AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-282 City of Woodland Comment 6-9 Summary of Comment: The commenter references the City’s Climate Action Plan and states the importance of planning communities for reducing dependence on fossil fuels to ensure a quality environment for future generations, and also deems that land use planning and having close proximity between residences and schools are important.
Response: The City continues to support and implement the Climate Action Plan and appreciates the commenter’s support for this important document. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR; the comment is noted. Please see response to comment 6-2 with regard to the Citywide and WRTP Specific Plan efforts and coordination with appropriate agencies as it pertains to school facilities.
Comment 6-10 Summary of Comment: The commenter reiterates their request for the ‘formal inclusion of a ‘school’ or ‘public/quasi-public’ area’ in the land use and zoning maps included in the WRTP Specific Plan.
Response: Please see response to comments 6-1 through 6-6.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-283 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
2.2.7 COMMENT LETTER #7:
ERIC GARBER
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-284 City of Woodland RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 7
Comment 7-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter states that the WRTP Specific Plan should include area specifically reserved for a school(s) and should not require the redesignation of land zones to do so. The commenter also asks about the impact it will have on medium density homes if a school were to be built in these areas.
Response: The WRTP Specific Plan reserves up to a 12-acre portion of the medium density residential zone south of Parkland Avenue and east of Road B for a potential new elementary school site should a school be needed, as requested by WJUSD. This is a permitted land use within the Medium Density Residential designation and would not require a land use redesignation. In addition, as explained on page 0-7 of the Draft EIR, while the total development square footage and other land use details are all reasonable assumptions based on the land use designations and other planning details of the WRTP Specific Plan, these inputs are assumptions used for the purposes of informing related planning efforts and the analysis of environmental impacts of the WRTP Specific Plan. In addition, as detailed in Table 2.1 of the WRTP Specific Plan, the land use plan provides for a range of residential densities, and provides design standards and guidelines for each residential land use designation category including the floor area ratio range. The estimated dwelling units that would be accommodated under each residential land use designation is based on average yields for planning purposes and analysis in the EIR. Using land within the Medium Density Residential land use reserved for a school site would not necessarily preclude the ability of the WRTP Specific Plan Area to accommodate the anticipated number of medium density residential units, since the loss of units for a possible school site could be made up through increased densities in other locations.
Comment 7-2 Summary of Comment: The commenter references Table 3.12-2 on page 3.12-4 (Woodland Joint Unified School District Enrollment, 2019-2020) and expresses their uncertainty in the meaning of definitions between the terms District Capacity and Design Capacity, as well as asks about the basis for the data in the “District Capacity” and “Estimated Remaining Capacity” numbers.
Response: The text on page 3.12-4 has been revised from “design capacity” to “District capacity” as the intended content. Consistent with the commenter’s observation, the estimated remaining capacity data were inconsistent and did not reflect the exact calculations between District Capacity and Enrollment at the time of analysis. These data have also been refined for consistency to reflect updated data from the WJUSD Annual Enrollment Projection Report supporting documentation regarding enrollment and capacity (DecisionInsight 2021) (See Chapter 3, Errata, of this Final EIR)). These revisions do not change the validity or findings of significance of the of the analysis in the Draft EIR.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-285 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
2.2.8 COMMENT LETTER #8A:
BRUCE JACKS (JUNE 3, 2021)
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-286 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-287 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-288 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-289 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-290 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-291 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-292 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-293 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-294 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-295 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-296 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-297 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 8A
Comment Letter #1 (8a) submitted by Bruce Jacks on June 3, 2021 Response: The referenced Technical Memorandum prepared by Cunningham Engineering is a planning level document. The City has reviewed the document and provided comments through its consultant for the applicant to address at a later date prior to improvement plan (design) review.
The current document is sufficient to identify concepts and alternatives from a planning level perspective. The Technical Memorandum evaluated the proposed WRTP storm water system for the 10-year storm, including storm drainage water shed analysis and the backbone layout of the stormwater system for the WRTP. In addition, the Draft EIR comprehensively analyzed potential impacts related to the potential increase in the rate or amount or surface runoff that could result in flooding, exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. In accordance with General Plan Policies 5.I.3 and 5.I.7, the Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (City of Woodland 2006b), and the Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2021), project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan are required to design site-specific on-site stormwater systems and submit the proposed designs to the City for approval prior to the start of any construction activities. The WRTP Specific Plan identifies best management practices (BMPs), low impact development (LID), and hydromodification management techniques that will be incorporated into the site-specific stormwater system designs and operation as required by the City’s Post Construction Standard Plan (2015) to reduce postconstruction runoff and control urban runoff pollution in compliance with of the City’s Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. This ensures no deferral. However, because proposed development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, primarily as a result of new impervious surfaces, and detailed drainage and stormwater flooding calculations and designs for the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site State Route 113/County Road 25A interchange improvements have not yet been performed, the Draft EIR found this impact to be potentially significant. The detailed drainage and stormwater calculations and designs cannot be performed at this time because the project development plans and infrastructure plans have not been designed. Mitigation Measure
3.9-1a requires additional storm drainage analysis for determining the amount of new development acreage beyond the previously identified 80 residential acres allowable in the South Urban Growth Area that can be accommodated with current infrastructure, accounting for revised baseline conditions and identifying what additional storm drainage infrastructure would be needed to support full buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact was comprehensively considered and analyzed in the WRTP Specific Plan EIR and no changes are needed.
Comment 8a-2 Comment: The commenter asserts that interaction of WRTP and its discharge to the Upper South Canal is not a zero impact. The Upper South Canal was not originally designed to drain lands south of Road 25A between Road 101 and East Street.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-298 City of Woodland Response: Land within the WRTP in an undeveloped state currently discharges to the Upper South Canal.
The estimated 100-year peak flow entering the South Canal under the 2006 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan (2006 SDFMP) has been modified under the SDFMP Update for the South Urban Growth Area (SUGA SDFMP) (updated February 2017, revised March 2018), with changes in precipitation creating impacts to previously designed conditions, as well as new land use, watershed, and detention configurations/assumptions. It was not the purpose of the 2018 SUGA SDFMP to partition all of the individual changes to determine their respective impacts separately. Rather, the approach was to take all of the changes at once and determine overall acceptable solutions to the City for the buildout of the General Plan. The SUGA SDFMP did evaluate the increases in flow to the Upper South Canal due to development in the WRTP. The SUGA SDFMP did evaluate the increases in flow to the Upper South Canal from areas south of CR 25A. The Draft EIR included review and analysis based on the SUGA SDFMP and no changes to the EIR are necessary or have been made.
Comment 8a-3 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that four smaller detention ponds with pumping is not a good engineering solution.
Response: To develop a balanced Specific Plan with multiple land uses, landowners, and physical constraints, many drainage alternatives including various pond locations, pipes versus channels, and construction costs were evaluated. The proposed layout was determined to spread the land burden associated with providing storm drainage infrastructure as an equitable approach while retaining sufficient land to yield the number of units at the intended densities per the WRTP Specific Plan proposed Land Use Plan (Cunningham Engineering 2020). See Responses to Comments 8a-10c, 8a-18 and 8c-18 for related responses.
Comment 8a-4 Summary of Comment: Commentor indicates that one of the storm drainage basins is outside the Urban Limit Line and asserts that this would conflict with Yolo County preservation goals. In addition, the commenter states that the WRTP drainage plan proposes a possible expansion of the Oyang South stormwater basin, also outside the Urban Limit Line.
Response: The City reviewed the location of the South Regional Pond, acknowledges that it is outside of the Urban Limit Line, included the South Regional Pond as part of the proposed land uses in the Draft EIR project description, and comprehensively analyzed the environmental impacts associated with development of the South Regional Pond at the proposed location for each impact area throughout the Draft EIR. Replacement of converted farmland or an in-lieu fee (dependent upon project size) would be required by the County’s agricultural conservation ordinance (Section 8-2.404 and Section 8.2-405 of the Yolo County Code), and mitigation measures for the loss of habitat are included in the project mitigation measures detailed in Section 3.3 of the EIR. The expansion of the Oyang South stormwater basin, as referenced by the commenter, is not proposed as part of the WRTP Specific Plan; the WRTP Specific Plan and Storm Drainage Study have been revised to clarify this. The proposed drainage solutions, as presented within the WRTP Specific Plan EIR are consistent with the revised WRTP Specific Plan and Storm Drainage Study (Cunningham Engineering 2023). Therefore, no revisions are required of or have been made to the WRTP Specific Plan EIR.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-299 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Comment 8a-5 Comment: The commenter asserts that, because the March 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area is described by City staff as a “guide,” the current version still contains significant errors, misidentified and/or overlooked shed areas.
Response: As a planning level document, the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area is intended to and appropriately serves as a guide for future design efforts, which then evaluate conditions in more detail using actual layouts and design plans for construction approval by the City, at the time that more advanced design level is complete and necessary details for future analysis are available. Not every number and condition in a planning level document will be the final condition after construction. As no specific errors are identified under this general comment, each instance of a specific purported error is separately addressed in detail in responses to more specific comments throughout Responses to Comments 8a, 8b, and 8c.
Comment 8a-6 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that the functionality of the Upper South Canal from the time of design and construction in 2004 to 2021 has changed dramatically. The commenter states that the 100-year hydraulic grade line has risen 1.66 feet from elevation 38.14 to 39.8, asserting that over 100 pads in Spring Lake north of Road 25A do not have one-foot protection and that, in a catastrophic event, many pads may be submerged.
Response: The purpose and suitability of the Upper South Canal has not significantly changed. While the peak flow conditions and water surface elevations have changed, the Upper South Canal was intended to convey the peak 100-year conditions and still does, serving its purpose. The change in peak water surface to 39.8 feet does not inundate structures to the north of County Road 25A, but is held within the Upper South Canal with zero freeboard within the channel (SUGA SDFMP, March 2018). As such, this is not the elevation or condition present adjacent to homes north of County Road 25A, as they will experience water surface elevations that correspond to rainfall and flow routing directly within these subdivisions (with an elevation lower than 39.8).
The reference to a “catastrophic” event is not defined, but is assumed to be an event larger than the design event of a 100-year storm. The City standard is to provide protection against storms with a recurrence interval of 100-year or lower, in accordance with published design standards and approved exceptions.
Comment 8a-7 Comment: The commenter asserts that city staff direction to use a Manning’s n-value (n-value) of 0.03 for the Upper South Canal in the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area, in effect, dictated design criteria to Wood Rodgers, and that the consultant did not agree with that direction. The commenter goes on to state that using a realistic n-value of 0.07 in the Upper South Canal would produce a higher hydraulic grade line at Road 25A, resulting in overtopping and overland release into Spring Lake at Promenade.
Response: The City developed a maintenance plan for the Upper South Canal that would allow higher levels of flow in this channel. This maintenance plan is consistent with the use of a Manning’s n-value of 0.03. In accordance with the city’s approach, Wood Rodgers characterized the channel with a 0.03 Manning’s n-value with zero feet of freeboard in the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area. The commenter’s characterization of 0.07 being a “realistic n-value” is the commenter’s opinion. It is the City’s responsibility to maintain the channel in such a manner to meet the 0.03 n-value design criteria. The comment does not
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-300 City of Woodland identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-8 Comment: The commenter asserts that the Willow Slough storage area south of Road 25A to mitigate Willow Slough overflow cannot be reasonably confirmed without field survey and an inundation easement.
Response: The area south of County Road 25A is not a storage pond. Based on the topographic information, flow is leaving Willow Slough at a higher elevation and flows in a sloping nature downhill toward the Upper South Canal, turning east to flow under County Road 102. The overland flow leaving the Willow Slough channel has a higher peak flow rate, which is slightly attenuated as it travels across the landscape to the Upper South Canal. The boundary of stormwater flow is determined by applying the highest water surface elevations along the path of the overland flow and cumulatively capturing all inundated areas, even though they do not all inundate simultaneously. Any effort to represent a flowage easement must map the area as inundation area, with changing stormwater flow elevation from south to north, while using underlying topographic mapping. The InfoWorks ICM program used to model the stormwater flow automatically superimposes the topography and water to generate a representation of the inundated areas at a micro level. For additional information regarding topographic accuracy see Response to Comment 8a-17c. The Spring Lake Capital Improvement Plan and Spring Lake fee program includes funding to acquire a flowage easement or flowage easements, as applicable.
The City is currently in the process of negotiating (a) flowage easement(s). Notwithstanding, this has no bearing on the EIR analysis or conclusion therein. No revisions to the EIR have been made or are necessary.
Comment 8a-9 Summary of Comment: The commenter concludes that the 100-year water surface elevation at County Road 25A “must be reduced,” and offers several recommendations to achieve that end.
Response: The conclusion asserted by the commenter is not entirely accurate and appears to be based on assumptions regarding channel roughness and freeboard, which are based on the maintenance plan for the channel. The conceptual alternatives offered by the commenter may be valid for reducing water surface elevations in targeted areas, however, the City has determined based on the facts below that alternative designs are not needed to protect the areas north of County Road 25A. The City monitors and maintains the roughness conditions in the Upper South Canal upstream and downstream of County Road 102 based on adherence to the City maintenance plan. Based on the SUGA SDFMP, the design condition of the Upper South Canal meets the City design standard for a 100-year storm event with the approval of a design exception by the City Engineer. The City Engineer approved a design exception to allow zero freeboard based on the fact that the peak flow in the Upper South Canal is at elevation 39.8 for less than one hour and the length of road that is at elevation 39.8 is less than 50 feet. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-10 Summary of Comment: The commenter raises various questions and comments regarding the Cunningham Engineering WRTP January 31, 2020, Technical Memorandum for drainage, including concern that design issues remain to be resolved or have been deferred.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-301 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response: A Specific Plan and its appendices are planning documents to guide future actions when more detailed design specifications are available. Specific answers to commenter’s questions, a summary of each is presented (underlined) at the beginning of each response, are presented below:
Sub-comment 8a-10a: The commenter raises the question of the West Regional Pond Discharge of 55 cubic feet per second (cfs) as opposed to 109 cfs.
Response: The 2018 SUGASDFMP, indicates the planned maximum West Regional Pond discharge to be approximately 109 cfs, which is based upon the capacity of the 60-inch culvert beneath State Route 113. The 55 cfs flows were based on a conservative assumption from over 20 years ago which assumed a conservative 10-year hydraulic grade line using a more generic storm model. The 109 cfs of flow is more accurate than the 55 cfs of flow and is based on the more robust stormwater Integrated Catchment Modeling (ICM) model. The revised WRTP Technical Memorandum (July 2023) has been revised to accurately cite the 109 cfs.
Wood Rodgers analyzed the pipeline capacity in this corridor for the 10-year storm event to verify that there was adequate capacity to convey 109 cfs from the West Regional Pond plus developed flows within Spring Lake and future developed flows from shed C4B (the northern portion of the WRTP). The analysis used InfoWorks ICM, a two-dimensional (2D) hydraulic modeling software to assess the available capacity. The results indicate that the hydraulic grade line during the 10-year peak flow conditions is located below the soffit of the pipes in this corridor. Hence, the corridor is able to accommodate 109 cfs from the West Regional Pond in addition to developed flows within the relevant sheds east of State Route 113. The results of this analysis are part of a memo entitled Farmer Central Drainage (10-year) and Woodland Research and Technical Park Development Triggers, dated January 17, 2022 .
Sub-comment 8a-10b: The commenter asks for clarification on the meaning of Shed 4 being required to have 100 percent on-site water quality storage.
Response: Based on the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board NPDES General Permit, the standard of care for water quality design is to implement post-construction best management practices through low impact design techniques. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to, vegetated swales, rain gardens/bioretention planters, and pervious pavements, all of which may also implement below grade infiltration trenches. This was discussed on page 12 of the Storm Water Technical Memorandum (Cunningham Engineering, 2023).
Sub-comment 8a-10c: The commenter notes that sheds west of Highway 113 will be required to have storm drain pump stations, which the commenter asserts conflicts with City standards when a gravity solution is possible.
Response: A gravity solution would require upsizing and deepening the culverts beneath Highway 113, and subsequently deepening the entire downstream drainage system. The Upper South Canal was designed with the assumption that the culverts beneath Highway 113 were to remain. It would be cost prohibitive to modify the existing culverts under State Highway 113. The WRTP Specific Plan EIR examines the adverse physical effects of all changes proposed under the Specific Plan, including all on- and off-site infrastructure required to serve planned land uses.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-302 City of Woodland While the commenter offers an alternative drainage approach, the drainage approach summarized in the Specific Plan and Draft EIR is consistent with City drainage standards, and this drainage strategy is addressed comprehensively in the EIR. Further, the approach selected by the City has the fewest environmental impacts. No revisions to the EIR have been made or are necessary.
Sub-comment 8a-10d: The commenter asks for clarification regarding the difference between the Water Quality/Hydromodification Basin and the South Regional Pond.
Response: The South Regional Pond will be sized to attenuate post development runoff from the 100-year storm to pre-development conditions of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Current 100-year runoff from the culverts crossing beneath State Route 113 will also be routed through the South Regional Pond. The Water Quality / Hydromodification Pond will be sized only to attenuate flows up to the two-year storm post development runoff. Post development flows in excess of the two-year storm will overflow into the Upper South Canal and increased flows are ultimately attenuated for Shed 6 in the downstream South Urban Growth Area drainage system. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR has been made or is necessary.
Sub-comment 8a-10e: The commenter notes that Shed 6 has an option to expand the Oyang South stormwater basin as an alternative to the onsite Water Quality/Hydromodification Basin.
Response: The expansion of the Oyang South stormwater basin, as referenced by the commenter, is not proposed as part of the WRTP Specific Plan; the WRTP Specific Plan and Storm Drainage Study have been revised to reflect this. The proposed drainage solutions, as presented within the WRTP Specific Plan EIR are consistent with the WRTP Specific Plan and revised Storm Drainage Study (Cunningham Engineering 2023). Therefore, no revisions are required of or have been made to the WRTP Specific Plan EIR.
Comment 8a-11 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that the WRTP Specific Plan area sheds drain into the Upper South Canal and that the Upper South Canal is operating with zero feet of freeboard, and, therefore, the WRTP should reduce water levels to have one foot of freeboard relative to the top of the north channel bank.
Response: While the WRTP Specific Plan area does drain into the Upper South Canal, the Plan area’s contribution is not a straightforward determination, as the storm flows from the Willow Slough overflow are not entirely coincident with urban runoff flood timing. Aside from timing issues, the increase in flooding in the Upper South Canal at County Road 102 is more due to increases in design precipitation creating more non-urban runoff, and less due to upstream development.
The following hydrographs show the flow in the Upper South Canal channel upstream of the Willow Slough overflow and the flow at the upstream side of the County Road 102 culverts, respectively; these hydrographs show the urban runoff peaking around hour 13, where the peak portion of the Willow Slough overflow is arriving at hour 15 and peaking after hour 18.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-303 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The City has determined that maintaining lower n-values in the Upper South Canal and allowing water surface elevation at 39.8 upstream of County Road 102 is an acceptable condition. The nvalue is based on the City’s maintenance plan for the Upper South Canal. The design condition of the Upper South Canal meets the City standard of protecting against the 100-year storm event with the approval of a design exception by the City Engineer. The City Engineer approved a design exception to allow zero freeboard based on the fact that the peak flow in the Upper South Canal is at elevation 39.8 for less than one hour and the length of road that is at elevation 39.8
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-304 City of Woodland is less than 50 feet. The WRTP Specific Plan EIR comprehensively analyzed potential impacts associated with stormwater and proposed drainage solutions, and no changes to the EIR are needed.
Comment 8a-12 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that 0.03 as a design n-value is not manageable, given how other segments of channels (e.g. Farmers Central, Heritage outfall, and other portions of the Upper South Canal) are operated within the city. The commenter goes on to provide suggestions for operating the Upper South Canal at a different design condition.
