Vista project, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified SWPPP Developer to prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Fairfield that identifies specific actions and maps Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities for the relevant project.

The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequencefor BMP implementation and maintenance, site restoration, monitoring locations and plan, contingency measures, responsible parties, and agency contacts. The SWPPP may include but not be limited to the following elements:
o The use of erosion and sediment -control BMPs, including construction techniques that will reduce the potential for runoff as well as other measures to be implemented during construction. These may include but not be limited to sedimentation ponds, inlet protection, perforated riser pipes, check dams and' silt fences;
o The means of waste disposal;
o The implementation of approved local plans, non-stormwater management controls, permanent post -construction BMPs, and inspection and maintenance responsibilities;
o The pollutants that are likely to be used during construction that could be present in stormwater drainage and non- stormwater discharges, and other types of materials used for equipment operation;
o Spill prevention and contingency measures, including measuresto prevent or clean up spills of hazardous waste and of hazardous materials used for equipment operation, and emergency procedures for responding to spills; o Personnel training requirements and procedures that will be used to ensure that workers are aware of permit requirements and proper installation methods for BMPs specified in the SWPPP; and
o The appropriate personnel responsible for supervisory duties related to implementation of the SWPPP.

MM HYD- 2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the project applicantshall submit a StormwaterManagementPlan (SWMP) to theCity of Fairfield for review and approval that complies with the applicable provisions of the Municipal Regional Permit. The plan shall include a detailed drainage plan and identify location, size, and type of pollution prevention measures to prevent polluted stormwater runoff from leaving the developed areaswithin the project site. If 3Note that numerousmitigation measuresin the HawthorneMill EIR applied solely to the Hawthorne Mill Eastsite and are not relevant to this Addendum.
19 stormwater basins and biofiltration swales are proposed, the SWMP shall include details showing soil media type and thickness, underdrain structures to facilitate adequate infiltration, and outlet protection measuresto minimize erosion. TlzcxeSW 4iP proposed 8.0 e feet storm ester b The approved measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Examples of additional stormwater pollution prevention measures and practices to be incorporated into the plan include but are not limited to:
o Strategically placed landscaped areasthat promote percolation of runoff o Pervious pavement
o Low impact development
o Roof drains that discharge to landscaped areas
o Trash enclosures with screen walls and roofs
o Stenciling on storm drains
o Curb cuts in parking areasto allow runoff to enter landscaped areas o Rock -lined areas along landscaped areasin parking lots o Catch basins
o Oil/ water separators
o Regular sweeping of parking areasand cleaning of storm drainage facilities o Employee training to inform maintenance personnel of stormwater pollution prevention measures
o Minimization measures
o Long- term operations and maintenance
MM HYD- 4: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project, the project applicant shall submit a Storm Water Management Plan to include a detailed drainage plan, to the City of Fairfield for review and approval. The drainage plan component shall identify all expected flows from and through the project area, and it shall identify the location, size, and type of facilities used to detain and reduce peak flows to 90 percent of pre -project conditions consistent with City of Fairfield requirements. The approved drainage plan shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

MM HYD- 5: Prior to issuance of grading permits for the H.,., hheme Mill Wes Lago Vista project, for any structures located within the 100-year floodplain, the applicant must submit a detailed and engineer - stamped Flood Analysis and Design Report to the City of Fairfield and to FEMA for review and approval. The Flood Analysis and Design Report shall demonstrate that all structures have a finished floor elevation of at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. The approved Flood Analysis and Design Report shall be incorporated into the proposed project. 20 Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the
Impact or Change Change
project: Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impacts VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Violate anywater quality X
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete X
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level
e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support
existing land usesor planned usesfor
which permits havebeengranted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off - site?
d) Substantially alter the existing X
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increasethe rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off site?
e) Create or contribute runoff X
water, which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systemsor provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
0 Otherwise substantially X
degradewater quality?
g) Place housing/ structureswithin X
a 100-year flood hazardareaas
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazarddelineation
map?
21 h) Placewithin a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
x
i) Exposepeopleor structuresto x
a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Result in inundation by seiche, x
tsunami or mudflow9
H. Land Use & Planning
The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that potential impacts of the Hawthorne Mill West project related to land use and planning would be less -than -significant. Existing conditions on the Project site, and neighboring land uses have not materially changed since the Hawthorne Mill EIR was certified, and the potential impacts of the Project related to land use and planning are substantially similar to those analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR. The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate approximately 15.8 acres of the site as Residential High, which would reduce the area designated Residential Low Medium by approximately 9.4 acres and the area designated Open Space Conservation ( OSC) by approximately 6.2 acres. The proposed Project also includes a Zoning Amendment to rezone the