Response: The examples provided in the comment are being managed/operated by the City with a higher design roughness condition, or n-value. This does not preclude the City from operating other channels within the City at other roughness conditions as warranted by project circumstances.
According to the City, operating the Upper South Canal in the vicinity of County Road 102 with a 0.03 n-value is manageable and is consistent with the City’s maintenance plan for this Canal.
The comment provided does not provide evidence that the Upper South Canal in the vicinity of County Road 102 is being maintained inadequately. Operating the Upper South Canal at a different design condition is not needed based on the City’s current operations to maintain the Upper South Canal with a 0.03 n-value. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-13 Summary of Comment: The comment provides background relating to the history of the Upper South Canal design and the use of freeboard in standard design practices.
Response: Based on the SUGA SDFMP, the increasing stormwater elevations along the Upper South Canal west of County Road 102 to 39.8 feet are known to the City. The City has adequate maintenance funding to maintain the Upper South Canal consistent with a 0.03 n-value. Comments regarding what was done in the past do not prevent the City from operating the Upper South Canal with a
0.03 n-value and zero freeboard. The design condition of the Upper South Canal meets the City design standard for a 100-year storm event with the approval of a design exception by the City Engineer. The City Engineer approved a design exception to allow zero freeboard based on the fact that the peak flow in the USC is at elevation 39.8 for less than one hour and the length of road that is at elevation 39.8 is less than 50 feet. If stormwater was to overtop the road, the water would have to travel more than 1,000 feet in order to enter the subdivision. Given the short length of time that the stormwater is modelled to be at the crown of the road, and the short length of road that is impacted, the City Engineer concluded that it would be very unlikely for any amount of stormwater to overtop the road, travel more than 1,000 feet and then enter the subdivision and inundate the neighborhood with stormwater. The WRTP Specific Plan EIR comprehensively analyzed potential impacts associated with stormwater and proposed drainage solutions, and no changes to the EIR are needed.
Comment 8a-14 Summary of Comment: The comment provides background discussion relating to Yolo County design rainfall and increased imperviousness within the watershed contributing to conditions along the Upper South Canal.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-305 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response: The City reviewed the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area, which identifies and documents the Yolo County design rainfall and watershed imperviousness, and accounts for all known factors affecting flooding conditions along the Upper South Canal.
Comment 8a-15 Summary of Comment: The comment reiterates the assertion of the WRTP Specific Plan area’s contribution to flooding within the Upper South Canal and the perceived inadequacy of the current design.
Response: See responses to Comments 8a-6, 8a-9, and 8a-11.
Comment 8a-16 Summary of Comment: The commenter claims that the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area does not accurately account for tributary drainage sheds affecting the South Urban Growth Area, and does not provide enough detail to determine the ultimate sizing of the West Regional Pond, resulting in an inadequate Upper South Canal design.
Response: The boundaries of the drainage areas contributing to the West Regional Pond and the Upper South Canal are provided in the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area. The supporting underlying topographic mapping is a product of the State of California and was approved by the State for use in the City’s master planning efforts. This data can be requested by any person or agency for public benefit through the State Department of Water Resources relating to the Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation Program.
This data was only used in areas that were reasonably unmodified between 2000 (baseline conditions) and 2008 (data capture). The State’s 2008 topographic data was used to verify drainage area contributions for areas draining to the Willow Slough channel upstream of County Road 102. The exact footprint of the West Regional Pond will be determined when development areas west of the WRTP are developed. The current size of the West Regional Pond accommodates existing development that flows into it. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-17 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks if the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area has fully discovered and tested drainage issues, verified sheds, and provided viable solutions, and goes on to provide a list of perceived errors, as detailed and responded to individually in the following sub-comments (note that the sub-comments are listed using the same alphanumeric provided in the comment letter, with the comment underlined and responses to follow).
Sub-comment 8a-17.a: The commenter asserts that defining 320 acres west of East Street/railroad (RR) as tributary for the former Farmers Central Ditch irrigation canal is an error that originated as part of the 2004 City of Woodland SDFMP, and that the entire 320 acres drains south to a 14.25-foot-wide railroad box culvert 0.5 mile south of Road 25A, and ultimately discharges to Willow Slough. The commenter asserts that some percentage of runoff from that 320 +/-acres of ag land (including 160 acres of SP-1C west of East Street/RR technically may reach the South Canal and be pumped by the city in a 100-year Willow Slough overflow event. The comment ends in an incomplete sentence, but response is provided below based on content provided.
Response to 8a-17.a. Wood Rodgers assumes the comment is in reference to watersheds west of East Street (parallel to the Railroad), though there is no clear reference by the commenter to the watershed naming used in the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-306 City of Woodland Area. Figure 4 in the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area shows watersheds labeled “WRR2A,” “WRR2B,” and “WRR1” for defining baseline conditions. All three of these watersheds are not flowing into the Farmers Central Channel in this baseline scenario.
For ultimate (developed) conditions, the model reflects that the runoff from WRR2A, WRR2B and the developing portion of WRR1 (shown on Figure 7 of the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area) and direct them into the West Regional Pond. Drainage shed WRR1B is the portion that will remain undeveloped on Figure 7 which continues to drain south as it does under baseline conditions, bypassing the developing portions of the City and entering Willow Slough upstream of County Road 102.
Sub-comment 8a-17.b: The commenter states that Wood Rodgers has not defined the flood event wherein Willow Slough overtops its bank east and west of County Road 102. The commenter, therefore, asserts that it is not known how often the city will pump any water from a Willow Slough overflow.
Response to 8a-17.b. The design level 100-year storm can be accommodated with the existing and planned drainage system without pumping at Willow Slough.
Sub-comment 8a-17.c: The commenter asks if field survey has verified the storage area calculated on the Russell property south of Road 25A and west of Road 102 to confirm the peak flow mitigation from a Willow Slough overflow. The commenter assumes that topography used for storage calculation was likely the 2008 Department of Water Resources light detection and ranging or laser imaging, detection and ranging (LiDAR) topography. The commenter goes on to provide a list of accuracy issues related to this assumption, and asks about a flowage easement.
Response to 8a-17.c. The city confirms that the 2008 Department of Water Resources LiDAR mapping dataset was used for the updated modeling in this area of the model, as performed by Wood Rodgers. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the published vertical accuracy of this 1-foot contour data is +/- 0.33 feet. The scientific characterization of accuracy is the worst-case allowable error within the dataset and does not characterize the accuracy of every point in the data set. The vast majority of the data is much closer than this worst-case accuracy limit.
The conversion of the Russell property to orchard serves to reduce the hydraulic flow capacity northward, and force more water to stay in Willow Slough, which is to the benefit of the City.
See response to comment 8a-8 above. This area is flowing/sloping and not behaving as a detention basin.
The SUGA SDFMP (2018) accounts for stormwater inundation at the Upper South Canal that results from County Road 25A. The Upper South Canal functions as intended to prevent stormwater from overtopping County Road 25A and flowing into the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area. The City of Woodland’s Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan Update and Preliminary Engineering (2006a) includes requirements for development to preserve water quality and minimize localized flooding during storm events. It outlines floodplains, design criteria, storm drainage water quality monitoring, and implementation of future facilities. The City’s South Area Drainage Master Plan was updated in 2018, particularly as related to additional urban
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-307 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR development projected in the City’s updated General Plan (inclusive of the WRTP Specific Plan Area), in the SUGA SDFMP (2018). Furthermore, all development projects in the City are required to comply with City's Post Construction Standard Plan (2015) to reduce postconstruction runoff. While development within the South Urban Growth Area, including the WRTP Specific Plan Area, contribute incrementally to the 100-year stormwater flow, any such development is accounted for within the SUGA SDFMP (2018). In addition, the Spring Lake Capital Improvement Plan and Spring Lake fee program includes funding to acquire a flowage easement. The City is currently in the process of negotiating a flowage easement. The Draft EIR comprehensively analyzed potential impacts related to the potential increase in the rate or amount or surface runoff that could result in flooding, exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (see Section 3.9, “Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality,” of the Draft EIR).
Comment 8a-18 Summary of Comment: The Commenter requests information about the four drainage basins planned for the WRTP Specific Plan area, specifically noting that the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area sited one single pond denoted as the South Regional Pond. The commentor asks specific questions summarized below as underlined, with response contained immediately following without underline.
Comment 8a-18.a. Summary: The commenter asked what the design standards are for the detention basins north and south of County Road 25A, and if there will be an emergency spillway.
Response: The design of the ponds will be per City Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2021). The WRTP Specific Plan is a planning level document. Commenter’s engineering specific comments will be appropriately addressed and reviewed at the time that specific information is proposed via specific project’s construction documents.
Comment 8a-18b. Summary: The commenter requested explanation as to why there are two basins, one north of County Road 25A within the WRTP Specific Plan area and one south of County Road 25A outside the Urban Limit Line.
Response: See responses 8a-4, 8a-27, and 8c-18.
Comment 8a-18c. Summary: The commenter requested explanation as to why there are four basins, including two west of State Route 113, requiring pumping.
Response: Development of the areas west of State Route 113 are not proposed for development with the WRTP Specific Plan. Therefore, the Specific Plan did not accommodate storm water detention for these areas and the EIR did not evaluate this development. See Comment 8a-27 for additional discussion regarding timing of development. See Comment 8a-10.c for additional discussion regarding the use of pumps for the ponds.
Comment 8a-19 Comment: The commenter asserts that for the occurrence of a 100-year event east of Road 102 combined with local event west of Road 102, the Wood Rodgers recommendation is to combine a 25-year local with the 100-year off-site.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-308 City of Woodland Response: While not specifically stated in the comment, it is understood that the commenter’s intent is to assert that the City should run the 25-year local analysis combined with the 100-year offsite in the Yolo Bypass. The evaluation by Wood Rodgers for the 2006 SDFMP provided a coincident frequency analysis for evaluating Woodland conditions with the conditions in the Yolo Bypass.
As the South Urban Growth Area is pumped into the Outfall Channel, the conditions downstream of the pump station do not influence conditions within the South Urban Growth Area, therefore no coincidence with the Yolo Bypass is necessary to evaluate.
Comment 8a-20 Comment: The commenter asserts that Wood Rodgers recommends 8 inches maximum depth of water at any point in a travel way for emergency vehicle access.
Response: No reference is provided by the commenter as to where Wood Rodgers made this recommendation. Wood Rodgers did include a section on Roadways and Overland Conveyance Systems in Appendix D of the 2006 SDFMP which is consistent with the comment; however, the City has never adopted such an overland release allowance. The original recommendation was based on the vertical clearance of fire trucks and ambulances being able to safely negotiate a flooded internal street within a subdivision. There is no nexus between the comment and the analysis of the WRTP Draft EIR.
Comment 8a-21 Summary of Comment: The commenter notes that attachments to the Cunningham Engineering Drainage Tech Memo are not uploaded to the City Website.
Response: Attachments 7 through 9 have been uploaded to the City website.
Comment 8a-22 Summary of Comment: The commenter references page 2, paragraph 3, of the January 2020 WRTP Storm Drainage Management Technical Memorandum, asserting that shed SB1C1 does not appear to naturally drain to or through the WRTP Specific Plan area as inferred by the referenced memorandum. The commenter states that, from aerial photos and topography, SB1C1 and SB1D1 may be currently draining south to Willow Slough and, if that is the case, the commenter asserts that detention mitigation should be 100 percent of 100-year runoff from those areas.
Response: The WRTP drainage design accommodates flows from these sheds directing them to the South Regional Pond. The Draft EIR comprehensively analyzed potential impacts related to the potential increase in the rate or amount or surface runoff that could result in flooding, exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (see Section 3.9, “Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality,” of the Draft EIR). The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-23 Summary of Comment: The commentor states the opinion that arterial streets should not be used for overland release and, rather, for emergency vehicle access, to be kept clear of standing water; the commenter provides additional technical recommendations regarding safe flood routing and related standards.
Response: Comments noted. Overland release design will be done in accordance with the City of Woodland Engineering Standards and commonly accepted industry standards, and consistent with City of Woodland General Plan Policy 5.I.3, which establishes that the City will, “[r]equire
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-309 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR development to provide for the overland flow of stormwater meeting or exceeding the City’s standard design capacity of the storm drainage system,” and that “[o]verland flow waters should be conveyed over public streets where possible and should be at least one foot below building pad elevations and contain provisions for removal of silt and other contaminants.” The maximum depth of ponded water measurement applies to the entire street section; hence, the gutter flowline will be subject to the deepest ponding at a sag point.
Comment 8a-24 Summary of Comment: The commenter states the opinion that runoff from west of State Route 113 should not be pumped and that detention should be merged with the South Regional Pond.
Response: Comments noted. See responses to Comment Nos. 8a-3, 8a-10.c, 8a-18.c, and 8c-18.
Comment 8a-25 Summary of Comment: The commenter questions whether the storm drain pipe along the Farmers Central corridor between State Route 113 and Pioneer Avenue is a 60-inch or 72-inch diameter pipeline.
Response: As provided on page 6, last paragraph, of the Cunningham Engineering Drainage Technical Memorandum, “… a 60[-inch] and subsequent 72[-inch] pipeline between [State Route] 113 and Pioneer Avenue …” [bold emphasis added]. The pipeline transitions in size from a 60-inch to a 72-inch pipeline at the intersection of Farmers Central and Harry Lorenzo Avenue.
Comment 8a-26 Summary of Comment: The commenter referenced discharge rates from the West Regional Pond and references and questions:
a) the fact that the Wood Rodgers report states that the 100-year hydraulic grade line at County Road 102 is 33.9;
(b) the July 1, 2005, record drawing for Farmers Central Channel shows the 100-year hydraulic grade line at 35.7;
(c) how the 100-year water surface dropped 1.8 feet after rainfall standards increased and runoff coefficients were found to be higher in the tributary upstream sheds; and (d) that reducing max discharge from the West Regional Pond to 55 cfs would likely reduce the upstream service area.
Response: In regard to comment parts a, b, and d, see responses to comment 8a-10.a. Furthermore in comment c, the commenter references and questions the drop in water surface elevation from the 2005 analysis until the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area. Although the 2018 study uses increased runoff, the study uses more accurate modelling software as well as more accurate topography to produce more reliable water surface elevation data.
Comment 8a-27 Summary of Comment: The commenter questions multiple ponds versus a centralized South Regional Pond, and supplies independent assumptions regarding total growth and rate of development of the Spring Lake Specific Plan area, WRTP Specific Plan area, and SP-1B and SP-1C outside of the WRTP Specific Plan area. The commenter uses this information to assert that the South Regional Pond should not be separated into individual ponds, and also makes note of the proposed infrastructure outside of the Urban Limit Line.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-310 City of Woodland Response: The WRTP Specific Plan EIR, and supporting planning technical memoranda including the referenced 2020 WRTP Storm Drainage Management Technical Memorandum (Cunningham Engineering), reflect the proposed Specific Plan’s total anticipated growth. The commenter’s opinion is noted. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-28 Summary of Comment: The commenter asked why the South Regional Basin is split into four basins, with two future basins west of State Route 113 to be pumped and the proposed WRTP Specific Plan area South Regional Pond to be located outside of the Urban Limit Line.
Response: Please see responses to Comments 8a-4, 8a-18c, 8a-27, and 8c-18.
Comment 8a-29 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks why the Spring Lake Specific Plan and subdivision plans have not been showing hydraulic grade lines and asserts that the Upper South Canal extension with the Oyang South project shows no 10- or 100-year hydraulic grade line.
Response: This comment does not relate to the EIR but to development projects that have already been approved. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-30 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that the South Urban Growth Area (SUGA) SDFMP beginning in 2004 has mis-identified shed areas west of East Street and the railroad as draining to the West Regional Pond, and claims that this is a diversion of up to 320 acres with at least 50 percent of the land outside the Urban Limit Line. The commenter notes that SP-1C is approximately 160 acres.
Response: Please see response to Comment 8a-17.
Comment 8a-31 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that a levee is not defined in the City of Woodland Design Standards, and asks if the definition on page 24 of the Yolo County 20210 Storm Drainage Manual is acceptable to the city as a levee freeboard standard.
Response: The city has chosen to provide an exception from this design standard. The City Engineer is allowed to make exceptions to design standard. See response to Comment 8a-13. The justification is that this standard was created for when a channel is surrounded on all sides by development, or future development (such as the Farmers Central Channel). For the Upper South Canal, the south half of the channel is taking in overflow storm flows from the Willow Slough Channel. The City Engineer has determined that the city can adequately protect residents with the current channel and road section. The city is not required to meet County design standards; county development and maintenance standards are different than those of the city, and so it is appropriate to have different design standards. Nonetheless, the comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-32 Summary of Comment: The commenter points to the City’s drainage standards and asks the definition of a Regional Storage Facility and if there is a minimum acreage. The commenter also asks about an access ramp to the bottom of a regional basin.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-311 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response: This is a comment regarding City design standards. Design of this facility will be addressed during project design according to the city’s design and review standards. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-33 Summary of Comment: The commenter points to the City’s drainage standards and asks whether an emergency spillway would be required of the WRTP open space basin north of County Road 25A or of the South Regional Pond No. 1 south of County Road 25A. The commenter goes on to describe features of such a spillway in the commenter’s own words.
Response: Future development, such as that under the WRTP Specific Plan, is subject to City review for consistency with the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2021) and the City’s Post Construction Standard Plan (2015). These standards include design capacities for storm drains, open channels, bridges, culverts, regional storage facilities, and drains, as well as requirements to reduce post-construction runoff and control urban runoff pollution. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-34 Summary of Comment: The commenter points to the City’s drainage standards and asks if the south regional ponds are ‘Non-Regional Ponds.’
Response: This is a comment regarding City design standards. The 100-year storm has been accommodated and, as noted in Response to Comment 8a-33, project-specific design will be developed and reviewed according to applicable standards during phased development. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-35 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that the sheds served by South Regional Ponds 2 and 3 should be served by gravity rather than pump stations.
Response: See response to Comment 8a-10c.
Comment 8a-36 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks about the minimum freeboard associated with levees of the WRTP channels.
Response: There are no levees within the WRTP channels. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-37 Summary of Comment: The commenter points to the City drainage standards and asks if the perimeter access road/maintenance access for ‘Permanent Detention Pond with Park’ should be 12 feet rather than 6 feet.
Response: Future development, such as that under the WRTP Specific Plan, is subject to City review for consistency with the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-312 City of Woodland Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2021) and the City’s Post Construction Standard Plan (2015). These standards include design capacities for storm drains, open channels, bridges, culverts, regional storage facilities, and drains, as well as requirements to reduce post-construction runoff and control urban runoff pollution. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-38 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks about the objective of the Yolo County Storm Drainage Manual and the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the County and City, as referenced in the City drainage standards, and asks if this plan is implemented for Willow Slough.
Response: This City has not adopted the Yolo County Storm Drainage Manual and is not the design standard for the City of Woodland. A flood management plan has not been produced for the Willow Slough because it is not in a Federal Emergency Management Agency regulated floodplain.
Comment 8a-39 Summary of Comment: The commenter identifies the ‘Purpose’ as stated in the Yolo Count Storm Drainage Manual.
Response: The reference to the County’s design manual is noted. There is no comment provided.
Comment 8a-40 Summary of Comment: The commenter identifies the ‘Regulatory Setting: Local’ as stated in the Yolo Count Storm Drainage Manual.
Response: The reference to the County’s design manual is noted. There is no comment provided.
Comment 8a-41 Summary of Comment: The commenter identifies the County Storm Drainage Manual guidelines for watersheds of 10 to 500 square miles in area and asks if the related methodology was used to simulate storm events that could coincide with Willow Slough overflow. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Response: While the City has not adopted the Yolo County Storm Drainage Manual in its entirety, the City does use the County’s hydrology for the purposes of modelling the 100-year storm.
Comment 8a-42 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks if County standards are followed when there are not alternative City of Woodland standards.
Response: This City has not adopted the Yolo County Storm Drainage Manual and is not the design standard for the City of Woodland. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-43 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks if the State of California 200-year level of protection applies to Willow Slough overflow impacts.
Response: Because Willow Slough is not a mapped Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain, this design criteria does not apply. The comment does not identify a technical error or other
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-313 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-44 Summary of Comment: With reference to the Yolo County Storm Drainage Manual, the commenter asks if the City of Woodland has a lesser one-foot freeboard standard for the 100-year storm event.
Response: This City has not adopted the Yolo County Storm Drainage Manual and it is not the design standard for the City of Woodland. See Response to Comment 8a-31.
Comment 8a-45 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that the Upper South Canal fails to meet Yolo County standards to provide flood protection.
Response: This City has not adopted the Yolo County Storm Drainage Manual and is not the design standard for the City of Woodland. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8a-46 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks if the City reviewed the California Department of Water Resources topographical field survey data and asserts that changes in agricultural use in 2016 need to be considered. The commenter goes on to assert that the City needs to obtain an inundation easement to reduce the peak Willow Slough overflow rate discharge to the Upper South Canal.
Response: See Response to Comment 8a-17c.
Comment 8a-47 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that the floodplain analysis standards for the Spring Lake Specific Plan are unknown and asserts that, since the time of the Spring Lake Specific Plan approval, Willow Slough overflow has become a flood risk. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Response: Willow Slough is not a mapped Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain. The 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area evaluated the 100-year design level storm and appropriate projects have been constructed to address the storm drainage needs. As development is proposed, the City reviews and evaluates drainage needs.
Comment 8a-48 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that Willow Slough overflow is an impact to be mitigated and that the WRTP drainage to the Upper South Canal should warrants a permanent solution.
Response: See response to Comment 8a-47.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-314 City of Woodland COMMENT LETTER #8B
BRUCE JACKS (JUNE 18, 2021)
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-315 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-316 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-317 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 8B
Comment Letter #2 (8b) submitted by Bruce Jacks on June 18, 2021 Comment 8b-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that information is lacking or not included in the WRTP Specific Plan, the Cunningham Engineering January 31, 2020 Stormwater Technical Memorandum, Oyang South record drawings for the Upper South Canal Extension, and the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area , which the commenter states is needed to comment on the WRTP Draft EIR storm drainage plan.
Response: The WRTP Draft EIR itself does not contain a storm drainage plan, nor does CEQA require such a plan to be included in an EIR. However, storm drainage facilities are proposed as part of the WRTP Specific Plan and the WRTP Draft EIR comprehensively analyzed the potential for implementation of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan to result in flooding, exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or result in substantial sources of polluted runoff.
The City’s Drainage Master Plan was updated in 2018 to address issues specific to the South Urban Growth Area, particularly as related to additional urban development projected in the City’s updated General Plan, in the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area (City of Woodland 2018). Design Standards include drainage facility capacity criteria designed to ensure the containment and/or conveyance of the design storm. The City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2021) include design capacities for storm drains, open channels, bridges, culverts, regional storage facilities, and drains, as well as requirements to ensure access for maintenance and operation of drainage systems. All development projects in the City are required to comply with City’s Post Construction Standard Plan (2015) to reduce postconstruction runoff and control urban runoff pollution in compliance with of the City’s Phase II MS4 permit through the incorporation of BMPs, LID, and hydromodification management techniques. This includes the requirement to treat stormwater runoff through evapotranspiration, infiltration, stormwater harvesting and reuse, or biotreatment. Hydromodification management requires regulated projects to slow and minimize the amount of runoff so that there is no netincrease in post-construction runoff flow rate as compared to the pre-construction value for a 2- year, 24-hour storm event (City of Woodland 2015:24).
While the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area identifies storm drainage solutions for existing and planned growth, it is a developed at a plan-level and serves as dynamic document to inform decisions and also be revised as conditions evolve. As noted above, future development, such as that under the WRTP Specific Plan, is subject to City review for consistency with the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2021) and the City’s Post Construction Standard Plan (2015). These standards include design capacities for storm drains, open channels, bridges, culverts, regional storage facilities, and drains, as well as requirements to reduce post-construction runoff and control urban runoff pollution. The Specific Plan is designed and conditioned to avoid erosion, flooding, and storm drain capacity effects, including
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-318 City of Woodland through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1a, requiring the preparation of additional storm drainage analysis for determining the amount of new development acreage beyond the previously identified 80 residential acres allowable in the South Urban Growth Area.
Therefore, while the following responses to Comments 8b-2 through 8b-16 provide the technical input requested by the commenter, the WRTP Specific Plan EIR provides comprehensive analysis of potential impacts related to storm drainage, including the provision of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1a; no revisions to the EIR have been made or are necessary.
Comment 8b-2 Summary of Comment: The commenter requests the 100-year hydraulic grade line at the east discharge of the Oyang South Detention Pond to the Upper South Canal.
Response: The 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area does not model the Oyang development design. The modeling for the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area was done over a series of years from 2014 to 2016, with a report draft prepared in 2017 and a final prepared in 2018. This detention basin was added as part of the improvement plan process for the “Oyang South” development project. The maximum hydraulic grade line with the detention basin for the 100-year is 40.33 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88]) in the Oyang South design; however, this is with higher inflow than ultimate development conditions. The comment is a request for additional data and does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8b-3 Summary of Comment: The commenter requests the 100-year hydraulic grade line at the west of the Upper South Canal at Harry Lorenzo Avenue.
Response: For the purposes of the WRTP Specific Plan and related planning needs, the City has undergone conceptual design review for plan-level considerations. Specific hydraulic grade line elevation at Upper South Canal at Harry Lorenzo Avenue will be determined at the time of design. Final design will be reviewed to ensure consistency with City design standards. No additional analysis for the purposes of the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or change to the WRTP Specific Plan EIR is required to address this comment.
Comment 8b-4 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks for clarification of the 100-year hydraulic grade line at the South Regional Pond Number 1.
Response: As shown on Figure 13 of the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area, the estimated 100-year hydraulic grade line at the South Regional Pond Number 1 outlet is 44.02 feet. The ‘L’ and ‘O’ storm drain lines, sized to convey the 10-year storm flows to the South Regional Pond Number 1, as identified in the 2020 Stormwater Technical Memorandum (Cunningham Engineering), have invert elevations of 44.50 feet, which is above the pond hydraulic grade line. The 2020 Stormwater Technical Memorandum (Cunningham Engineering) explains: “The inverts of Lines O and L at the [South Regional Pond] were set to the [South Regional Pond’s] 100-year water surface elevation, as defined by the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area. This ensures that the [hydraulic grade lines] will be independent of the tailwater conditions in the pond, and there will not be long-term standing
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-319 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR water in the drain lines.” During the revision process for the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area, text on page 20 was not updated and is intended to state ‘44.02’, rather than ‘46.8,’ in accordance with Figure 13. No additional analysis or change to the WRTP Specific Plan EIR is required to address this comment.
Comment 8b-5 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks for clarification of the 100-year hydraulic grade line in the hydromodification basin north of County Road 25A and west of Harry Lorenzo Avenue.
Response: The basin north of County Road 25A and west of Harry Lorenzo is intended to mitigate for hydromodification and stormwater quality during the 2-year event. However, it will provide some attenuation greater than that. The final hydraulic grade line will be evaluated and determined at the detailed design stage. Any excess unattenuated flows exiting the hydromodification pond will be attenuated downstream by the existing North Regional Pond.
The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
Comment 8b-6 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks what the Oyang South detention pond 100-year discharge is to the Upper South Canal.
Response: As discussed above, the Oyang South design accommodated higher flow than ultimate conditions and also reflected a new detention basin. The reported Q100 peak flow from the Oyang South detention pond entering the downstream Upper South Canal is 171.8 cfs. This comment is a request for additional data. No additional analysis or change to the WRTP Specific Plan EIR is required to address this comment.
Comment 8b-7 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks for the 100-year discharge to the Upper South Canal east of Harry Lorenzo.
Response: The 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area modeled a peak 100-year flow of 118.7 cfs discharging from the South Regional Pond. The hydromodification pond located northwest of Harry Lorenzo Avenue and County Road 25A will also discharge into the Upper South Canal either immediately east or west (to be determined during design) of Harry Lorenzo Avenue. The 100-year outflows from the hydromodification pond are calculated to be 83.9 cfs. Based upon the preliminary design and current modeling, the total 100-year discharge to the Upper South Canal east of Harry Lorenzo is 118.7 + 83.9 = 202.6 cfs. This comment is a request for additional data. No additional analysis or change to the WRTP Specific Plan EIR is required to address this comment.
Comment 8b-8 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks for the 100-year discharge from the hydromodification pond north of County Road 25A, west of Harry Lorenzo.
Response: See Response to Comment 8b-7.
Comment 8b-9 Summary of Comment: The commenter requests the 100-year discharge at the west end of the Upper South Canal east of Harry Lorenzo.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-320 City of Woodland Response: Please see response to Comment 8b-6.
Comment 8b-10 Summary of Comment: The commenter requests the 100-year overland flow into County Road 25A at nodes L3 and L4 (Cunningham Engineering January 31, 2020 Stormwater Technical Memorandum).
Response: 100-year flows for L3 and L4 are 66.3 and 102.0 cfs, respectively. However, much of this is conveyed by the underlying storm drain pipes sized for a minimum of a 10-year event. Thus, the resulting net overland flows into County Road 25A for L3 and L4 are 0.3 and 14.6 cfs, respectively.
Comment 8b-11 Summary of Comment: The commenter requests the 100-year flows in the pre-developed runoff condition for the ditches east of State Route 113 and north and south of County Road 25A.
Response: The 100-year flow for node L1 (north of County Road 25A) is 42.4 cfs. Node 01, south of County Road 25A, has a calculated 100-year flow of 9.6 cfs.
Comment 8b-12 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks the following questions about the discharge from the South Regional Pond (SRP) Number 1:
A. What is the pipe size?
B. Is the pipe sized for the 100-year SRP No. discharge? C. Is the pipe located in County Road 25A or in an easement south of the road right-of-way? Response: Per Attachment 4 of the Cunningham Engineering January 31, 2020 Stormwater Technical Memorandum, the discharge conveyance from the South Regional Pond was planned to be an open channel. The 70-foot wide channel (see Road Section T-T) is sized to convey the 100-year peak runoff rate, as indicated on page 4 of this Technical Memorandum. Since the preparation of the Cunningham Engineering January 31, 2020, Stormwater Technical Memorandum, the proposed design for this discharge conveyance has been refined to be a 60-inch pipe, rather than a channel. However, the design change will still convey the 100-year discharge. The pipe would be within an easement, via a gravel access road providing access from Harry Lorenzo Avenue.
Comment 8b-13 Summary of Comment: The commenter notes that, at Road 102, the Upper South Canal Q(100) is reported by the 2018 SUGA SDFMP to be 602 cfs and hydraulic grade line 39.8. The commenter asserts that the 602 cfs should be from two sources and asks, what component of the Q(100) is from the Willow Slough overflow and what component is from the combined SP-1A, SP-1B, Oyang South, and County Road 25A.
Response: Wood Rodgers modeling from the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area has extracted the hydrographs from the Upper South Canal at two locations to portray the timing and magnitude of inflows from development to the west and flow from Willow Slough overflow. These are shown in the response to comment 8a-11.
Comment 8b-14 Summary of Comment: The commenter requests the baseline storage (acre-feet) from County Road 25A south to Willow Slough, west of County Road 102.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-321 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response: Conditions south of County Road 25A should not be characterized as “storage;” this is an accurate depiction of overland flow behavior. As described in previous responses, the stormwater flow is flowing and sloping from Willow Slough to County Road 25A and is attenuated slightly as it is flowing across the terrain.
Comment 8b-15 Summary of Comment: The commenter requests the storage (acre-feet) in the proposed 23.9- acre inundation easement west of County Road 102 identified as Spring Lake Specific Plan impact mitigation from County Road 25A to approximately one-half mile south, as shown on the blue area of Figure 10 in the Technical Memorandum.
Response: See response to comment 8b-14. Water is simultaneously flowing both in and out of the inundation area with velocity; therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to this as stored water.
Comment 8b-16 Summary of Comment: The commenter requests the ground elevation contour map with storage pool water surface contours used to calculate limits of the baseline and inundation easement. The commenter asserts that this should be a +/- map (ground versus 100-year WS [water surface ]) to calculate storage volume.
Response: The requested map has not been prepared as part of this study. While such data exists in the modeling space, preparing such exhibits is not standard nor necessary to support stormwater master planning. The comment does not identify a technical error or other concern with the WRTP Specific Plan EIR or supporting analysis. No change to the EIR is required.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-322 City of Woodland COMMENT LETTER #8C
BRUCE JACKS (JULY 2, 2021)
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-323 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-324 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-325 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-326 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-327 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-328 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-329 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-330 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-331 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-332 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-333 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 8C
Comment 8c-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter notes that the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area referenced in the WRTP Specific Plan Draft EIR is outdated, as the reference cites the 2017 version, but the plan was revised in 2018. The commenter also lists the documents pertaining to storm drainage planning up to the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area. The commenter asserts that there are errors and omissions in the 2006 shed delineation, and that such errors or omissions remain in the February 2017 and revised 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area. The commenter asserts that such errors and omissions are potential environmental impacts not addressed by the WRTP Draft EIR and goes on to detail these items in Comments 8c-2 through 8c-20.
Response: The reference in the WRTP Specific Plan Draft EIR has been updated to cite the 2018 plan. This revision does not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR. With regard to errors from the 2006 SDFMP, any specific comments on such are addressed below through responses to Comments 8c-2 through 8c-20.
Comment 8c-2 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that lands west of East Street and the railroad are not tributary to the “Farmers Central Shed” and that the 2006 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan Willow Slough Shed Spill (6.71 s. mi.) fails to correctly identify shed boundaries at specific listed locations.
Response: Wood Rodgers utilized the 2008 California Department of Water Resources topographic data to refine the drainage conditions for baseline conditions as described in more detail under response to Comment 8a-17.a. The first listed area south of County Road 24A and west of West Street (County Road 99) is indeed draining into the City under the baseline condition. It is, however, being redirected into the Farmers Central Corridor under developed conditions.
For the second item described in the comment, the baseline conditions is intended to represent a condition prior to the modifications of the intersection of County Road 24A and 6th Street.
Therefore, the baseline condition is currently reflecting the land within the WRR1 watershed as flowing entirely south to County Road 25A to the west of the raised railroad embankment. The topographic information shows the land drops approximately 6 feet from north to south between County Road 24A and 25A. For the developed condition, land just south of County Road 24A was purposely directed to drain to the Farmers Central corridor to more efficiently drain this land to the West Regional Pond.
For the third item described under this comment, the delineations shown on Map 4 of the 2006 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan are outdated and were corrected with the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area as described under the response for Comment 8a-17.a.
For the fourth item listed for the summary of Map 4 and Map 10 (of the 2006 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan), the commenter claims that approximately 84 acres south of Willow Slough and west of County Road 102 drain north into Willow Slough west of County Road 102.
This area was examined in more detail using the 2008 California Department of Water Resources (DWR) LiDAR. The topographic mapping shows that water will store in this field adjacent to County Road 102 and overflow at the south end of the field across County Road 102
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-334 City of Woodland before overtopping the raised bank of Willow Slough, and therefore the commenter’s referenced 84 acres would not contribute to Willow Slough drainage. The last portion of this comment refers to the development of approximately 105 more acres than were previously included in the 2006 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan. The 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area does evaluate more developed area in the vicinity of Highway 113 and County Road 25A than prior reports as a result of the City modifying the Urban Limit Line.
The 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area included this additional developed area and recommendations address the additional development; the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with the additional anticipated development.
Comment 8c-3 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that the 2017 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area contains two hydraulic grade line flaws that impact the Spring Lake Specific Plan West Regional Pond and the Upper South Canal, and were previously noted by this commenter to city staff in June 2017.
Response: Corrections were made to the plan and the revised report was issued in March 2018 to address issues surrounding the West Regional Pond and the Upper South Canal. The WRTP Specific Plan EIR was intended to cite the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area and the analysis contained within the WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been reviewed accordingly. This revision does not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR.
Comment 8c-4 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that errors and omissions remain in the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area that, if reviewed, may be determined to be environmental impacts to the WRTP, the Upper South Canal and Spring Lake Specific Plan (SLSP).
Response: This comment is a general restatement of sentiments expressed above. As no specific errors are identified under this general comment, each instance of a specific purported error is separately addressed in detail in responses to more detailed comments throughout Responses to Comments 8c-2, 8c-3, and 8c-5 through and 8c-20.
Comment 8c-5 Summary of Comment: The commenter reiterates the statement that the WRTP Specific Plan Draft EIR referenced the 2017, rather than revised 2018, Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area, and identifies the following concerns as reason for which the commenter believes environmental impacts were not adequately addressed within the WRTP Specific Plan Draft EIR. Such concerns expressed by the commenter are regarding flood waters overtopping County Road 25A from the south, flat inlet grates for overland release at County Road 102, the elevation of the overland release at the crown of County Road 102, and flood waters coming within less than one foot of elevation of existing building pads in the Spring Lake neighborhood.
Response: The WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been revised to cite the most current 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area and the analysis contained within the WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been reviewed accordingly. This revision does not change the analysis, findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR.
The first two paragraphs discuss conditions in the Upper South Canal just upstream of County Road 102. As previously described in responses to Comments 8a-6, 8a-11, and 8a-13, the peak
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-335 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR water surface elevation of 39.8 feet (NAVD88) will not overtop County Road 25A and, therefore, discussion of impacts to the Spring Lake Specific Plan housing and internal streets is not relevant. With the current design, inundation south of County Road 25A would occur as described in the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan. As described under the response to Comment 8a-11, the development flow reaches County Road 25A prior to the Willow Slough overflow, which has a higher peak and is the main driver of peak stage conditions.
The culverts beneath County Road 102 are sized to convey the 100-year flows. The receiving grates were oversized by a factor of two relative to the 100-year flows. The grate at Heritage Parkway and County Road 102 is flat, as the commentor notes; however, there is a second culvert located adjacent to Nicholson Circle with an angled grate. In addition, the culverts at the downstream end of Farmers Central Channel are protected by an angled debris rack. The overland release at County Road 102 is designed as a secondary release to convey flows over the road in the event that the grates are blocked by more than 50 percent of their capacity. The factor of safety designed into the system consists of underground capacity of 100-year flow conveyance and oversized grates. The secondary overland release elevation is below the finish floor elevation for all homes in Spring Lake. In the event that one grate is completely blocked, water will initially flow to the other two culverts, utilizing any available capacity, prior to overland release across County Road 102.
The WRTP Specific Plan area is tributary to the Spring Lake Specific Plan via three drainage corridors: (1) Farmers Central Channel (northern shed), (2) Heritage Parkway (central shed), and (3) Upper South Canal (southern shed). The summaries below describe to what extent post construction flows from the WRTP Specific Plan area contribute to the Spring Lake Specific Plan drainage system.
Farmers Central Channel: The northern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan area flows into the Farmers Central Channel, which is sized for 100-year flow conveyance including runoff from the WRTP and passes below County Road 102 through an unobstructed culvert.
Heritage Parkway: The contributing shed from the central portion of the WRTP is 20.1 acres.