37. 2- acre Project area consistent with the area' s General Plan land use designations. Because the Project involves a zone change, it will be reviewed by the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Land Use - Would the project:

Impact or Change Change
Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impacts VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Physically divide an established C x
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use x
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agencywith jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the generalplan, specific plan, local
coastalprogram, or zoning ordinance)
adoptedfor the purposeof avoiding or
mitigating anenvironmental effect?
22 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat x
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
I. Noise
The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that potential impacts of the Hawthorne Mill West project related to noise would be less -than -significant with mitigation. Existing conditions on the Project development area and neighboring land uses have not materially changed since the Hawthorne Mill EIR was certified. The same conclusions in the Hawthorne Mill EIR related to construction noise, vibration, and exposure of future residents to sources of noise apply to the proposed Lago Vista project as the proposed land uses and location of those land uses is substantially similar to what was proposed for Hawthorne Mill West. The primary source of noise exposure for Lago Vista is Air Base Parkway, and the Hawthorne Mill EIR included mitigation measures to address potential impacts of Air Base Parkway noise on future residents. The Hawthorne Mill EIR also included standard mitigation measures to addressthe potential impacts of construction noise on nearby receptors. The following Hawthorne Mill EIR mitigation measures remain applicable to theProject4andareincorporatedintothisAddendum, asadaptedto theLagoVistaproject modifications in str- ikeeu and underline):

MM N01- 1: The project applicant shall require construction contractors to adhere to the following noise attenuation requirements:
o Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. o All construction equipment shall use noise -reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer. o Construction staging and heavy equipment maintenance activities shall be performed a minimum distance of 300 feet from the nearest offsite residential building, unless safety or technical factors take precedence.
o Stationary combustion equipment such aspumps or generators operating within 300 feet of any offsite residential building shall be shielded with a noise protection barrier.

MM N014a: The project applicant shall construct a 7-foot- high sound wall along the 14a,A4t,,, me Mill West Lago Vista residential lot inspection lines contiguous with Air Base Parkway. To control flanking noise, the sound wall shall extend the length of the first lot at each driveway. The sound wall shall be constructed free of any decorative cutouts or openings. Exhibit 3.10 2 provides the proposed locations of the sound walls.

MM N014c: The project applicant shall provide a "windows closed" condition for all 14&,mt,,, me Mill East and 14aA+ i.,. me Mill West. Lao Vista residential units. A " windows closed" condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation pursuant to California Building Code standards. This shall be achieved with standard air conditioning or a fresh air intake 4Note that numerous mitigation measures in the Hawthorne Mill EIR applied solely to the Hawthorne Mill East site and are not relevant to this Addendum.
23 system.

MM N01- 4d: The project applicant shall require that all 14ayAh, me Taal East and 14ayAh,fne Mill West Lago Vista residential windows and glass doors that are located within 200 feet of the centerline of Cement 144" Read e Air Base Parkway shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 28.

MM N0I- 4e: The project applicant shall require that all L7ay. 4herne ",rill East and uawth., me Mill Wes i Lago residential windows and glass doors that are located within 1,500 feet of the centerline of the UPRR tracks shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class ( STC) rating of 28.