Spring Lake infrastructure was originally sized for this shed to be on the order of 31 acres. The contributing flow is 22.6 cfs (originally estimated to be 34.8 cfs). The entire corridor 100-year runoff flow is estimated to be 242 cfs; therefore, the WRTP Specific Plan contribution to this shed is less than 10 percent. The Heritage Parkway corridor is designed with dual storm drain pipes for 10-year flows and depressed pathways outside of the travel way for conveyance of the 100-year overland flows. The overland flows are conveyed to the oversized County Road 102 inlet grates to the culvert beneath County Road 102. The 100-year water surface elevation in Heritage Parkway is modelled to be 37.5 feet. These overland flows are not able to enter the adjacent subdivisions from Heritage Parkway due to higher elevations at the connecting streets (e.g., Campos Ave at elevation 38.3 feet and Erickson Way at elevation 38.1 feet). To illustrate the minor contribution from this WRTP shed, a calculation was conducted to determine the water surface elevation without said runoff. The result was a lowering of the water surface elevation in the Heritage Parkway corridor to an elevation of 37.4 feet, a reduction of 0.1 feet.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-336 City of Woodland Upper South Canal: The WRTP and existing upstream flows from the southern shed are consistent with the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area.
The WRTP Specific Plan is designed and conditioned to avoid inundation and storm drain capacity effects, including through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1a, requiring the preparation of additional storm drainage analysis for determining the amount of new development acreage beyond the previously identified 80 residential acres allowable in the South Urban Growth Area. The WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been reviewed to consider the most current 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area and the analysis contained within the WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been reviewed accordingly. This revision does not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR.
Comment 8c-6 Summary of Comment: The commenter identifies additional concerns of what the commenter asserts to be errors that result in environmental impacts not being adequately addressed within the WRTP Specific Plan Draft EIR. The commenter asserts that detail is lacking and requests more information on discerning the flood flows and volumes between Willow Slough and County Road 25A. The commenter also references a 40-inch pipe to connect to Willow Slough along the north bank and possibly contribute to worsening overflow conditions.
Response: Wood Rodgers has supplied the hydrographs depicting the development runoff and the combination with Willow Slough overflow under the response to Comment 8a-11. These hydrographs show how the development runoff precedes the Willow Slough overflow by several hours. In responses 8b-14 through 8b-16, Wood Rodgers has explained that the inundation area is flowing and not behaving as a detention basin based entirely on volume.
Regarding a connecting 40-inch pipe in a 100-year storm the north bank will be subject to overland flow conditions. The presence of the 40” pipe will not change the flow northward under the overland flow condition.
The WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been revised to cite the most current 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area and the analysis contained within the WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been reviewed accordingly. This revision does not change the analysis, findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR.
Comment 8c-7 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that detail regarding the 100-year Willow Slough storage is lacking detail in the 2017 SDFMP and that additional storage south of County Road 25A is required to reduce the Willow Slough overflow rate to a Q that, when combined with the 100-year Q from Spring Lake Specific Plan and the WRTP, can be reduced to a flow that can be conveyed by the Upper South Canal. The Commenter asserts that inadequate storage/detention and resultant detained flooding south of County Road 25A may be an environmental impact. Regarding detail that is lacking, the commenter asserts that the underlying topographic mapping is questionable. The commenter recommended that the March 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area be the reference plan used for the WRTP Specific Plan Draft EIR.
Response: Figure 8 of the March 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area defines the topographic mapping used for the plan. The first note (footnote) clearly states that the primary source of the topographic data is the LiDAR collected in 2008 by the California Department of Water Resources. The only LiDAR data collected in 2008 by the California
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-337 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Department of Water Resources was collected as part of the Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation Program. The commenter is not correctly representing the accuracy of the data used south of County Road 25A. The 2008 LiDAR was processed to provide onefoot contour intervals with a vertical accuracy of +/-0.33 feet. The accuracy standard does not imply that all points on the map are inaccurate by this amount. The expression of accuracy is a statistical representation of at least 95 percent of the entire data set meeting or exceeding this accuracy threshold. In other words, much of the data has a better accuracy than 0.33 feet +/-.
From an aerially collected data standpoint, this was considered sufficient for mapping by the California Department of Water Resources as part of the Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation Delineation Program and was likewise considered adequate for the City’s planning purposes.
The commenter reiterates the volumetric aspect of the inundation area and the importance of accurately understanding and representing volume. As explained in response to Comment 8a17.c, stormwater south of County Road 25A is flowing and the land is sloping and not functioning as a storage basin. While the inundation area accounts for some volume as stormwater flows through it, the detention aspect is secondary to the hydraulic capacity of the overland flow path. The commenter’s recommendations relating to new surveying are considered unnecessary given the accuracy of the topographic mapping used. The Spring Lake Capital Improvement Plan and Spring Lake fee program includes funding to acquire a flowage easement or flowage easements, as applicable. The City is currently in the process of negotiating (a) flowage easement(s). The comment relating to having a “monitoring program to ensure ground contours in the inundation area are preserved” is appreciated. The city has already been aware of all the land outside of the entire perimeter of the City, providing stormwater attenuation as part of the 2006 and 2018 SDFMP report documents and will address the actions of landowners if it becomes clear adverse impacts to the City by re-grading have occurred.
The above response addresses the data errors and omissions claimed by the commenter. The WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been revised to cite the most current 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area and the analysis contained within the WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been reviewed accordingly. However, the WRTP Specific Plan is designed and conditioned to avoid storm drain infrastructure capacity effects, including through compliance with City Engineering Standards and Mitigation Measure 3.9-1a, requiring the preparation of additional storm drainage analysis for determining the amount of new development acreage beyond the previously identified 80 residential acres allowable in the South Urban Growth Area. The revision to cite the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area does not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR.
Comment 8c-8 Summary of Comment: The comment reiterates the City’s adjustment to the flooding south of County Road 25A by lowering the n-value to 0.03, which results in zero freeboard.
Response: The City has the authority to set standards and deviate from them on a case-by-case basis without jeopardizing public safety. While zero freeboard is the result, this condition does not flood homes/properties north of County Road 25A and creates minor roadway inundation for a short time during the peak of the event with emergency vehicle access maintained along the north side
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-338 City of Woodland of the roadway. The design condition of the Upper South Canal meets the City design standard for a 100-year storm event with the approval of a design exception by the City Engineer. The City Engineer approved a design exception to allow zero freeboard based on the fact that the peak flow in the Upper South Canal is at elevation 39.8 for less than one hour and the length of road that is at elevation 39.8 is less than 50 feet.
Comment 8c-9 Summary of Comment: The commenter recommends additional studies to address the commenter’s alleged errors contained within the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area, which are individually detailed in Comments 8c-10 through 8c-18.
Response: This comment does not elaborate on specific alleged errors. Please see responses to Comments 8c-10 through 8c-18.
Comment 8c-10 Summary of Comment: The commenter asserts that additional review and/or survey of field conditions is needed to verify Figures 4 and 7 of the March 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area. The commenter provides a list of specific alleged clarifications needed and/or errors related to each figure. See response to Comments 8c-11 and 8c-12 for detailed comments and responses pertaining to Figure
7. With regard to Figure 4, the commenter asserts that Figure 4 of the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area is either unclear and/or inaccurate for describing current drainage conditions of the WRR2A, WRR2B and WRR1 sheds.
Response: Please see response to Comment 8a-17.a, which describes the drainage for these watersheds in both baseline and ultimate conditions. The WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been revised to cite the most current 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area and the analysis contained within the WRTP Specific Plan EIR has been reviewed accordingly. This revision does not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR.
Comment 8c-11 Summary of Comment: The Commenter asserts that Figure 7 of the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area includes large scale drainage diversion that constitutes a growth inducing environmental impact. The commenter provides summary of the commenter’s review of the updated Figure 7 from the 2017 version, including stating the opinion of how the update does and does not serve as an improvement. The commenter goes on to provide opinion on why diversion of the 155+/- ac SP-1C to the Farmers Central Trunk shed can be justified if the West Regional Pond (WRP) and Farmers Central Trunk system is adequately sized, the cumulative 125+/- ac diversion of sheds WRR2A and WRR2B provides an urban drainage connection for ag land outside the Urban Limit Line which is a growth inducing environmental impact. The commenter asserts that this is a fatal flaw in the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area that must be corrected.
Response: For response regarding the drainage of the watersheds west of East Street are described for both baseline and ultimate conditions, please see response to Comments 8a-17.a and 8c-3.
The purpose of the master plan is to create a plan for planned future growth, which may involve redirecting flow as necessary to achieve this goal. The General Plan and the voter approved Urban Limit Line dictate development of drainage analyses.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-339 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Furthermore, the description of the representation of the WRR2A and WRR2B watersheds creating a growth inducing environmental impact is incorrect. Flows from all land outside of the city in an undeveloped state must be directed through city facilities safely and must be accounted for in an undeveloped state. The WRR2A and WRR2B watersheds were modeled as undeveloped in the ultimate conditions modeling and the downstream facilities were sized to account for this undeveloped runoff. If development of either WRR2A or WRR2B were to occur, it would likely require onsite detention to mitigate development impacts, regardless of where the flow is going. The modeling or accommodation of the runoff from these watersheds in an undeveloped state in no way relates to or facilitates the future development of these properties. The proposed ditch and/or pipe to drain these undeveloped parcels are shallow and smaller than what would be proposed if development were to occur. Separate environmental review and documentation would be required of any solution not otherwise analyzed as part of the currently proposed WRTP Specific Plan and through the WRTP Specific Plan EIR, as required under CEQA.
Comment 8c-12 Summary of Comment: Commenter asserts that Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area Figure 7 (Ultimate Sheds) overlooks drainage sheds tributary to the remnant Willow Slough along the segment from the Willow Slough Bypass intercept and County Road 102.
Response: See Response to Comment 8c-2
Comment 8c-13 Summary of Comment: Commenter asserts that Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area Figures 4 and 7 fail to recognize the potential environmental impact of a Willow Slough spill over the north bank between the Willow Slough Bypass intercept and County Road 102. The commenter elaborates on the peak flow conditions in the overall Willow Slough system and the potential for flow to exit Willow Slough and/or the Willow Slough Bypass through levees that are known to be sinking.
Response: Storm drainage that would result from the if Willow Slough were to overtop its north bank between the intercept point and County Road 102 would flow eastward toward County Road 102. The land on the north side of Willow Slough downstream of the intercept point is not in the drainage shed for the Willow Slough Remnant channel that heads northward and crosses County Road 102, one-half mile south of County Road 25A. The Willow Slough intersection with the County Road 102 bridge occurs three and one-half miles south of the Upper South Canal. Any overtopping of the channel at this point would have no impact on the Willow Slough Remnant channel.
Land subsidence generally occurs uniformly over the entire region, so concerns regarding sinking does not invalidate the findings of the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area or any other storm related studies cited by the commenter.
The commenter further states that the low north top of bank location approximately 100 feet west of the diversion would be a prime location for a significant spill north. The City reviewed this location and found that the north bank of the Willow Slough upstream of the diversion point is uniform in elevation between the railroad and the diversion point. The city did not observe a low point where Willow Slough would likely overflow.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-340 City of Woodland The City disagrees with the commenter’s mapping suggestion regarding what areas are tributary to the Willow Slough spill at County Road 102. Per Figures 4 and 7 of the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area, sheds WRR1, WRR2A and WRRA2B drain eastward and cross County Road 102 without entering Willow Slough.
Comment 8c-14 Summary of Comment: This comment is a continuation of the comment under 8c-13, focusing on the earthen plug at the Willow Slough Bypass intercept of the natural channel.
Response: This earthen plug is maintained by Reclamation District 2035; if it is planned for removal in the future then appropriate analysis would be conducted at that time, as required.
Comment 8c-15 Summary of Comment: This comment is a continuation of the comment under 8c-13 and 8c-14, focusing on the operation and consideration of the existing conduit(s) within the earthen plug described under comment 8c-14.
Response: As part of Wood Rodgers’ field visit and research it was determined that the pipes through the earthen plug are operated by Heidrick Farms, according to Reclamation District 2035. They are operated in a closed condition during flood season.
Comment 8c-16 Summary of Comment: SD MP Figs. 4 and 7 fail to recognize the environmental impacts of failure of 1.) the impoundment structure in the Willow Slough Bypass about 50 ft. downstream of the intercept of the natural channel, 2.) existing irrigation control structures in the remnant channel from the Bypass intercept to Road 102, and at least one earth structure for vehicle crossing in natural Willow Slough 850+/- ft west of Road 102.
Response: The failures of the facilities noted in this comment would not affect the assessment performed by Wood Rodgers based on the following discussion. The failure of the impoundment structure described as 50 feet downstream of the intercept of the natural channel appears to be a low flow dam across the upstream end of the Willow Slough Bypass channel. The failure of this structure would only force water to flow more efficiently into the Willow Slough Bypass, and would serve to divert more water away from the City. The existence of irrigation control structures within the remnant channel were considered negligible. The system was modeled as if they didn’t exist, moving water more efficiently to County Road 102, resulting in a more conservative estimate of flow flowing toward County Road 25A. The flashboards associated with irrigation control structures are removed by the facility operators during the rainy season.
Comment 8c-17 Summary of Comment: The commenter suggests partial and/or complete failure of existing/designed drainage facilities should be accounted for, as detailed below, and suggests such failures could cause a higher 100-year hydraulic grade line at the Upper South Canal. The commenter identifies the following three specific locations:
a) partial or complete blockage of the box culvert at Willow Slough and County Road 102; b) partial blockage of the upstream grate at the Upper South Canal box culvert at County Road 102; and
c) the failure of the Cache Creek levee system.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-341 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response:
a) Typical blockage would occur as a result of the accumulation and migration of natural debris, such as woody vegetation. Under high flow conditions, woody debris will tend to float and/or create a lattice structure in front of the culvert that will have negligible blockage impacts under pressure flow conditions.
b) The designed inlet grate and crossing under County Road 102 for the Upper South Canal is the responsibility of the City. Wood Rodgers designed the grate for 50 percent blockage, as it has twice the open area as needed for full flow capacity. It should be noted that the City has a dedicated fund source for storm drain maintenance in the Spring Lake and WRTP specific plan areas and is actively maintained; it is therefore unlikely that a 50 percent blockage would occur and this percentage is an industry appropriate factor of safety. While Yolo County may have a standard of providing 4 times the flow opening, lands within Yolo County in general have more debris sources, and smaller culvert crossings, necessitating a heavier debris loading consideration.
Closer examination of the lands which will flow into this channel reach should support that the inflow of debris is very low during low-flow and low-velocity events. In general, only leafy debris and litter should reach this inlet, most of which can pass through the grate and flow unobstructed downstream. Even if a 100-year event were to occur, the largest flow from Willow Slough would only travel at depths of less than 2 feet at velocities that are not high enough to carry larger woody debris very far across the inundation area. c) With respect to the Cache Creek floodplain and simultaneous inundation, the areas to the west of County Road 102 are essentially above and outside of the Cache Creek floodplain.
The published Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain shows the 100-year base flood elevation of approximately 36.5 feet (NAVD88) to the east of County Road 102 adjacent to the City’s wastewater treatment facility. With peak 100-year water surface elevations of 39.8 feet (NAVD88) in the Upper South Canal, there is over 3 feet of drop to allow local stormwater to flow eastward with no effect to the west of County Road 102.
Comment 8c-18 Summary of Comment: Commenter presents an alternative to the siting of the South Regional Pond consisting of combining it with the pond proposed on the north side of County Road 25A within the boundary of the WRTP and converting proposed drainage channels into underground storm drain pipes to recover developable land adjacent to State Route 113 and County Road 25A.
Response: The WRTP Specific Plan EIR examines the adverse physical effects of all changes proposed under the Specific Plan, including all on- and off-site infrastructure required to serve planned land uses. While the commenter offers an alternative drainage approach, the drainage approach summarized in the Specific Plan and Draft EIR is consistent with City drainage standards, and this drainage strategy is addressed comprehensively in the EIR. The City examined several drainage alternatives in developing the draft Specific Plan, including various pond locations, pipes versus channels, and construction costs were analyzed. In addition, the City reviewed the location of the South Regional Pond and acknowledges that it is outside of the Urban Limit Line
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-342 City of Woodland and analyzed the environmental impacts associated with development of the South Regional Pond at the proposed location. Replacement of converted farmland or an in-lieu fee (dependent upon project size) would be required by the County’s agricultural conservation ordinance (Section 8-2.404 and Section 8.2-405 of the Yolo County Code), and mitigation measures for the loss of habitat are included in the project mitigation measures detailed in Section 3.3 of the EIR. Therefore, this impact was comprehensively considered and analyzed in the WRTP Specific Plan EIR and no changes are needed.
Comment 8c-19 Summary of Comment: This comment is a summary position founded on the issues raised in previous comments being unaddressed or faulty.
Response: The technical responses provided herein should provide the commenter with the assurance that the planning efforts and associated drainage analysis are thorough and reasonable.
Comment 8c-20 Summary of Comment: The commenter posits an alternative of placing all necessary detention on land within the City’s General Plan rather than siting the South Regional Pond on “prime ag land” Response: See response to 8c-18.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-343 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
2.2.9 COMMENT LETTER #9:
PAUL KRAMER
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-344 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-345 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-346 City of Woodland RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 9
Comment 9-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter introduces the letter and provides a bullet list summary of the four overarching topics that the comment letter covers as they pertain to the WRTP Specific Plan and the Draft EIR. The comment letter goes on to provide detailed comments on each of these four topics, as summarized in Comments 9-2 through 9-7.
Response: Specific responses to comments related to each of the comment letter topics are provided below in responses to Comments 9-2 through 9-7.
Comment 9-2 Summary of Comment: The commenter describes their experience as a routine biker in Woodland and around Yolo County, and states their preference of biking on the road alongside cars rather than on off-street multi-use paths. The commenter states the difficulties they feel they have experienced biking in the City, including narrow bike lanes, when a bike path is part asphalt and part concrete, and when roads are not wide enough for cars to pass bicyclists at the required space of three feet, and expresses, despite plans and standards, concern for actual implementation of successful infrastructure and facilities to provide for bicycle circulation and safety. The commenter goes on to request that the WRTP Specific Plan clearly define a preference or requirement for intersections to be designed so that vehicles and bikes can safely travel side by side so that bikers do not have to “take the lane.”
Response: This comment’s description of current infrastructure and related assertions of inadequacy of bicycle infrastructure to support bike safety and circulation do not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR; these comments are noted.
Section 4.5 of the WRTP Specific Plan, “Roadway Network and Street Hierarchy,” explains the WRTP Specific Plan Area’s proposed roadway network and the travel mode prioritization for roadways based upon the street type and land use context. Street standards consider a street’s relation to surrounding land uses, appropriate travel speeds, and the need to accommodate multiple travel modes and user abilities. The section also continues with detailed design for each of the roadways within the WRTP Specific Plan Area’s primary roadway network. It is standard practice for bike lanes to be continuous through an intersection when there is a bike lane on either side of the intersection. The main exception to this standard practice occurs when intersection control is a roundabout or a traffic circle. The design intent is that the roadway width is narrowed and channelized in order to reduce speed through the intersection and assign right of way. If the roadway included width for a vehicle and bicycle next to each other, the design intent of the intersection control would not be accomplished.
Comment 9-3 Summary of Comment: The commenter expresses their concern over the timing of improvements, specifically those pertaining to roadway infrastructure to provide conditions in which vehicles and bicycles can safely coexist. The commenter suggests that up-front financing should be used to ensure timely roadway infrastructure improvements.
Response: Section 6.4, “Financing and Maintenance of Public Facilities,” in the WRTP Specific Plan outlines the funding mechanisms that are applicable to the WRTP Specific Plan Area, which is to be detailed in the development agreement, Public Facilities Financing Plan for the WRTP
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-347 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Specific Plan Area, and any reimbursement agreements. As noted on page 3.13-15 of the Draft EIR, in order to specify the manner in which the necessary infrastructure, public facilities, and other programs or services as provided in the WRTP Specific Plan will be constructed and/or operated and financed, among other matters, the City and the project applicant will enter a development agreement. The terms and conditions of the development agreement is required to be consistent with the goals and policies of this Specific Plan and shall set forth and require financing strategies, sources, and mechanisms to ensure short-term and long-term funding for implementation and monitoring of the TDM/VMT measures. As a successful circulation network that accommodates multiple modes of transportation continuously is key to the successful TDM/VMT measures, this accounts for concerns such as implementation of roadway improvements for the safe sharing of roadway rights-of-way between vehicles and bikes, among other modes of transportation. Each phase of development will be required to provide adequate facilities for bicycles, pedestrians and automobiles.
Comment 9-4 Summary of Comment: The commenter requests the Specific Plan development agreement.
Response: The development agreement will be published and available for public review.
Comment 9-5 Summary of Comment: The commenter recommends that, to address the significant impact of a Loss of Important Farmland and Conversion of Agricultural Land to Nonagricultural Urban Uses, the Draft EIR implements a 3:1 ratio of mitigation (for every acre converted to urban development, three acres of mitigation will be required).
Response: Impact 3.2-1 of the Draft EIR addresses the potential for the WRTP Specific Plan to result in a loss of Important Farmland and conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural urban uses.
As determined by the analysis in the Draft EIR, Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvements would result in the permanent conversion agricultural land, including Important Farmland, to urban uses. This impact was found to be significant and, as stated on page 3.2-18 of the Draft EIR, the WRTP Specific Plan would comply with City and County municipal code requirements for the loss of farmland and require permanent protection of agricultural land proportional to that proposed for conversion to urban use, at a ratio of 1:1 for land within the City’s limits and a ratio of 3:1 for land outside of the City’s limits (per County ordinance and Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission policy). As a part of the WRTP Specific Plan process, per various review and approval mechanisms detailed in Section 7.2.1 of the WRTP Specific Plan, land within the WRTP Specific Plan Area will be annexed into the City’s jurisdiction. As such, the applicable municipal code requirement for the loss of farmland within the WRTP Specific Plan area is the City Municipal Code 15.33, thereby requiring one acre of conserved farmland for every acre of converted farmland. Section 8-2.404 of the Yolo County Code requires three acres of conserved farmland to one acre of converted land. As detailed in the Draft EIR, this would be applicable to conversion of land outside of the City’s jurisdiction, including the proposed South Regional Pond. No change has been made to the analysis and no additional mitigation is proposed.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-348 City of Woodland
2.2.10 COMMENT LETTER #10:
SHERYL PATTERSON
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-349 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-350 City of Woodland RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 10
Comment 10-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter introduced their role in the regional community and professional experience as an environmental and land use attorney in the region.
Response: This comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR. Specific comments and responses pertaining to the WRTP Specific Plan and Draft EIR are provided below in Comments 10-2 and 10-3.
Comment 10-2 Summary of Comment: The commenter summarized the WRTP Specific Plan, including listing how the WRTP Specific Plan will contribute to the City of Woodland. The commenter closes review of the Specific Plan with a note of support for the adoption of the WRTP Specific Plan.
Response: The City is appreciative of the detailed review and for the comments related to support for the WRTP Specific Plan.
Comment 10-3 Summary of Comment: The commenter states that the EIR includes appropriate measure to reduce impacts and that the development is consistent with the City’s 2035 General Plan and EIR. The commenter notes that they have no comments on the Draft EIR.
Response: The City is appreciative of the detailed review and for the comments related to support for the WRTP Specific Plan.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-351 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
2.2.11 COMMENT LETTER #11:
DOROTHY ROSENBERG
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-352 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-353 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 11
Comment 11-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter describes the petition she created online to encourage the City to implement sustainability goals related to the WRTP Specific Plan that go beyond the baseline California Building Code requirements. The commenter provides a description of financial incentives that may encourage a City to increase sustainability efforts. Furthermore, the commenter states that by implementing higher sustainability goals for commercial, industrial, and residential buildings, it will contribute to the resiliency of the City concerning climate change and related events.
Response: The City appreciates the detailed review and indication for support for sustainability measures.
While this comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR, the City has presented some response language for additional context.
Please note that Policy 2.L.2 of the City’s 2035 General Plan designates the WRTP Specific Plan Area as a New Growth Area, SP-1A, and provides guidance for SP-1A to be an area for “…sustainable development through the use of renewable energy sources and water conservation tools with the goal of striving to achieve zero net energy at the building and neighborhood level to the extent feasible.” The WRTP Specific Plan Guiding Principles are anchored in this guidance and include multiple principles that address sustainability including Guiding Principle 4, “Sustainable and Resilient,” 5, “Gathering Place,” 6, “Connectivity/Mobility”, and 7, “Healthy Community,” all of which support various aspects of sustainability and energy reducing principles. Chapters 2 and 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan also include policies and design guidelines and standards that address sustainability, including land use planning and design, open space, and greenhouse gas reduction measures. Specifically, Specific Plan Policies 2.2.3.1 requires new development be consistent with the objective and targets of the City’s Climate Action Plan with the goal of striving to achieve zero net energy at the building and neighborhood level, and Policies 2.2.3.2 and 2.2.3.3 address resource efficiency and electric/alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure within the WRTP Specific Plan Area to future advance the sustainability goals of the WRTP Specific Plan. As noted in Section 3.3.3, Climate Action Plan Consistency, of the WRTP Specific Plan, all project shall strive to meet net zero energy consumption through the incorporation of conservation measures above Title 24 standards and shall, at minimum, demonstrate consistency with Cal Green Tier 1 standards.
Furthermore, as required by the design standards and design guidelines for all residential districts, outlined in Section 3.5.12 of the WRTP Specific Plan, all housing units shall be prewired for electric vehicle and solar PV systems, further supporting efforts to exceed California Building Code requirements and incorporate sustainable design into the WRTP.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-354 City of Woodland
2.2.12 COMMENT LETTER #12:
JIM SMITH
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-355 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 12
Comment 12-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter acknowledges the WRTP Specific Plan’s sustainability and energy-emissions reductions focus, but provides one recommendation of change for the Draft EIR to require that new construction mitigate the use of cement/concrete over the life of the project.
Response: Addressing the greenhouse gas emissions related to materials for new development and infrastructure, including but not limited to cement/concrete, is a valuable option for future development within the Specific Plan Area to apply to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement sustainable development consistent with WRTP Specific Plan Policies, including Policy 2.2.3.1 requiring new development be consistent with the objective and targets of the City’s Climate Action Plan with the goal of striving to achieve zero net energy at the building and neighborhood level, and Policy 2.2.3.2 to encourage and incentivize building construction that consumes less energy, water, and other resources.
Section 3.5, “Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy,” of the Draft EIR (page
3.5-15) evaluates the WRTP Specific Plan’s fair share contribution to the emissions reduction required by the State’s emissions reduction targets. As explained in this analysis, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), the WRTP Specific Plan was determined to be consistent with the City’s 2035 Climate Action Plan, and the Climate Action Plan identifies reduction measures that would achieve reductions that would, based on substantial evidence, avoid a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change. Therefore, as provided by CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b), the WRTP Specific Plan would not result in an incremental contribution to a cumulative effect. Per Specific Plan Policy 2.2.3.1, development under the WRTP Specific Plan will be required to demonstrate consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan as it is updated in the future to ensure the City stays on target to achieve future State GHG emissions targets, thereby providing for the consideration of additional reductions required and achievable in future years. No additional mitigation is required.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-356 City of Woodland
2.2.13 COMMENT LETTER #13:
A. TAKIEU
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-357 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 13
Comment 13-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter notes that the term “heat island” in the Draft EIR is found only eight times and is concerned that this topic is not adequately evaluated and considered in the project.
The commenter asks if heat island models are available for use in the Draft EIR, and states that the policy of promoting tree canopy across the communities in the City is limiting due to height restrictions around solar panels.
Response: The comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR. Chapter 2 of the WRTP Specific Plan contains policies and design standards related to sustainability and measures to reduce energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, Section 3.5.3.B contains design standards and design guidelines for sustainable design applicable to all zones within the WRTP; while specific strategies will be developed as appliable to and feasible for individual future projects, strategies identified include the use of street trees, shading devices, cool pavements, and cool roofs, to reduce heat gain and reduce the urban heat island effect, as well as employment of heat recovery ventilation within residential or non-residential buildings, which rather than venting warm exhaust air outside, captures the exhaust air and uses it to preheat incoming air. Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts related to air quality, including the concern for heat island effects, to address the CEQA Guidelines checklist question of whether a project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR evaluated potential impacts of the WRTP Specific Plan related to climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy, using thresholds for determining the significance of impacts based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended.
Comment 13-2 Summary of Comment: The commenter states that there is a lack of smart growth strategies contained and implemented in the Draft EIR. The commenter identifies Policy 3.H.3. Parking Lot Design (page
3.13-11) and recommends that the policy include specific strategies to reduce surface area of low albedo materials.
The commenter states that sections related to air pollution would have to be revisited if changes were made to reconsider the use of parking garages.
Response: Policy 3.H.3 is a policy of the City’s 2035 General Plan and is provided in the referenced section to establish the regulatory framework within which the WRTP Specific Plan is analyzed in the EIR. City review of future project applications, including inclusion of appropriate design features and materials available at the time of future applications, would ensure consistency with the City’s policies and those of the WRTP Specific Plan. It is too early in the planning process to identify specific parking areas and types associated with each proposed land use designation; however, the acreages associated with future parking areas were not omitted and are instead represented by emissions estimates for the overarching land uses proposed for the Project site:
Research and Development, Light Industrial, Parks and Open Space, Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Residential. As explained in response to comments 3-20 and 3-21, the potential construction and operational emissions associated with buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan were updated to eliminate the discrepancy in buildout square footage noted by the commenter, and to include parking and landscaping areas. The emissions were estimated using the most current version of CalEEMod (Version 2023.1.1.14), applying the same methodology as detailed in the Draft EIR Section 3.3.4 and as detailed in Appendix B to the Draft EIR, but
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-358 City of Woodland with updated land use detailed to match those of the Final WRTP Specific Plan Land Use Table
2.1 and to account to parking and landscaping as appropriate. Based on the updated modeling, Based on the updated modeling, the total construction and total operational emissions are less than those presented in the Draft EIR. Although the land use square footage was increased by approximately 1.2 percent, anticipated construction and operational emissions reflect the most current emission factor and energy use data, as appropriate for the land uses to be developed under the WRTP Specific Plan, with development starting at the earliest in 2024. This updated modeling does not change the significance findings of, nor the need for mitigation as provided in, the Draft EIR. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3c ensures that future sensitive receptors are not exposed to substantial toxic air contaminants from operational sources due to proximity to operational sources of toxic air contaminants associated with specific future land uses, which could theoretically include high-volume parking garages; as such, the potential air quality impacts are comprehensively addressed in the Draft EIR and no changes are required.
Comment 13-3 Summary of Comment: The commenter expresses concern on the impact to ambient noise from the project, specifically pertaining to increased traffic at State Route 113 and County Road 25A. The commenter asks if additional mitigation measures will address areas beyond the boundaries of the WRTP Specific Plan to address areas affected by sound funnels, especially due to traffic/street racing.
Response: Mitigation measures identified within the WRTP Specific Plan EIR would be applicable to address any identified impacts, whether within the bounds of the WRTP Specific Plan Area or beyond such boundaries. Proposed improvements at State Route 113 and County Road 25A were specifically included as off-site improvements as part of the Draft EIR project description and analyzed comprehensively for each impact area throughout the Draft EIR. These improvements are identified to maintain adequate level of service traffic conditions as buildout of the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area occurs and should the WRTP Specific Plan be approved and buildout occur. These improvements do not present a safety hazard. Impact 3.11-2 of the Draft EIR evaluated traffic noise due to improvements at the State Route 113 and County Road 25A interchange and determined that these improvements would slightly increase traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receiver located to the southwest of the interchange. However, the traffic noise along State Route 113 would be the dominant noise source and would mask the slight noise increase due to the interchange movements, and this impact would be less than significant.
Street racing, as brought up by the commenter, is an illegal activity that is addressed through the City of Woodland Police Department, and not considered a result of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan or offsite improvements. No additional mitigation is proposed.
Comment 13-4 Summary of Comment: The commenter asks if maps/visual plans of the Project Alternatives are available for public review.
Response: The range of alternatives identified and considered are described on pages 4-4 through 4-8 of the Draft EIR. No maps or addition visual plans specific to the Project Alternatives are included in the Draft EIR.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-359 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
2.2.14 COMMENT LETTER #14:
RANDI THORNTON
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-360 City of Woodland RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 14
Comment 14-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter expresses their concern over a school site not being included in the WRTP Specific Plan, as their own children are waitlisted to attend Spring Lake Elementary School.
The commenter worries that the Plan Area could experience the same issue and create spill-over effects that would impact schools within the WJUSD.
Response: Please see the responses to comments 6-1 through 6-6.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-361 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
2.2.15 COMMENT LETTER #15:
BRENDA TROTMAN
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-362 City of Woodland RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 15
Comment 15-1 Summary of Comment: The commenter expresses their concern over a school site not being included in the WRTP Specific Plan.
Response: Please see the responses to comments 6-1 through 6-6.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-363 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE COMMENT
PERIOD
This section of the Final EIR contains summaries of communications received after the close of the public review period for the WRTP Specific Plan Draft EIR and the City’s responses to these comments.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-364 City of Woodland CORRESPONDENCE FROM BRUCE JACKS, RECEIVED 7/4/2021:
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-365 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-366 City of Woodland RESPONSE TO BRUCE JACKS CORRESPONDENCE OF 7/4/2021
Summary: The commenter made a correction to a previous comment made during the comment period. Within what is identified as Comment 8c-11 for this Final EIR, the commenter revised the referenced “cumulative 125+/- ac diversion of Sheds WWR2A and WWR2B” from what was listed in the comment as 125+/- ac to 165+/- acres.
Response: See Response to Comment 8c-11. The response is unchanged based on the revisions in this correspondence.
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-367 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
2.2.16 CORRESPONDENCE FROM BRUCE JACKS, RECEIVED 7/22/2021:
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-368 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland2-369 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-370 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-371 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR2-372 City of Woodland
Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Woodland 2-373 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR RESPONSE TO BRUCE JACKS CORRESPONDENCE OF 7/22/2021.
Summary of Comment: The commenter identified a new drainage area with a size of 1,117 acres that the commenter asserts should have been included in the Willow Slough remnant analysis.
Response: The City’s consultant performed 2018 SUGA SD MP storm drain analysis using the latest (at the time of the study) LiDAR data (2008 Department of Water Resources) that produced a more accurate shed analysis than the historical and current USGS maps utilized by the commenter.
Furthermore, the City’s consultant conducted a field visit to examine the issues brought up by the commenter. A re-examination of the 2018 SUGA SD MP analysis along with the 2021 field visit of the area of concern (1,117+/- acres), verified that the estimated 1,117+/- acreage does not route to the Willow Slough Remnant channel. Surface runoff in the 1,117+/- acres in question generally flows in a southerly and easterly direction and does not flow northwards to influence the surface runoff in the Upper South Canal. All runoff from the 1,117+/- acres will flow under the railroad approximately 1,500 north of the main Willow Slough channel and will flow southwards along the eastern side of the railroad tracks and enter the main Willow Slough channel. Approximately 500 feet to the east of the railroad tracks, the Willow Slough flows entirely into the Willow Slough Bypass, flowing past the plug that separates the Willow Slough Remnant channel from the main Willow Slough channel. Surface flows during the rainy season from the 1,117+/- acres ends up in the Willow Slough Bypass and does not flow northwards toward the City of Woodland.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-374 City of Woodland This page intentionally left blank
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland 3-1 Errata
3 ERRATA
This chapter identifies revisions to the Draft EIR. The changes are presented in the order in which they appear and identified by page number. Text deletions are shown in strikeout (strikeout) and additions are underlined (underlined). These edits provide clarifications or additional supportive information and do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR.
3.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
► Draft EIR page 0-7:
The following changes to revise the total acreage of parkland included as a part of the Specific Plan:
1. “The WRTP Specific Plan would provide for a variety of housing types and non-residential land uses, as well as parks and open space and supportive public facilities and infrastructure. As described in Section 2.3 of the WRTP Specific Plan, “Land Use Plan,” and for the purpose of analysis in this EIR, at build out, the land use plan is estimated result in the development of approximately 1,600 new dwelling units, 2.2 million square feet of non-residential building space, the opportunity for up to 5,000 employees, and 21.817.6 acres of parks and other types of open space.”
► Draft EIR page 0-11 to 0-12 and 0-23 to 0-24:
The following changes to refine Mitigation Measures 3.3-2b and 3.11-1 are hereby made to Table ES-1 in the Executive Summary:
Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
IMPACT 3.3-2. Result in a
Cumulatively Considerable Net
Increase of Criteria Air Pollutant and
Precursor Emissions. Construction
associated with future development of the
WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site
improvement areas would generate
emissions of criteria air pollutants that
could violate an ambient air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or predicted air quality violation
through incremental emissions of PM and
ozone precursors (ROG and NOX).
Future development in the WRTP
Specific Plan Area would also result in
long-term emissions generated from dayto-day operational activities associated with residential and non-residential land
uses. Operational emissions are
anticipated to exceed YSAQMD
thresholds of significance for ozone
precursors, ROG, and NOX. YSAQMD
S Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a – Implement
Construction Best Management Practices.
New development shall incorporate the following
construction best management practices, those
included in an updated set of mitigation
recommendations prepared by the YSAQMD, or
those determined by the City to be as effective:
a. Water all active construction areas at least
twice daily.
b. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of
freeboard.
c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other
loose materials.
d. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic
copolymer) to exposed areas after cut-and-fill
operations and hydroseed area.
e. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive
construction areas (disturbed lands within
construction projects that are unused for at
least four consecutive days).
SU
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Errata 3-2 City of Woodland
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
recommends that all incremental emission
sources be mitigated to the greatest extent
possible in order to achieve and maintain
ambient air quality standards. YSAQMD
provides recommended construction
mitigation measures for lead agencies to
incorporate, to the extent feasible. WRTP
Specific Plan consistency with 2035
General Plan and CAP policies would
reduce potentially significant impacts, but
not to a level that would be below
relevant thresholds. Consistent with the
findings of the 2035 General Plan and
CAP EIR, the impact is considered
significant.
f. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed
areas as soon as possible.
g. Cover inactive storage piles.
h. Sweep streets if visible soil material is
carried out from the construction site.
i. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from
the paved road with a 6-inch layer of gravel.
j. Limit all idling of vehicles and equipment
that use gasoline or diesel fuel to five minutes
maximum.
k. Use alternative power source, such as
electricity, for construction equipment or use
reformulated and emulsified fuels,
incorporate catalyst and filtration
technologies, and generally modernize the
equipment fleet with cleaner and newer
engines.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: Construction-Related
Mobile Emissions Reductions for NOX and PM10
Emissions.
Construction contractors shall adhere to the
following requirements:
a. Maintain all construction equipment properly
according to manufacturer’s specifications.