The only project source of potentially increased ambient noise in the vicinity of the Lago Vista Project ( impact threshold ( c)) is noise generated by vehicle trips. The number of vehicle trips generated by the project is driven by the number of residential units. The Project trips would not exceed the trips generated by Villages I and II as studied in the VAF EIR. The combined Villages I and II and Lago Vista would generate 2,682 fewer daily trips, 32 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 239 fewer PM peak hour trips than the VAF EIR trip generation budget, and all of those vehicle trips will be routed through Village II, so it is appropriate to analyze noise impacts associated with Project trip generation as VAF impacts under the VAF EIR. The daily trips generated internal to Villages I and II under the VAF EIR are greater than now proposed, just as the noise generated by daily trips under the VAF EIR are greater than now proposed. The VAF EIR analyzed traffic noise associated with the Project, including Village I -II, and concluded that those impacts would be less - than - significant with mitigation. Also, those mitigation measures include the construction of barrier walls along Cement Hill Road and Clay Bank Road and apply to the entire VAF Project. Those mitigation measureswill continue to apply to the entire VAF Project, including Lago Vista, and are incorporated herein by reference.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Noise - Would the project:

Impact or Change Change
Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impacts VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Result in the exposureof personsto or x
generation of noise levels in excessof
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards ofother agencies?
b) Result in the exposure ofpersons to or x
generation of, excessivegroundbome
vibration or groundbome noiselevels?
c) Result in a substantialpermanent x
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
24 d) Result in a substantialtemporary or
periodic increasein ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
x
e) For a project located within an airport x
land useplan or, where sucha plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport,
would the project exposepeople
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a x
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
J. Population & Housing
The potential impacts of the Project related to population and housing are driven by the number of residential units and associated population. As discussed in the project description above, most of the residential units in the Project are being re -allocated from already- entitled units in Villages I -II, so it is appropriate to analyze impacts associated with the Project with respect to population and housing as VAF impacts under the VAF EIR. These impacts were analyzed in VAF EIR Chapter 3 (Land Use and Housing and Population), and determined to be less than significant.sAs concludedin theVAF EIR, thetotal future housingandresidentialpopulation are consistent with the housing and population growth allocated to the VAF project area and considered in the PWMP and the City' s General Plan. The re -allocation of 295 units from Village I -II and the addition of 80 units previously analyzed for the Lago Vista site in the Hawthorne Mill EIR will not change the VAF- wide total number of units originally studied in the VAF EIR ( 2,327 units), so there are no changesto impact conclusions related to Housing and Population.

In addition, the Hawthorne Mill EIR evaluated the potential impacts associated with up to 1,000 residential units, including 172 units on the Hawthorne Mill West site. The Hawthorne Mill EIR determined that new housing associated with the project would contribute to the City' s regional housing supply and help fulfill the City' s Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations. The Hawthorne Mill EIR also found that the extension of urban infrastructure to the project site would not represent the removal of a physical barrier to urban growth, because areason all four sidesof the project site currently supportor areplannedto supporturbandevelopmentandare served or would be served by infrastructure. Accordingly, the Hawthorne Mill EIR determined theproposedprojectwould not inducesubstantialpopulation growth, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant. 5Potential Project impacts related to Land Use and Planning are addressed above and are compared to Hawthorne Mill West impacts since they are specific to the Project site. 25 Accordingly, the Project remains consistent with the conclusions in the VAF EIR and Hawthorne Mill EIR and no revisions are required.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Population - Would the project: Impact or Change Change Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impacts VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Induce substantial population growth X X
in an area, either directly or indirectly?
b) Displace substantial numbers of X X
existing housing, necessitatingthe
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of X X
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
K. Public Facilities & Services
The potential impacts of the Project related to public services and facilities are driven by the number of residential units and associated population. As discussed in the project description above, most of the residential units in the Project are being re -allocated from already -entitled units in Villages I -II, so it is appropriate to analyze impacts associated with the Project with respect to public facilities and services as VAF impacts under the .VAF EIR. These impacts were analyzed in VAF EIR Chapter 5 ( Public Facilities and Services). The VAF EIR concluded that impacts associated with the originally - entitled 2,327 units would be less -than -significant with mitigation. Since the Project units will not change the VAF- wide total of 2,327 units originally analyzed in the VAF EIR, the impacts conclusions in the VAF EIR remain unchanged with the addition of the Project. VAF mitigation measures related to Public Facilities and Services would continue to apply to the entire VAF Project, including Lago Vista. Mitigation measures include the payment of public facilities impact fees that new development within the City must pay before issuance of a building permit. Payment of fees would offset potential increases in service requests and impacts associated with public services would remain less than significant with mitigation.