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered
equipment with CARB-certified motor
vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version
suitable for use off-road).
c. Comply with the State On-Road Regulation
by using on-road For all off-road heavy-duty
equipment greater than 50 horsepower, utilize
equipment that meet or exceed CARB’s Tier
4 Final standards for on off-road heavy-duty
diesel engines.
d. Requiring off-road construction equipment to
be zero-emission, where available, and all
diesel-fueled off-road construction
equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier 4
Final engines, and including this requirement
in applicable bid documents, purchase orders,
and contracts, with successful contractors
demonstrating the ability to supply the
compliant construction equipment for use
prior to any ground-disturbing and
construction activities.
e. Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered
equipment from being in the “on” position
for more than 10 hours per day.
f. Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to
be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.
g. Providing electrical hook ups to the power
grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled
generators, for electric construction tools,
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland 3-3 Errata
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
such as saws, drills and compressors, and
using electric tools whenever feasible.
h. Limiting the amount of daily grading
disturbance area. Prohibiting grading on days
with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater
than 100 for particulates or ozone for the
project area.
i. Forbidding trucks from idling for more than
two minutes and requiring operators to turn
off engines when not in use.
j. Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead
agency or other regulators upon request, all
equipment maintenance records and data
sheets, including design specifications and
emission control tier classifications.
k. Conducting an on-site inspection to verify
compliance with construction mitigation and
to identify other opportunities to further
reduce construction impacts.
l. Providing meal options onsite or shuttles
between the facility and nearby meal
destinations for construction employees.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2c: Require the Use of
Ultra-Low VOC (10 g/L or less) Architectural
Coatings for Construction-related Application
Construction contractors shall be required to use
architectural coatings that are ultra-low VOC (10
g/L or less) in all possible applications. These
products are identified by manufacturers as “supercompliant.” For construction-related applications, the product manufacturer, product name, product
code, and intended use shall be identified on the
construction design drawings for approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2d: Ban Wood-burning
Stoves and Fireplaces in New Development
Wood burning or pellet stoves and fireplaces shall
not be permitted. Natural gas or propane fired
fireplaces shall be clearly delineated on plans
submitted to obtain building permits.
3.11 Noise and Vibration
IMPACT 3.11-1. Generation of a
Substantial Temporary (Constructionrelated) Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project in
Excess of Standards Established in the
Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance,
or Applicable Standards of Other
Agencies. Future development and
implementation of the WRTP Specific
Plan would result in exposure of existing
S Mitigation Measure 3.11-1– Implement
Construction Noise Reduction Strategies
a. Demolition, construction, site preparation,
and related activities that would generate
noise perceptible at the property line of the
subject property are limited to the hours
between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on
Monday through Saturday and between 9:00
A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Sunday and federal
holidays. The building inspector may issue an
exception to this limitation on hours in cases
SU
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Errata 3-4 City of Woodland
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
and anticipated noise sensitive land uses
(if occupied during construction of the
remaining properties within the WRTP
Specific Plan Area) to noticeable
increases from construction activities.
Consistent with the findings of the 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is
considered significant.
of urgent necessity where the public health
and safety will not be substantially impaired.
b. Idling times for noise-generating equipment
used in demolition, construction, site
preparation, and related activities shall be
minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to two (2)5 minutes.
c. Where construction work is within 445 feet
of properties with existing, occupied noisesensitive uses, construction shall be prohibited on weekends and holidays and
construction should start no earlier than 8
a.m.
d. Where construction work is within 445-feet
of an existing off-site residence, installation
of continuous noise curtains shall be required
between the construction site and those
residences.
e. Demolition, construction, site preparation,
and related activities that do not involve pile
driving proposed within 445 feet from the
edge of properties with existing, occupied
noise-sensitive uses shall incorporate all
feasible strategies to reduce noise exposure
for noise-sensitive uses, including:
• Provide written notice to all known
occupied noise-sensitive uses within
44500 feet of the edge of the project
site boundary at least 2 weeks prior to
the start of each construction phase of
the construction schedule;
• Ensure that construction equipment is
properly maintained and equipped with
noise control components, such as
mufflers, in accordance with
manufacturers’ specifications;
• Re-route construction equipment away
from adjacent noise-sensitive uses;
• Locate noisy construction equipment
away from surrounding noise-sensitive
uses;
• Use sound aprons or temporary noise
enclosures around noise-generating
equipment;
• Position storage of waste materials,
earth, and other supplies in a manner
that will function as a noise barrier for
surrounding noise-sensitive uses;
• Use the quietest practical type of
equipment;
• Use electric powered equipment instead
of diesel or gasoline engine powered
equipment;
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland 3-5 Errata
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
• Use shrouding or shielding and intake
and exhaust silencers/mufflers; and
• Other effective and feasible strategies
to reduce construction noise exposure
for surrounding noise-sensitive uses.
f. For construction of buildings that require the
installation of piles, an alternative to
installation of piles by hammering shall be
used. This could include the use of augured
holes for cast-in-place piles, installation
through vibration or hydraulic insertion, or
another low-noise technique.
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
► Draft EIR page 2-7:
The following changes to revise the total acreage of parkland included as a part of the Specific Plan:
“The proposed WRTP Specific Plan Land Use Diagram, Exhibit 2-3, identifies land use designations as defined in Section 3.2, "Zoning Classifications," of the WRTP Specific Plan. Table 2-1 summarizes the proposed land uses. The WRTP Specific Plan would provide for a variety of housing types and nonresidential land uses, as well as parks and open space and supportive public facilities and infrastructure. As described in Section 2.3 of the WRTP Specific Plan, “Land Use Plan,” and for the purpose of analysis in this EIR, at build out, the land use plan is estimated result in the development of approximately 1,600 new dwelling units, 2.2 million square feet of non-residential building space, the opportunity for up to 5,000 employees, and 21.8 acres of parks and other types of open space.” ► Draft EIR page 2-10:
The following changes to revise the total acreage of parkland, as summarized in Table 2-1, included as a part of the Specific Plan:
Table 2-1. WRTP Specific Plan Land Use Program
Land Use Designation
(Zone) Land Uses
Assumed
Residential
Density
(units / acre)
Land Area
(gross
acres)
Assumed
Floor Area
Ratio
Dwelling
Units
Nonresidential
Square
Footage1
Village Center Open
Space (includes Pedestrian
Promenade) (VCOS)4
Primarily recreation, with
some commercial uses
allowed.
n/a 11.6 0.5 n/a 32,000
Open Space (OS)
Parks, open spaces, and
greenways primarily for the
use of passive recreation and
stormwater management.
n/a 6.010.2 n/a n/a n/a
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Errata 3-6 City of Woodland
Land Use Designation
(Zone) Land Uses
Assumed
Residential
Density
(units / acre)
Land Area
(gross
acres)
Assumed
Floor Area
Ratio
Dwelling
Units
Nonresidential
Square
Footage1
Subtotal Parks / Open
Space n/a n/a 17.621.8 n/a n/a 32,000
► Draft EIR page 2-18:
The following changes to revise the acreage reserved for a potential school site within the WRTP Specific Plan Area as part of the Specific Plan:
“Up to a 120-acre portion of the Medium Density Residential zone south of Parkland Avenue and east of Road B at the southwest corner of Parkland Avenue and Harry Lorenzo Avenue will be reserved for a potential school site.”
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.3.1 DRAFT EIR SECTION 3.3, AIR QUALITY
► Draft EIR page 3.3-28 in Section 3.3, Air Quality:
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b has been refined to clearly distinguish the requirement for the use of equipment greater than 50 horsepower to be powered with engines that meet Tier 4 Final emissions standards and to incorporate additional feasibly mitigation to further reduce construction-related emissions. Item ‘c.’ of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b has been revised as such, and items ‘d.’ through ‘’l.’ added to Mitigation Measure
3.3-2b:
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: Construction-Related Mobile Emissions Reductions for NOX and PM10 Emissions.
Construction contractors shall adhere to the following requirements:
[bullets ‘a.’ and ‘b.’ are not revised from the Draft EIR] …
c. Comply with the State On-Road Regulation by using on-road For all off-road heavy-duty equipment greater than 50 horsepower, utilize equipment that meet or exceed CARB’s Tier 4 Final standards for on off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
d. Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all dieselfueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier 4 Final engines, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland 3-7 Errata
e. Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
f. Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled. g. Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
h. Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area. i. Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
j. Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
k. Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. l. Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
3.3.2 DRAFT EIR SECTION 3.4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
► Draft EIR page 3.4-11 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources:
Table 3.4-4 of the Draft EIR has been updated to reflect the current listing status of the tricolored blackbird, which was changed under the California Endangered Species Act since the publication of the Notice of Preparation in 2017 and drafting of the Draft EIR.
Table 3.4-4. Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and Off-site Improvement Areas
Species
Listing
Status –
Fed.1
Listing
Status –
State2 Habitat
Potential for Occurrence in the WRTP Specific Plan
Area and Off-site Improvement Areas
Tricolored
Blackbird*
Agelaius tricolor
(nesting)
_ CT, SSC Forages in agricultural lands
and grasslands; nests in
marshes, riparian scrub, and
other areas that support
cattails or dense thickets of
shrubs or herbs.
Unlikely to nest. There is no suitable breeding habitat in the study area or within 1,300 feet of the study area but could forage in the study area. A large, active
nesting colony is documented southeast of the study
area on the north side of Willow Slough,
approximately 2 miles from the Specific Plan Area.
There are 23 CNDDB occurrence records of this
species in Yolo County.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Errata 3-8 City of Woodland
3.3.3 DRAFT EIR SECTION 3.9, HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND WATER QUALITY ► Draft EIR page 3.9-13 in Section 3.9, Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality:
The Methodology section has been updated to cite to the 2018 Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area, as the most current version of the plan and intended citation. The analysis throughout the section was reviewed for accuracy in the context of this 2018 plan This revision does not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR.
3.3.4 DRAFT EIR SECTION 3.11, NOISE AND VIBRATION
► Draft EIR page 3.11-22 to 3.11-23 in Section 3.11, Noise and Vibration, Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 has been updated as follows to include additional feasible actions to reduce potential construction-related noise associated with future construction activities associated with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan. One edit has also been included to clarify that the intent of the mitigation measure already included in the Draft EIR requiring written noise to all known occupied noisesensitive uses would occur for activities within 445 feet (not 400, as inadvertently stated in the Draft EIR as a typo) of the edge of the project site boundary.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1– Implement Construction Noise Reduction Strategies a. Demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities that would generate noise perceptible at the property line of the subject property are limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday and between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Sunday and federal holidays.
The building inspector may issue an exception to this limitation on hours in cases of urgent necessity where the public health and safety will not be substantially impaired. b. Idling times for noise-generating equipment used in demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two (2)5 minutes.
c. Where construction work is within 445 feet of properties with existing, occupied noise-sensitive uses, construction shall be prohibited on weekends and holidays and construction should start no earlier than 8 a.m.
d. Where non-residential construction work is within 445-feet of an existing off-site residence, installation of continuous noise curtains shall be required between the construction site and those residences. e. Demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities that do not involve pile driving proposed within 445 feet from the edge of properties with existing, occupied noise-sensitive uses shall incorporate all feasible strategies to reduce noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses, including:
o Provide written notice to all known occupied noise-sensitive uses within 44500 feet of the edge of the project site boundary at least 2 weeks prior to the start of each construction phase of the construction schedule;
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland 3-9 Errata
o Ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained and equipped with noise control components, such as mufflers, in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications; o Re-route construction equipment away from adjacent noise-sensitive uses; o Locate noisy construction equipment away from surrounding noise-sensitive uses; o Use sound aprons or temporary noise enclosures around noise-generating equipment; o Position storage of waste materials, earth, and other supplies in a manner that will function as a noise barrier for surrounding noise-sensitive uses; o Use the quietest practical type of equipment;
o Use electric powered equipment instead of diesel or gasoline engine powered equipment;
o Use shrouding or shielding and intake and exhaust silencers/mufflers; and o Other effective and feasible strategies to reduce construction noise exposure for surrounding noise-sensitive uses.
f. For construction of buildings that require the installation of piles, an alternative to installation of piles by hammering shall be used. This could include the use of augured holes for cast-in-place piles, installation through vibration or hydraulic insertion, or another low-noise technique.
3.3.5 DRAFT EIR SECTION 3.12, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION ► Draft EIR page 3.12-4 in Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation:
Table 3.12-2 has been revised to reflect updated data from the Woodland Joint Unified School District Annual Enrollment Projection Report supporting documentation regarding enrollment and capacity (DecisionInsight 2021), and the description of what is shown in Table 3.12-2 has been revised as follows to fix a typo and reflect the intended wording and what is actually contained in Table 3.12-2:
“Table 3.12-2 shows 2019-20202022-2023 enrollment, design District capacity, and estimated remaining capacity for each school. As shown on Table 3.12-2, these schools are currently operating below design capacity.”
Table 3.12-2. Woodland Joint Unified School District Enrollment, 2019-20202022-2023 School Name Grade Enrollment District
Capacity b Estimated Remaining Capacity
Spring Lake Elementary School TK-4a 6 236346 472400 312 (472)b54 Tafoya Elementary School TK-6 794784 1,120937 324153
Woodland Prairie Elementary School TK-6 754755 960770 20015 Douglass Middle School 7-8 850808 1,3121,283 433475
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Errata 3-10 City of Woodland
School Name Grade Enrollment District
Capacity b Estimated Remaining Capacity
Pioneer High School 9-12 1,5411,635 2,3041,817 760182
Note: Student enrollment in the District changes daily as more students enroll and others leave; therefore, this information does not necessarily reflect exact current enrollment. a. When construction is fully complete, Spring Lake Elementary School will serve grades transitional-kindergarten through sixth grade. b. Capacity shown for Spring Lake Elementary School includes current capacity with Phase 1 of construction complete, as well as increased capacity when construction is fully complete, anticipated for the year 2021.
Source: California Department of Education 2020, City of Woodland 2016Woodland Joint Unified School District 2023; DecisionInsite 2021
► Draft EIR page 3.12-16 in Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation:
The text has been updated as follows to reflect the updated enrollment and capacity data, as noted above, from DecisionInsight 2021:
The WRTP Specific Plan Land Use Plan provides for a new elementary school in the area zoned for medium density residential, south of Parkland Avenue and east of Road B, should it be determined necessary by the WUJSD to support the anticipated student yield from development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area.
Should residential development occur within the WRTP Specific Plan Area prior to the construction of this school, students within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would attend Spring Lake Elementary School, Tafoya Elementary School, Woodland Prairie Elementary School, Douglass Middle School, and Pioneer High School. As shown in Table 3.12-2, these schools are substantially below capacity. Furthermore, projections through 2030 indicate that, with 2,800 new residential units becoming occupied and generating growth in the number of students districtwide, Tafoya Elementary School, Douglass Middle School, and Pioneer High School all maintain capacity, indicating and it is likely that the nearby existing schools could accommodate all anticipated elementary school, middle school, and high school students at build out of the WRTP Specific Plan Area (DecisionInsight 2021).
► Draft EIR page 3.12-17 in Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation:
The total park acreage provided by the Specific Plan, as summarized in Table 3.12-6, has been revised:
Table 3.12-6. WRTP Specific Plan Parkland Acreage Calculations Projected Residential
Population
City of Woodland 2035
General Plan Standard
(6 acres per 1,000 residents)
Total Proposed Parkland
(acres)
Total Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)
of Parkland Acreage
Compared with Requirement
4,386 26.3 21.817.6 -8.74.5
► Draft EIR page 3.12-18 in Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation:
The total park acreage provided by the Specific Plan has been revised:
“The WRTP Specific Plan would provide a total of 21.817.6 acres of parks and open space for the use of new residents, visitors, and employees in the WRTP Specific Plan Area.”
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland 4-1 References
4 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. 2005 (April). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
______. 2017. Technical Advisory: Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways.
Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/rd_technical_advisory_final.PDF. Accessed: May 1, 2018.
CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Department of Transportation. 2018 (August). Standard Plans and Specifications. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/ccs-standard-plans-and-standard-specifications. Accessed August 27, 2020.
California Department of Transportation. 2020 (July). Highway Design Manual. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm. Accessed August 27, 2020.
Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.
ARB. See California Air Resources Board.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012 (May). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, CA.
City of Woodland. 2006b (April). Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures.
Available: http://www.cityofwoodland.org/DocumentCenter/View/590/Technical-Guidance-Manual-forStorm-Water-PDF. Accessed June 6, 2018. ———. 2015. Post-Construction Standards Plan: A Guidance Document on Storm Water Post-Construction Design Measures for Developers and Plan Checkers. Available:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/DocumentCenter/View/1006/Post-Construction-Standard-Plan-PDF.
Accessed June 5, 2018.
———. 2016a (August). Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications. Available: http://www.cityofwoodland.org/DocumentCenter/View/1082/2016- Engineering-Standards-PDF. Accessed May 31, 2018.
———. 2018. City of Woodland Update to: Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area.
Prepared by: Wood Rodgers. Yolo County, CA.
———. 2017 (May). City of Woodland General Plan Update 2035. Prepared by: Dyett & Bhatia. Available:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/563/General-Plan-2035. Accessed May 31, 2018. ———. 2020a (May). Woodland Research and Technology Park Storm Drainage Review Technical Memorandum. Prepared by: Wood Rodgers. Sacramento, CA.
———. 2021. Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications Cunningham Engineering Corporation. 2023. Revised Technical Memorandum—Woodland Research and Technology Park Stormwater Management. Prepared for: City of Woodland. Davis, CA.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR References 4-2 City of Woodland
City of Woodland. 2018. City of Woodland Update to: Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area. Prepared by: Wood Rodgers. Yolo County, CA.
DecisionInsite 2021. Annual Enrollment Projection Report. Prepared for Woodland Joint Unified School District.
Irvine, CA.
Wood Rogers. 2022. Farmer Central Drainage (10-year) and Woodland Research and Technical Park Development Triggers. Prepared for City of Woodland.
Fehr & Peers. 2021. Woodland Research & Technolocy Park Transportation Impact Study. Prepared for the City of Woodland. March 2021. Woodland, CA.
OEHHA. See Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015 (February). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparationhealth-risk-0. Accessed on November 2017.
PCAPCD. See Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 2017. Placer County Air Pollution Control District California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Handbook. Available at https://www.placer.ca.gov/1801/CEQAHandbook. Accessed February 2020.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2011 (March). Recommended Protocol for Evaluating the Location of Sensitive Land Uses Adjacent to Major Roadways: Version 2.4.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFTGAMAQI.PDF. Accessed August 2020.
SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
SMAQMD. See Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
Yolo-Solano County Air Quality Management District. 2007. Handbook for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Adopted July 11, 2007. Available at http://www.ysaqmd.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/CEQAHandbook2007.pdf. Accessed March 2018.
YSAQMD. See Yolo-Solano County Air Quality Management District.
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland 4-3 References
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland 3 Introduction
Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
Woodland Research &
Technology Park SpecificPlan
August 2023
State Clearinghouse #2017062042
This page is intentionally left blank.
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENT
Where a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document has identified significant environmental effects, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires adoption of a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
This Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the Woodland Research & Technology Park (WRTP) Specific Plan (proposed project), as set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The City of Woodland (City) is the Lead Agency that must adopt the MMRP for development and operation of the project. This report will be kept on file with the City of Woodland at the Woodland Community Development Department, 300 First Street, Woodland, CA 95695.
The CEQA Statutes and Guidelines provide direction for clarifying and managing the complex relationships between a lead agency and other agencies with implementing and monitoring mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(d), “each agency has the discretion to choose its own approach to monitoring or reporting; and each agency has its own special expertise.” This discretion will be exercised by implementing agencies at the time they undertake any of portion of the project, as identified in the EIR.
PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The intent of the MMRP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures.
The MMRP is intended to be used by City staff and others responsible for project implementation.
This document identifies the individual mitigation measures, the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the measure, the timing of implementation, and space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The City of Woodland will oversee monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures. The City or its construction contractor is responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing all of the mitigation measures contained within this MMRP. Certain mitigation measures also will require that the applicant coordinate or consult with one or more other public agencies in implementing mitigation measures specified herein.
CHANGES TO MITIGATION MEASURES
Any substantive change in the MMRP is required to be reported in writing. Modifications to the mitigation measures may be made by the City, subject to one of the following findings, and documented by evidence included in the public record:
a. The mitigation measure included in the Final EIR and the MMRP is no longer required because the significant environmental impact identified in the Final EIR has been found not to exist, or to occur at a level which makes
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-2 City of Woodland the impact less than significant as a result of changes in the project, changes in environment conditions, or other factors.
OR,
b. The modified or substitute mitigation measure provides a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than that afforded by the mitigation measure included in the Final EIR and the MMRP; and, c. The modified or substitute mitigation measure or measures do not have significant adverse effects on the environment in addition to, or greater than those which were considered by the responsible hearing parties in their decisions on the Final EIR and the proposed project; and, d. The modified or substitute mitigation measures are feasible, and the City, through measures included in the MMRP or other City procedures, can ensure implementation.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the project file with this MMRP and shall be made available to the public upon request.
This MMRP will be kept on file at:
City of Woodland
Woodland Community Development Department
300 First Street
Woodland, CA 95695
(530) 661-5820
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
WOODLAND RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SPECIFIC PLAN
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-1.
Conflict with or
Obstruct
Implementation of
the Applicable Air
Quality Plan.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a – Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a through 3.3-2d Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and construction
contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to construction
activities and prior to
issuance of a
building permit (only
for Mitigation
Measure 3.3-2d).
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-2.
Result in a
Cumulatively
Considerable Net
Increase of Criteria
Air Pollutant and
Precursor Emissions.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a – Implement Construction Best Management Practices.
New development shall incorporate the following construction best management practices, those included in an updated set of mitigation recommendations prepared by the YSAQMD [Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District], or those determined by the City to be as effective:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. b. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials. d. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut-andfill operations and hydroseed area. e. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days). f. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. g. Cover inactive storage piles.
h. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. i. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6-inch layer of gravel.
j. Limit all idling of vehicles and equipment that use gasoline or diesel fuel to five minutes maximum.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and construction
contractor(s).
Timing:
During construction
activities.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-4 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
k. Use alternative power source, such as electricity, for construction equipment or use reformulated and emulsified fuels, incorporate catalyst and filtration technologies, and generally modernize the equipment fleet with cleaner and newer engines.
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-2.
(Continued)
Result in a
Cumulatively
Considerable Net
Increase of Criteria
Air Pollutant and
Precursor Emissions.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: Construction-Related Mobile Emissions Reductions for NOX and PM10 Emissions.
Construction contractors shall adhere to the following requirements:
a. Maintain all construction equipment properly according to manufacturer’s specifications.
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB [California Air Resources Board]-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road).
c. For all off-road heavy-duty equipment greater than 50 horsepower, utilize equipment that meet or exceed CARB Tier 4 Final standards for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
d. Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier 4 Final engines, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.
e. Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
f. Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if dieselfueled. g. Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
h. Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
i. Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
j. Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
k. Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and construction
contractor(s).
Timing:
During construction
activities.
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
l. Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-2.
(Continued)
Result in a
Cumulatively
Considerable Net
Increase of Criteria
Air Pollutant and
Precursor Emissions.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2c: Require the Use of Ultra-Low VOC (10 g/L [grams per liter] or less) Architectural Coatings for Construction-related Application.
Construction contractors shall be required to use architectural coatings that are ultra-low VOC (10 g/L or less) in all possible applications. These products are identified by manufacturers as “super-compliant.” For construction-related applications, the product manufacturer, product name, product code, and intended use shall be identified on the construction design drawings for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and construction
contractor(s).
Timing:
During construction
activities.
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-2.
(Continued)
Result in a
Cumulatively
Considerable Net
Increase of Criteria
Air Pollutant and
Precursor Emissions.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2d: Ban Wood-burning Stoves and Fireplaces in New Development.
Wood burning or pellet stoves and fireplaces shall not be permitted. Natural gas or propane fired fireplaces shall be clearly delineated on plans submitted to obtain building permits.
Implementation:
Leaseholder(s) and
developer(s).
Timing:
Demonstrate
compliance prior to
issuance of building
permit.
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-3.
Expose Sensitive
Receptors to
Substantial Pollutant
Concentrations.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3a: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b - ConstructionRelated Mobile Emissions Reductions for NOX and PM10 emissions.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
During construction
activities.
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-3.
(Continued)
Expose Sensitive
Receptors to
Substantial Pollutant
Concentrations.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3b: Implement Guidelines in the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, and subsequent Technical Advisory.
New development that would result in substantial TAC [toxic air contaminant] emissions directly or indirectly (e.g., industrial sources) or that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations (e.g., residential land uses located near existing TAC sources) shall implement CARB’s [2005] Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) guidance concerning land use compatibility Implementation:
Leaseholder(s) and
developer(s).
Timing:
Demonstrate
compliance prior to
issuance of a grading
permit.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-6 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
with regard to sources of TAC emissions, or CARB guidance as it may be updated in the future.
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-3.
(Continued)
Expose Sensitive
Receptors to
Substantial Pollutant
Concentrations.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3c: Conduct Project-Level Analysis and Implement Mitigation for Sources of TACs.
For projects with the potential to generate substantial TAC emissions or expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC pollutant concentrations, the City will require a site-specific analysis for construction and/or operational activities, and appropriate mitigation, as necessary, to ensure that sensitive receptors are not exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. In communication with the YSAQMD, the City will require, if necessary, a site-specific analysis for operational activities to determine whether health risks attributable to future proposed projects in relation to proposed, planned, and/or existing sensitive receptors would exceed applicable thresholds of significance. Sitespecific analysis may include screen level analysis, dispersion modeling, and/or a health risk assessment, consistent with applicable guidance from the YSAQMD. Analyses shall take into account regulatory requirements for proposed uses.
The City will require the project applicant(s) to identify and implement feasible mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant effect and communicate with the YSAQMD to identify measures to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to levels consistent with thresholds recommended by the YSAQMD applicable at the time the project is proposed. If the YSAQMD does not have applicable thresholds at the time of this analysis, the thresholds will be a probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual equal to 10.0 in a million or more attributable to the project, or a non-cancer risk of 1.0 Hazard Index (chronic or acute) or more attributable to the project. If the project would exceed applicable thresholds recommended by the YSAQMD or the substitute thresholds outlined above, mitigation will be required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Agreed upon feasible mitigation actions shall be documented as a project condition of approval.
If the results of analysis for the operational activities of any future development project within the WRTP Specific Plan Area determine that the performance standard for this mitigation would be exceeded, actions shall be taken to reduce potential operational impacts which may include, but not necessarily be limited to:
• locating air intakes and designing windows to reduce particulate matter exposure by, for example, not allowing windows facing the source to open; • providing electrification hook-ups for TRUs to avoid diesel-fueled TRUs continuing to operate at loading docks during loading and unloading operations; • requiring the TAC-generating activity (e.g., loading docks) be located away from sensitive receptors;
Implementation:
For Construction:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
For Operations:
Leaseholder(s) and
developer(s).
Timing:
For Construction:
Prior to and during
construction.
For Operations:
Demonstrate
compliance with
design features prior
to issuance of a
grading permit.
Demonstrate
compliance with
operational ongoing
operational actions
prior to issuance of a
building permit and
maintain and provide
records of
compliance for
operational-related
measures throughout
operations.
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
• incorporating exhaust emission controls on mobile and/or stationary sources (e.g., filters, oxidizers);
• develop and implement a dock management system at the time of occupancy to minimize on-site idling below regulatory limits;
• require all on-site user owned and operated trucks with transportation refrigeration units to be capable of plugging into power at loading docks and require plug-in when at the loading dock;
• utilize on-site cargo and material handling equipment that is the lowest emitting equipment available at the time of occupancy;
• evaluate the potential to electrify a portion of entirety of an on-site user-owned and operated truck fleet;
• evaluate the potential to consolidate delivery or haul truck trips to increase the load and decrease vehicle trips;
• provide building air filtration units with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) that is adequate to address adjacent sensitive land uses according to performance standards of this mitigation measure;
• ensure adequate distance between existing and planned sensitive receptors and gasoline dispensing facilities, based on the proposed size and design of any gasolinedispensing facilities; • utilize vegetated buffers between substantial TAC-generating source locations and sensitive receptors.
If analysis demonstrates that construction activities associated with development of onsite WRTP Specific Plan land uses or off-site improvement components would exceed the performance standards identified in this mitigation measure, actions shall be taken to reduce potential construction-related impacts which may include, but not necessarily be limited to:
• installing diesel particulate filters or implementing other CARB-verified diesel emission control strategies on all construction equipment to reduce diesel PM emissions;
• using equipment during time when receptors are not present (e.g., when school is not in session or during non-school hours, or when office buildings are unoccupied); • establishing staging areas for the construction equipment that are as far as possible from sensitive receptors;
• rerouting construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas; • communicating requirements through daily kick-off meetings and signage that offroad diesel equipment operators shut down their engines rather than idle for more than five minutes;
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-8 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
• documenting that all off-road equipment is compliant with the CARB in-use off-road diesel vehicle regulation;
• establishing an electrical supply to the construction site and use electric-powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible; • using haul trucks with on-road engines instead of off-road engines; • equipping nearby buildings with High Efficiency Particle Arresting (HEPA) filters systems at all mechanical air intake points to the building to reduce the levels of diesel PM that enter buildings;
• planning construction phasing so that future construction activities continue to move further away from occupied land uses; and
• planning construction phasing to complete mass site grading, which typically generates the largest portion of diesel PM emissions, prior to occupancy of the project site.
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 3.3-4.
Generation of Other
Emissions (Such as
Those Leading to
Odors) Adversely
Affecting a
Substantial Number
of People.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: Reduce Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Odorous Emissions.
The City of Woodland shall require, as part of plans for development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, the implementation of strategies to avoid exposure of sensitive receptors to objectionable odors:
a. Project applicant(s) for residential development in areas adjacent to ongoing agricultural operations shall include a disclosure clause advising buyers and tenants of the potential adverse odor impacts in the deeds to all residential properties. Residential subdivisions shall provide notification to buyers in writing of odors associated with existing dairies, agricultural burning, and decay of agricultural waste. b. For existing odor-producing sources, sensitive receptors shall be sited as far away as possible from the existing sources.
c. For new project-generated odor-producing sources, sensitive receptors shall be sited as far away as possible from the new sources.
d. Apply SMAQMD [Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District] Recommended Odor Screening Distances in the siting of land uses. e. As an alternative to these buffer distances, indoor air filtration systems could be implemented to reduce exposure to odors. For odor-producing sources, activities would be maintained within ad enclosed space and appropriate air filtration systems would be implemented to reduce odors expelled from the building. For developments that would host sensitive receptors, design would include air site layout, landscaping, and indoor air filtration systems to minimize exposure to odors.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s).
Timing:
Demonstrate
compliance prior to
issuance of a
building permit.
3.4 Biological
Resources
Mitigation for impacts to nesting common raptors is included under Mitigation Measure
3.4-2a (Avoid Direct Loss of Protected Bird Nests).
Implementation:
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
IMPACT 3.4-1.
Impacts on SpecialStatus Species:
Swainson’s Hawk,
White-tailed Kite,
and Burrowing Owl.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite
a. In accordance with AMM [Avoidance and Minimization Measure] 16 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP [Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan], the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct speciesspecific surveys and identify any nesting habitat present within 1,320 feet of the footprint of a proposed project, prior to any ground disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.
b. If a construction project cannot avoid potential nest trees (as determined by the qualified biologist) by 1,320 feet, the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests consistent with guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000), between March 1 and August 30, within 15 days prior to the beginning of the construction activity. The results of the survey will be submitted to the Yolo Habitat Conservancy and CDFW [California Department of Fish and Wildlife]. If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a 1,320-foot initial temporary nest disturbance buffer shall be established. If project-related activities within the temporary nest disturbance buffer are determined to be necessary during the nesting season, then the qualified biologist will monitor the nest and will, along with the City, consult with CDFW to determine the best course of action necessary to avoid nest abandonment or take of individuals. Work may be allowed only to proceed within the temporary nest disturbance buffer if Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite are not exhibiting agitated behavior, such as defensive flights at intruders, getting up from a brooding position, or flying off the nest, and only with the agreement of CDFW. The designated on-site biologist/monitor shall be on-site daily while construction-related activities are taking place within the 1,320-foot buffer and shall have the authority to stop work if raptors are exhibiting agitated behavior. Up to 20 Swainson’s hawk nest trees (documented nesting within the last 5 years) may be removed during the permit term, but they must be removed when not occupied by Swainson’s hawks. c. For covered activities that involve pruning or removal of a potential Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest tree, the City will require project proponent/s to conduct preconstruction surveys that are consistent with the guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, no tree pruning or removal of the nest tree will occur during the period between March 1 and August 30 within 1,320 feet of an active nest, unless a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to and during
construction
activities.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-10 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
3.4 Biological
Resources
IMPACT 3.4-1.
(Continued)
Impacts on SpecialStatus Species:
Swainson’s Hawk,
White-tailed Kite,
and Burrowing Owl.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Comply with Yolo HCP/NCCP Requirements for Compensation for Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Before any ground-disturbing activities, the City will require project proponent/s to identify and quantify (in acres) Swainson’s hawk habitat (as defined in the Yolo County HCP/NCCP Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts [Yolo HCP/NCCP 2018]) in and within 1,320 feet of a project footprint. The City will require project proponent/s to submit the Yolo HCP/NCCP Application Form for non-member agency projects and Member Agency Reporting Form for member agency projects, as applicable, and will pay applicable fees to the Yolo Habitat Conservancy as specified in the appropriate form.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to and during
construction
activities.
3.4 Biological
Resources
IMPACT 3.4-1.
(Continued)
Impacts on SpecialStatus Species:
Swainson’s Hawk,
White-tailed Kite,
and Burrowing Owl.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c: Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Western Burrowing Owl
Suitable habitat for the western burrowing owl is present within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the Caltrans off-site improvement area. There is no suitable habitat for burrowing owl in the South Regional Pond off-site improvement area. In accordance with AMM18 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct species-specific surveys within 30-days but no less than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects, consistent with Appendix L of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, which follows CDFW guidelines.
If burrowing owls are identified during the species-specific pre-project survey, the City will require project proponent/s to minimize activities that will affect occupied habitat, as follows. Occupied habitat is considered fully avoided if the project footprint does not impinge on a non-disturbance buffer around the suitable burrow. For occupied burrowing owl nest burrows, this non-disturbance buffer could range from 150 to 1,500 feet (Table 4-2 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, Recommended Restricted Activity Dates and Setback Distances by Level of Disturbance for Burrowing Owls), depending on the time of year and the level of disturbance, based on current guidelines. A copy of this table is provided below in Section 3.4 of this EIR, as Table 3.4-8.
Table 3.4-8. Recommended Restricted Activity Dates and Setback Distances by Level of Disturbance for Burrowing Owls (Yolo HCP/NCCP 2018)
Time of Year Low (Feet)
Medium
(Feet) High (Feet)
April 1 – April 15 600 1,500 1,500
August 16 – October 15 600 600 1,500
October 16 – March 31 150 300 1,500
Source: Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to and during
construction
activities.
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
The Yolo HCP/NCCP generally defines low, medium, and high levels of disturbances of burrowing owls as follows.
• Low: Typically 71-80 dB, generally characterized by the presence of passenger vehicles, small gas-powered engines (e.g., lawn mowers, small chain saws, portable generators), and high tension power lines. Includes electric hand tools (except circular saws, impact wrenches and similar). Management and enhancement activities would typically fall under this category. Human activity in the immediate vicinity of burrowing owls would also constitute a low level of disturbance, regardless of the noise levels.
• Moderate: Typically 81-90 dB, and would include medium- and large-sized construction equipment, such as backhoes, front end loaders, large pumps and generators, road graders, dozers, dump trucks, drill rigs, and other moderate to large diesel engines. Also includes power saws, large chainsaws, pneumatic drills and impact wrenches, and large gasoline-powered tools. Construction activities would normally fall under this category.
• High: Typically 91-100 dB, and is generally characterized by impacting devices, jackhammers, compression (“jake”) brakes on large trucks, and trains. This category includes both vibratory and impact pile drivers (smaller steel or wood piles) such as used to install piles and guard rails, and large pneumatic tools such as chipping machines. It may also include large diesel and gasoline engines, especially if in concert with other impacting devices. Felling of large trees (defined as dominant or subdominant trees in mature forests), truck horns, yarding tower whistles, and muffled or underground explosives are also included. Very few covered activities are expected to fall under this category, but some construction activities may result in this level of disturbance.
In accordance with AMM18 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, the project proponent may qualify for a reduced buffer size, based on existing vegetation, human development, and land use, if agreed upon by CDFW and USFWS (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).
If the project does not fully avoid direct and indirect effects on nesting sites (i.e., if the project cannot adhere to the buffers described above), the City will require the project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys and document the presence or absence of western burrowing owls that could be affected by the covered activity. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, the qualified biologist will conduct the preconstruction surveys within three days prior to ground disturbance in areas identified in the planning-level surveys carried out in preparation of this EIR as having suitable burrowing owl burrows, consistent with CDFW preconstruction survey guidelines (Appendix L of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, Take Avoidance Surveys) (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). The qualified biologist will
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-12 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
conduct the preconstruction surveys three days prior to ground disturbance. Time lapses between ground disturbing activities will trigger subsequent surveys prior to ground disturbance. If the biologist finds the site to be occupied by western burrowing owls during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the City will require project proponent/s to avoid all nest sites, based on the buffer distances described above, during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young (occupation includes individuals or family groups that forage on or near the site following fledging; occupancy of burrowing owl habitat during preconstruction surveys is confirmed at a site when at least one burrowing owl or sign (fresh whitewash, fresh pellets, feathers, or nest ornamentation) is observed at or near a burrow entrance).
Construction may occur inside of the disturbance buffer during the breeding season if the nest is not disturbed and the project proponent develops an AMM plan that is approved by the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS prior to project construction, based on the following criteria:
• The Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS approves the AMM plan provided by the project proponent.
• A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least three days prior to construction to determine baseline nesting and foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction). • The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl nesting and foraging behavior in response to construction activities. • If the qualified biologist identifies a change in owl nesting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, the qualified biologist will have the authority to stop all construction-related activities within the non-disturbance buffers described above.
The qualified biologist will report this information to the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS within 24 hours, and the Conservancy will require that these activities immediately cease within the non-disturbance buffer. Construction cannot resume within the buffer until the adults and juveniles from the occupied burrows have moved out of the project site, and the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS agree. If monitoring indicates that the nest is abandoned prior to the end of nesting season and the burrow is no longer in use by owls, the project proponent may remove the nondisturbance buffer, only with concurrence from CDFW and USFWS. If the burrow cannot be avoided by construction activity, the biologist will excavate and collapse the burrow in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 guidelines to prevent reoccupation after receiving approval from the wildlife agencies. If evidence of western burrowing owl is detected outside the breeding season (December 1 to January 31), the City will require the project proponent/s to establish a non-disturbance buffer around occupied burrows, consistent with Table 4-2 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018), as determined by a qualified biologist. Construction activities within the disturbance buffer are allowed if the following criteria are met to prevent owls from abandoning
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
important overwintering sites: A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least three days prior to construction to determine baseline foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction). The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl foraging behavior in response to construction activities.
• If there is any change in owl roosting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, these activities will cease within the buffer. If the owls are gone for at least one week, the project proponent may request approval from the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS for a qualified biologist to excavate and collapse usable burrows to prevent owls from reoccupying the site if the burrow cannot be avoided by construction activities. The qualified biologist will install one-way doors for a 48-hour period prior to collapsing any potentially occupied burrows. After all usable burrows are excavated, the buffer will be removed and construction may continue.
Monitoring must continue as described above for the nonbreeding season as long as the burrow remains active. A qualified biologist will monitor the site, consistent with the requirements described above, to ensure that buffers are enforced and owls are not disturbed.