O
Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Public Services - Would the project:

Impact or Change Change
Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impacts VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Result in substantialadversephysical x
impacts associatedwith the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives
for: fire protection, police protection,
schools, parks, andother public
facilities?
L. Recreation
With respect to the Recreation impact threshold ( a), the increase in demand for neighborhood and regional parks associated with the Project is driven by the number of residential units and associated population. As discussed in the project description above, most of the residential units in the Project are being re -allocated from already -entitled units in Villages I -II, so it is appropriate to analyze this impact as a VAF impact under the VAF EIR. The VAF EIR did not specifically addressRecreation, but it analyzed the Project' s potential impacts related to Park Facilities in Chapter 5 ( Public Utilities and Services). The VAF EIR concluded that the Project would result in less -than - significant impacts related to Park Facilities with the implementation of Mitigation Measures PF-20, 21, 22, and 23, which will apply to the Project and which require improvement of the Linear Park adjacent to Villages I, II and III and neighborhood -serving parks in Villages I, II and III, along with payment of development impact fees to fund park improvements.

VAF, including Lago Vista, will be served by the existing Laurel Creek Community Park, and the continued development of the Linear Park system which runs along and adjacent to the entire VAF master planned community, allowing for pedestrian and bicycle mobility from Clay Bank Road to Peabody Road. The Project will have accessto an additional 14.2 acres of parkland within the VAF master planned community ( including 5.5 acres in Village I, 0.7 acre in Village II, and 8.0 acres planned for Village III) and 11.1 acres of nearby linear parkway.

The Project includes an active transportation link from the northern edge of the residential development and connecting via a multi -use trail to the existing Portland Drive, creating connectivity between Lago Vista and the Linear Park. The total amount of active use trail and open space in Lago Vista will be 6. 1 acres.

With respect to Recreation impact threshold ( b), the potential impacts of the Project would be specific to the Project development area and therefore should be compared to the impacts of the 27 Hawthorne Mill West project analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR. The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that recreation facilities to be constructed as part of the project, such as trails and neighborhood open space, would not result in any impacts not already addressed elsewhere in the EIR. (e.g., noise impacts or air quality impacts of construction) and that no further mitigation was required. The Lago Vista project would involve substantially similar development of recreation facilities such as trails and parklets and is consistent with the conclusions in the Hawthorne Mill EIR for Recreation impact threshold ( b).

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Recreation - Would the project:

Impact or Change Change
Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impacts VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Increasethe use of existing x
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or x
require the construction, or
expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
M. Transportation
As discussed in the project description above, most of the residential units in the Project are being re -allocated from already -entitled units in Villages I- Il, which have been developed with fewer units than previously analyzedandapproved, so it is appropriateto analyzepotential Transportation impacts of the Project as VAF impacts under the VAF EIR. Also, Project trips would be routed through Village II. As discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis Memorandum prepared by Wood Rodgers and attached to this Addendum as Appendix B, the Project would gain accessto the existing roadway network via new local roadway connections to Golden Way and High Line Drive. The Project would eliminate the Portland Drive extension that the Hawthorne Mill Project had proposed and solely connect via Village II, which reduces the wetland and biological resource impacts that would have been caused by the Portland Drive roadway connection. Accordingly, any traffic that was assumed to go north from Hawthorne Mill West to Manuel Campos Parkway via Portland Drive would now be routed west to Clay Bank Road via Village II' s internal streets, so all trips generated by the Project would be indistinguishable from other VAF trips.

As discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis Memorandum, the new residential streets would typically be 40 to 46 feet wide, including 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street, 8- foot parking lanes on one or both sides of the street, and 10-to- 12-foot travel lanes (one lane in each direction). Private Street connections for the condominiums would be gated. The private 28 streets would typically be approximately 26 to 40 feet wide, including one travel lane in each direction, and in some cases, parking and/or a sidewalk on one side of the street.

The Transportation Impact Analysis Memorandum attached as Appendix B compares the trip generation of the proposed Project with the trip generation analyzed in the VAF EIR to confirm that the Project will not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed and mitigated in the VAF EIR. Table I shows the approved trip generation for Villages I -II from the VAF EIR.

Table 1: VAF EIR Residential Trip Generation — Villages I and II Development Land Uses Description Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In Out Total In Out
Village I Residential 204 Low- Med 6, 115 473 89 384 596 393 203 Density Units, 628
High Density Units
Village II Residential/ 270 Low- Med 6, 978 308 115 193 656 359 297 Mixed Use Density Units, 24.3
Acres Mixed - Use
EIR Approved Villages I - II Residential Total 13, 093 781 204 577 1, 252 752 500 Source: VAF EIR Table 4-6 and Appendix 3: Traffic Analysis for the Villages at Fairfield ( TKJM, February 4, 2005), Tables IX and X ( based on rates found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6' Edition).

As noted in the project description, the final maps ultimately approved for Villages I and II included 432 single-family units in Village I and 374 single- family units in Village II, a total of 806 units, 295 less than the originally approved Village I -II total, and no mixed -use area. Table 2 shows the trip generation for the actual built -out Village I -II units.

Table 2: Final Build - Out Trip Generation — Villages I and II Land Use Units Quantity Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Category
Total In Out Total In Out
Village I — DU 432 3, 878 282 71 211 393 248 145
Single -
Family
Detached
Housing
VillageIl— DU 374 3, 396 247 62 185 343 216 127
Single -
Family
Detached
Housing
W
Total 7, 274 529
1 133 396 736 464 272
Notes: Trip rates basedonfitted curve equationsfor theproposedland useconsistentwith information contained in theITE Trip GenerationManual, 11"' Edition
Table 3 shows the trip generation for the proposed Lago Vista project:

Table 3: Project Trip Generation — Lago Vista
Land Use Category Units Quantity Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out
Lago Vista Project,— DU 375 3, 130 219 55 164 276 169 107 151 Single -Family
Detached Housing; 224
Single -Family
Attached ( Duplex)
Housing
Notes: Trip rates based onfitted curve equations for the proposed land use consistent with information contained in theITE Trip GenerationManual, 111Edition
As detailed in Appendix B and the tables above, the addition of Project daily trips to the built -out conditions of Villages I -II including Lago Vista results in a total of 10,404 trips, 2,689 fewer than the 13,093 originally studied and approved in the VAF EIR. Accordingly, the trips generated by the Project site would not exceed the trips generated by Villages I and II and mitigated in the VAF EIR, which included significant improvements to Clay Bank Road and other intersections in the area. The Transportation & Circulation mitigation measures in the VAF EIR would apply to the Project, and the Project units would count towards any of the unit count - basedtriggers in the VAF EIR. For example, VAF MM- TC- 4 provides: " Improve the A. M. peak hour performance of the Clay Bank Road/Cement Hill Road (S) intersection ( study intersection 11) ... prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 1,948th unit constructed by Lewis Planned Communities." MM- TC- 5 provides: " Improve the A. M. and P.M. peak hour performance.of the Clay Bank Road/Air Base Parkway intersection ( study intersection 12) ... prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 1,330th unit constructed by Lewis Planned Communities." Since Project units would be treated as Village 11units, these mitigation measures would be triggered just as the VAF EIR contemplated. Appendix B includes an analysis of intersection operations with the addition of Project units. All of the mitigation measures from the VAF EIR and subsequent addenda would continue to apply to the entire Project, including the Project.