If burrowing owls are detected during the nonbreeding season, instead of establishing buffers and monitoring for behavior, the qualified biologist in consultation with the Conservancy may determine that passive relocation (i.e., exclusion) of owls is necessary, in which case the project proponent will develop a burrowing owl exclusion plan in consultation with CDFW biologists. Exclusion and burrow closure will not be conducted during the breeding season for any occupied burrow. The methods will be designed, as described in the species monitoring guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 2012 [see California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012]) and consistent with the most up-to-date checklist of passive relocation techniques maintained by the Yolo Habitat Conservancy. This may include the installation of one-way doors in burrow entrances by a qualified biologist during the nonbreeding season. These doors will be in place for 48 hours and monitored twice daily to ensure that the owls have left the burrow, after which time the biologist will collapse the burrow to prevent reoccupation. Burrows will be excavated using hand tools. During excavation, an escape route will be maintained at all times. This may include inserting an artificial structure, such as piping, into the burrow to prevent collapsing until the entire burrow can be excavated and it can be determined that no owls are trapped inside the burrow. The Yolo Habitat Conservancy may allow other methods of passive or active relocation, based on best available science, if approved by the wildlife agencies. Artificial burrows will be constructed prior to exclusion and will be created less than 300 feet from the existing burrows on lands that are protected as part of the reserve system.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-14 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
3.4 Biological
Resources
IMPACT 3.4-2.
Impacts on SpecialStatus Species:
Special-status and
Migratory Nesting
Birds and Raptors.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a: Avoid Direct Loss of Protected Bird Nests While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under CEQA, the following would be required for compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code:
• To the extent feasible, the City will require that construction activities be carried out during the nonbreeding season (between September 1 and January 31) for protected bird species in this region to avoid and minimize impacts to common migratory nesting birds.
• For any ground disturbance activity necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects that would occur during the nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), the City will require the project applicant to conduct a preconstruction survey. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist before any activity occurring within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat for any protected bird species. The survey shall be timed to maximize the potential to detect nesting birds, and should be repeated within 10 days of the start of projectrelated activity. • If an active common bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or California Fish and Game Code nest is found, the qualified biologist shall establish a buffer around the nest. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active. The size of the buffer shall be determined in consultation with CDFW. Buffer size is anticipated to range from 50 to 500 feet, depending on the nature of the project activity, the extent of existing disturbance in the area, and other relevant circumstances as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW.
• Monitoring of all protected nests by a qualified biologist during construction activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest. If construction activities cause the nesting bird to vocalize, make defensive flights at intruders, get up from a brooding position, or fly off the nest, then the no-disturbance buffer shall be increased until the agitated behavior ceases. The exclusionary buffer will remain in place until the chicks have fledged or as otherwise determined by a qualified biologist.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to and during
construction
activities.
3.4 Biological
Resources
IMPACT 3.4-2.
(Continued)
Impacts on SpecialStatus Species:
Special-status and
Migratory Nesting
Birds and Raptors.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to and during
construction
activities.
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
3.4 Biological
Resources
IMPACT 3.4-3.
Impacts on SpecialStatus Species: Loss
of Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle
(VELB) Larvae and
Habitat.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
• In accordance with AMM 12 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist who is familiar with valley elderberry longhorn beetle and evidence of its presence (i.e., exit holes in elderberry shrubs) to map all elderberry shrubs in and within 100 feet of a proposed project footprint with stems that are greater than one inch in diameter at ground level during the project design phase. To avoid take of valley elderberry longhorn beetle fully, the City will require project proponent/s to design projects to avoid mapped elderberry shrubs, if feasible. To avoid effects on shrubs, the City will require that project proponent/s maintain a buffer of at least 100 feet from any elderberry shrubs with stems greater than one inch in diameter at ground level. AMM1 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, Establish Buffers, describes that a lesser buffer may be approved by the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW if they determine that the covered species is avoided to an extent that is consistent with the project purpose.
• For elderberry shrubs that cannot be avoided with a designated buffer distance as described above, the qualified biologist will quantify the number of stems one inch or greater in diameter to be affected, and the presence or absence of exit holes. The Conservancy will use this information to determine the number of plants or cuttings to plant on a riparian restoration site to help offset the loss, consistent with Section
6.4.2.4.1 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, of the Yolo HCP/NCCP (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Additionally, prior to construction, the City will require that the project proponent/s transplant elderberry shrubs identified within the project footprint that cannot be avoided.
• Transplantation will only occur if a shrub cannot be avoided and, if indirectly affected, the indirect effects would otherwise result in the death of stems or the entire shrub. If the project proponent/s choose/s, in coordination with a qualified biologist and the City, not to transplant the shrub because the activity would not likely result in death of stems of the shrub, then the qualified biologist will monitor the shrub annually for a five-year monitoring period. The monitoring period may be reduced with concurrence from the wildlife agencies if the latest research and best available information at the time indicates that a shorter monitoring period is warranted. If death of stems at least one inch in diameter occurs within the monitoring period, and the qualified biologist determines that the shrub is sufficiently healthy to transplant, the City will require the project proponent/s to transplant the shrub as described in the following paragraph, in coordination with the qualified biologist. If the shrub dies during the monitoring period, or the qualified biologist determines that the shrub is no longer healthy enough to survive transplanting, then the Conservancy will offset the shrub loss consistent with the preceding paragraph.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Surveys will take
place prior to ground
disturbing activities.
If required, the
project proponent
will transplant
elderberry plants
when the plants are
dormant,
approximately
November through
the first two weeks of
February, after they
have lost their leaves.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-16 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
• The City will require project proponent/s to transplant the shrubs into a location in the HCP/NCCP reserve system that has been approved by the Conservancy. Elderberry shrubs outside the project footprint but within the 100-foot buffer will not be transplanted. Transplanting will follow the following measures:
a. Monitor: A qualified biologist will be on-site for the duration of the transplanting of the elderberry shrubs to ensure the effects on elderberry shrubs are minimized. b. Timing: The project proponent will transplant elderberry plants when the plants are dormant, approximately November through the first two weeks of February, after they have lost their leaves. Transplanting during the non-growing season will reduce shock to the plant and increase transplantation success. c. Transplantation procedure: Cut the plant back three to six feet from the ground or to 50 percent of its height (whichever is taller) by removing branches and stems above this height. Replant the trunk and stems measuring one inch or greater in diameter.
Remove leaves that remain on the plants.
d. Relocate plant to approved location in the reserve system, and replant as described in Section 6.4.2.4.1, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle of the Yolo HCP/NCCP (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).
3.4 Biological
Resources
IMPACT 3.4-4.
Impacts on SpecialStatus Species: Loss
of Bat Roosts, and
Special-status Bats.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Avoid Direct Loss of Bat Roosts and Special-status Bats For any project activity necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects that would require removal of roost habitat (i.e. trees or structures) and would occur during the maternity season (between May 1 and August 31), the City will require the project applicant to conduct a preconstruction survey for special-status bats. Camera inspection as well as an emergence (exit survey with night optics) and/or acoustic survey shall be conducted in the summer prior to construction/land disturbance, which provides the best opportunity to determine if roosting bats are present.
If bats are found during the preconstruction survey(s), then removal of roost habitat will be delayed until the end of maternity season (August 31) or until the young are capable of flights, as determined by a qualified bat biologist and in consultation with CDFW.
Any removal of highly suitable roost habitat should be conducted during the shoulder season, September 1 to October 31, to avoid harm to the species. If a highly suitable roost tree or structure is to be removed, trees and/or structures surrounding the roost habitat should be removed first, allowing any bats that may be present time to leave the area. A qualified monitor shall be present during removal of the habitat tree or structure.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to
construction/land
disturbance.
3.4 Biological
Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Avoid Loss of and Degradation of Federally Protected Waters
Implementation:
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
IMPACT 3.4-5.
Impacts on
Wetlands: Loss and
Degradation of State
or Federally
Protected Wetlands.
• If the implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would result in ground disturbance on the agricultural or roadside ditches, the City will require project proponent/s to conduct a delineation of waters of the United States according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ methods, and to submit the completed delineation to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional determination.
• If implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would result in fill of waters of the United States, the City will require that project proponent/s obtain a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
• If implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan involves work in areas containing waters disclaimed by the USACE, the City will require that the applicant obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act.
• The City will require that the applicant obtain all needed permits prior to project implementation, to abide by the conditions of the permits, including all mitigation requirements, and to implement all requirements of the permits in the timeframes required therein.
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Before any ground
disturbing activities
for any planned
project development
in areas within the
project footprint
containing wetland
features or other
waters of the United
States and on an
ongoing basis, as
required by the
permits herein.
3.6 Cultural and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
IMPACT 3.6-1.
Cause a Substantial
Adverse Change in
the Significance of
Archaeological
Resources as defined
in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Treatment of Unanticipated Archaeological Discoveries Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would be required to implement the following procedures during any ground-disturbing activities:
a. Prior to ground-disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects, contractors shall receive cultural resource sensitivity training to identify potential archaeological resources and that all work should cease within 150 feet of prehistoric cultural resources that may be discovered during project implementation.
b. During ground-disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects, if any prehistoric or historic subsurface resources are discovered, all work within 150 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted within 24 hours to assess the significance of the find, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and implement, as applicable, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(d), (e), and (f).
• The California Office of Historic preservation utilizes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation as found in Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] Part 61. The minimum professional qualifications in archeology are a graduate degree in archeology, anthropology, or closely related field plus: 1. At least one year of fulltime professional experience or equivalent specialized training in archeological Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to and during
any construction
ground disturbing
activities.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-18 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
research, administration or management; 2. At least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archeology; and 3.
Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion. In addition to these minimum qualifications, a professional in prehistoric archeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archeological resources of the prehistoric period. A professional in historic archeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archeological resources of the historic period. c. If any find is determined to be a unique archaeological resource according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, representatives from the City and the archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.
Cultural resources shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms, and all significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist and in consultation with the local Native American community if the discovery is prehistoric in age, subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and documentation according to professional standards. If it is determined that the proposed development or infrastructure project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, with a preference for preservation in place. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. Preservation in place may be accomplished by planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
d. If avoidance is not feasible, the qualified archaeologist shall develop and oversee the execution of a treatment plan. The treatment plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, data recovery procedures based on location and type of archaeological resources discovered and a preparation and submittal of report of findings to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. Data recovery shall be designed to recover the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain, based on the scientific/historical research questions that are applicable to the resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable resource questions. Data recovery, in general, should be limited to the portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by project proponents’ actions. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical.
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
3.6 Cultural and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
IMPACT 3.6-2.
Disturb Human
Remains, including
those Interred
Outside of Formal
Cemeteries.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Treatment of Human Remains
Consistent with Health and Safety Code, Section 7050 through 7052 and Health and Safety Code Section 8010 through 8030, in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery during construction, the City and contractor/s shall take the following steps:
(1) No further excavation or disturbance of the project site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains will occur until:
(A) the coroner of Yolo County has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and
(B) if the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
1. the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours;
2. the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American; and
3. the most likely descendant 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 Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code; or
(2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
(A) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the most likely descendant fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; (B) the most likely descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or (C) the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the most likely descendant, and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
In the event of the
accidental discovery
or recognition of any
human remains in
any location other
than a dedicated
cemetery during
construction.
3.7 Geology, Soils,
Minerals and
Paleontological
Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Conduct Construction Personnel Education, Stop Work if Paleontological Resources are Discovered, Assess the Significance of the Find, and Prepare and Implement a Recovery Plan, as Required.
To minimize the potential for destruction of, or damage to potentially unique, scientifically important paleontological resources during earth-moving activities, the measures described below shall be implemented by project applicants and contractors for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan within the Riverbank or Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Before and during
excavation and other
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-20 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
IMPACT 3.7-1.
Possible Damage to
or Destruction of
Unique
Paleontological
Resources.
Modesto Formations (in the southern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the proposed South Regional Pond area) before and during construction activities. • Prior to the start of earthmoving activities that would disturb 1 acre of land or more within the Riverbank or Modesto Formations (in the southern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the proposed South Regional Pond area), inform all construction personnel involved with earthmoving activities regarding the possibility of encountering fossils, the appearance and types of fossils likely to be seen during construction, and proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered. This worker training may either be prepared and presented by an experienced field archaeologist at the same time as construction worker education on cultural resources or prepared and presented separately by a qualified paleontologist. • If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the City of Woodland Community Development Department. Retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan. The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the City to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered. earth disturbing
activities.
3.8 Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
IMPACT 3.8-1.
Create a Significant
Hazard to the Public
or the Environment
through Reasonably
Foreseeable Upset
and Accident
Conditions Involving
the Release of
Hazardous Materials
into the
Environment.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prepare a Remedial Action Plan, and Conduct Phase I and/or II Environmental Site Assessments and Implement Required Measures if Stained or Odiferous Soil is Discovered.
To reduce health hazards associated with potential exposure to hazardous substances in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site South Regional Pond, implement the following measures before the start of ground-disturbing activities in areas of debris piles, pole-mounted transformers, where demolition will occur, and other areas where evidence of hazardous materials contamination is observed or suspected through either obvious or implied evidence (i.e., stained or odorous soil):
• Prepare a remedial action plan that identifies any necessary remediation activities including excavation and removal of contaminated soils and redistribution of clean fill material at the diesel above-ground storage tank associated with the agricultural well on the East Central Parcel, and other areas within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, if necessary. All above-ground storage tanks shall be removed in accordance with State and local regulations. The remedial action plan shall include measures for the safe transport, use, and disposal of contaminated soil and building debris removed from the project site. During construction, project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site South Regional Pond shall be required to comply with the remedial action plan and all applicable federal, State, and local laws.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Before the start of
ground-disturbing
activities in areas of
debris piles, polemounted
transformers, where
demolition will
occur, and other
areas where evidence
of hazardous
materials
contamination is
observed or
suspected through
either obvious or
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
The remedial action plan shall outline measures for specific handling and reporting procedures for hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous materials removed from the project site at an appropriate off-site disposal facility. • In the event that contaminated groundwater is encountered during site excavation activities, the contractor shall report the contamination to the appropriate regulatory agencies, dewater the excavated area, and treat the contaminated groundwater to remove contaminants before discharge into the sanitary sewer system. • If stained or odiferous soil is discovered during project-related construction activities, project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site South Regional Pond shall retain a registered environmental assessor to conduct a Phase I ESA, and if necessary, Phase II ESAs and/or other appropriate testing. Recommendations in the Phase I and II ESAs to address any contamination that is found shall be implemented before initiating ground-disturbing activities in these areas.
• Notify the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies if evidence of previously undiscovered soil or groundwater contamination (e.g., stained soil, odorous groundwater) or if known or previously undiscovered underground storage tanks are encountered during construction activities. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated in accordance with recommendations made by the EMD, Central Valley RWQCB, DTSC, and/or other appropriate federal, State, or local regulatory agencies. • Retain a licensed contractor to remove all septic systems in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations.
• Retain a Cal-OSHA certified Asbestos Consultant before demolition of any buildings in the WRTP Specific Plan Area to investigate whether any asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paints are present, and could become friable or mobile during demolition activities. Provide a copy of the report to YSAQMD. If any materials containing asbestos or lead-based paints are found, they shall be removed by an accredited contractor in accordance with EPA and Cal-OSHA standards as required by YSAQMD. In addition, all activities (construction or demolition) in the vicinity of these materials shall comply with Cal-OSHA asbestos and lead worker construction standards. The materials containing asbestos and lead shall be disposed of properly at an appropriate off-site disposal facility.
• Properly close and abandon all on-site groundwater wells in accordance with Yolo County requirements
implied evidence
(i.e., stained or
odorous soil).
3.8 Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
IMPACT 3.8-2.
Emit Hazardous
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Notify and Consult with Affected Schools, and Implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (if Required).
Project applicants for future retail, commercial, or industrial projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan and supportive infrastructure improvements that would involve the long-term use of hazardous materials for project operation shall notify the Woodland Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-22 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
Emissions or Handle
Hazardous or
Acutely Hazardous
Materials,
Substances, or Waste
within One-Quarter
Mile of an Existing
or Proposed School.
Christian School, the Pioneer High School, and the Woodland Joint Unified School District, as appropriate based upon project location relative to school locations, in writing, and shall consult with appropriate school or district personnel about the types of activities that would occur and their estimated timing. Examples of the types of hazardous materials that could be used during proposed operational activities shall be provided. The written notification shall be provided at least 30 days before the commencement of any construction activities.
Future businesses within the WRTP Specific Plan Area that handle and/or store a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material in amounts greater than the specified threshold quantities in Chapter 6.95, Section 25505 of the California Health & Safety Code shall prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. The plan shall provide emergency plans and procedures that the businesses will follow in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material, along with the other requirements of Section 25505 including an inventory of hazardous materials, site plan showing material storage areas and ingress and egress points for emergency vehicles, and employee safety training.
Timing:
Written notification
shall be provided at
least 30 days before
the commencement
of any construction
activities.
For operations
requiring a
Hazardous Materials
Business Plan, the
plan shall be
approved prior to the
issuance of a permit
to operate.
3.9 Hydrology,
Flooding, and
Water Quality
IMPACT 3.9-1.
Substantially
Increase the Rate or
Amount of Surface
Runoff Resulting in
Flooding, Create or
Contribute Runoff
Water which would
Exceed the Capacity
of Existing or
Planned Stormwater
Drainage Systems,
Provide Substantial
Additional Sources
of Polluted Runoff.
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Prepare Additional Storm Drainage Analysis for determining Amount of New Development Acreage Beyond the Previously Identified 80 Residential Acres Allowable in the South Urban Growth Area and Submit to the City for Review and Approval.
The WRTP shall be required to fund an additional stormwater drainage analysis that utilizes the revised baseline conditions modeling and includes detailed information defining the operational capacity of the newly-installed infrastructure. A model will then be created that incorporates the pump station, detention, and conveyance improvements that have already been constructed, and then incorporates the full buildout of the Spring Lake Specific Plan Development. At that point, the fully developed acreage of the WRTP Specific Plan will be added to determine the new developable acreage (in terms of stormwater drainage) that can be accommodated with current infrastructure. The additional drainage analysis will also be required to determine what additional storm drainage infrastructure is needed to support full buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan.
Building permits for development beyond the identified currently developable acreage will only be approved with confirmation that the required storm drainage and water quality treatment infrastructure is in place.
Implementation:
Fee requirements
pertain to Project
Applicant(s)/
Leaseholder(s) /
Developer(s)
Implementation of
the analysis shall be
the requirement of
the City of
Woodland and its
contractor
Timing:
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
development beyond
the identified
currently
developable acreage
[80 residential acres,
per Section 3.9 of the
Draft EIR].
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
3.11 Noise and
Vibration
IMPACT 3.11-1.
Generation of a
Substantial
Temporary
(Constructionrelated) Increase in
Ambient Noise
Levels in the
Vicinity of the
Project in Excess of
Standards
Established in the
Local General Plan
or Noise Ordinance,
or Applicable
Standards of Other
Agencies.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1– Implement Construction Noise Reduction Strategies a. Demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities that would generate noise perceptible at the property line of the subject property are limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday and between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Sunday and federal holidays. The building inspector may issue an exception to this limitation on hours in cases of urgent necessity where the public health and safety will not be substantially impaired.
b. Idling times for noise-generating equipment used in demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two (2) minutes. c. Where construction work is within 445 feet of properties with existing, occupied noise-sensitive uses, construction shall be prohibited on weekends and holidays and construction should start no earlier than 8 a.m.
d. Where construction work is within 445-feet of an existing off-site residence, installation of continuous noise curtains shall be required between the construction site and those residences.
e. Demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities that do not involve pile driving proposed within 445 feet from the edge of properties with existing, occupied noise-sensitive uses shall incorporate all feasible strategies to reduce noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses, including:
• Provide written notice to all known occupied noise-sensitive uses within 445 feet of the edge of the project site boundary at least 2 