While the CEQA Guidelines now consider VMT, addenda do not need to consider new impact areas added after the EIR was concluded. See Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin 2013) 214 Cal. AppAth 1301, 1320 ( adoption of new guidelines for GHG evaluation was no significant new information requiring further CEQA review because GHG emissions were known information and could have been addressed in the original EIR); Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Health Servs. ( 1995) 38 Cal. AppAth 1574, 1605 ( new critical habitat regulation was not significant new information because impacts to the species had already been addressed 30 in original EIR.) Since the trip distribution and generation of the combined current VAF Village I, Village II, and the Project would be similar to and less than the values in the approved VAF EIR, the Project would not be projected to result in any new transportation impacts beyond those studied in the VAF EIR. From a VMT perspective, there may be a nominal difference between the HMW project that would have routed trips via Portland Drive and Manuel Campos Parkway and the Project configuration that would route trips via Village II to Clay Bank Road. Routing trips to the west may in fact reduce VMT as it shortens the distance to I- 80.

Environmental Issues New No Substantial Change No Substantial Change from No Impact Significant from Previous VAF EIR Previous Hawthorne Mill EIR Transportation - Would the project:

Impact or Analysis Analysis
Substantially
More Severe
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, X
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into accountall modesof
transportation including mass transit
and non - motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion X
managementprogram, including but
not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures,
or other standards established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic X
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increasehazardsdueto a X
design feature (e.g., sharpcurves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency X
access?
f) Conflict with adoptedpolicies, plans C X C
or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrianfacilities, or
otherwise decreasethe performanceor
safety of such facilities?
31 N. PUBLIC FACILITIES
The potential impacts of the Project related to public facilities are driven by the number of residential units and associated population. As discussed in the project description above, most of the residential units in the Project are being re -allocated from already- entitled units in Villages I- II, so it is appropriate to analyze impacts associated with the Project public facilities as VAF impacts under the VAF EIR. These impacts were analyzed in VAF EIR Chapter 5 ( Public Facilities and Services). The VAF EIR concluded that all impacts of the Project related to Public Utilities would be less than significant with mitigation. All of the mitigation measures adopted in the VAF EIR and its addenda would continue to apply to the Project, including the Project.

The HawthorneMill Westproject contemplatedwastewatercollection via the sanitarysewerlift station to be constructed as part of Village II, with a backup alternative of connecting to the existing sanitary sewer system at Portland Drive via a temporary lift station and sewer line under the proposed Portland Drive extension. The Project can utilize the now -built Village II sewage infrastructure and route sewage to the west to the sewer lift station. Other utility connections that were assumedto be routed under the proposed Portland Drive extension would be routed to the infrastructure that has already been built or is under construction to serve Village II. Because the Project does not affect the VAF- wide total number of units that was originally studied in the VAF EIR ( 2,327 total units), demand for all utility services will be similar to what was originally studied and approved in the VAF EIR, so the Project will not result in any new significant or substantially more severe impacts related to utilities.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Utilities- Would the project:

Impact or Change Change
Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
Impact VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Exceed wastewater treatment C x
requirements ofthe applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of E x C
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects
c) Require or result in the construction of C x C
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects?
32 d) Have sufficient water supplies x
available to servethe project from
existing entitlements andresources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the x
wastewatertreatment provider, which
servesor may servethe project that it
hasinadequatecapacity to servethe
project' s projecteddemandin addition
to the provider' s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with x
insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodatethe project' ssolid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local x 0
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
O. WILDFIRE
The Hawthorne Mill EIR included an analysis of risks related to wildfire in the Hazards section, consistent with the version of the CEQA Guidelines in place at the time the Hawthorne Mill EIR was certified. The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that potential impacts of the Hawthorne Mill West project related to wildfire would be less -than -significant asthe project site is not located in a high or extreme wildfire hazard zone, and is relatively flat, surrounded by industrial and residential uses, and regularly grazed. Existing conditions on the Project site have not materially changed since the Hawthorne Mill EIR was certified, and the potential impacts of the Project related to wildfire are substantially similar to those analyzed in the Hawthorne Mill EIR. No mitigation was required in the Hawthorne Mill EIR.

Environmental Issues New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Wildfire: If located in or near state Impact or Change Change responsibility areasor lands classified as Substantially from from very high fire hazardseverity zones,
More Severe Previous Previous
would the project:

Impact VAF EIR Hawthorne
Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
a) Substantially impair anadopted G x
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and x
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread ofa
33 wildfire?
c) Require the installation or X
maintenance of associated
infrastructure ( such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impactsto the
environment?
d) Exposepeople or structuresto X
significant risks, including downslope
ordownstreamfloodingorlandslides,
as a result of runoff, post' -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
11 P. ENERGY
SincemostoftheunitsintheProjectarebeingre -allocatedfromalreadyapprovedVillageI -II units, this Addendum considers them Village I -II units for the purposes of analyzing Energy impacts. TheVAFEIRdidnotformallyanalyzepotentialenergyimpacts. StateCEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist thresholds were updated by the State Office of Planning and Research after publication of the VAF EIR. The current State CEQA Appendix G checklist contains separate thresholds for Energy, which are incorporated into this Addendum, and shown in the checklist below. However, the total number of units in VAF with the addition of the Project will remaini,the same as the number of units originally analyzed in the VAF EIR, so any Energy- related impacts associated with Project would be consistent with or less than those of the VAF Project. Additionally, the units in the Project will implement Title 24 energy efficiency standards, ensuring„that it is moreenergy -efficient thanthoseoriginally analyzedin the VAF EIR.

I
Energy Impacts- Would the project: New No No No Impact
Significant Substantial Substantial
Impact or Change Change
Substantially from from
More Severe Previous Previous
I Impact VAF EIR Hawthorne
I: Analysis Mill EIR
Analysis
c) Result in potentially significant X
environmentalimpactdueitowasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessaryconsumptionof energy
resources, during project constructionor
operation? I, d) Conflict
withor obstructlastateor X local plan
for renewableenergyor energyefficiency?
1, i
34 Q. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
A. Agricultural and Forest Resources: The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that residential development on the Project development area would have no impacts related to agricultural and forest resources. There is no change to this conclusion with the Project.

B. Mineral Resources: The Hawthorne Mill EIR concluded that residential development on the Project development area would have no impacts related to mineral resources. There is no change to this conclusion with the Project.

CONCLUSION
This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. The Addendum reviews the proposed development activities and project changes discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum, the City determines that the proposed Project does not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines that the Hawthorne Mill EIR; the VAF EIR; the 2011, 2015 and 2018 Addenda to the VAF EIR; and this Addendum to the Hawthorne Mill EIR and the VAF EIR, adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project.

As provided in Section 15164 of Guidelines, this Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered along with the prior environmental documents before making a decision to adopt the Project approvals.

The above referenced resolutions, ordinance, EIRs, and the 2011, 2015 and 2018 Addenda and this 2022 Addendum are all available for public review in the Community Development Department ( 1000 Webster Street, 2nd Floor Fairfield, CA) during regular business hours and are all incorporated herein by reference.
35 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Exhibit B

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS

81.5± AC..,
Ir ` PF

42. 2± AGE
RLM
I

31. oz AC
AIRgASEPARKwAA
AIRgASEPARK AY

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS EXISTING ACREAGE PROPOSED ACREAGE DIFFERENCE RESIDENTIAL LOW - MEDIUM ( RLM) 31. 0± 21. 6± 9. 4±
RESIDENTIAL HIGH ( RH) 0. 0-+ 15. 8± 15. 8±
PUBLIC FACILITY ( PF) 42. 2± 42. 2+ 0
OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION ( OSC) 81. 5± 75. 2± 6. 3±
TOTAL 154. 7+_ 154. 7+- 0
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT DATE: APRIL 11, 2025

VILLAGES AT FAIRFIELD - LAG' O VISTA
N

FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

NOT TO SCALE
WODO 4R000ERS

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME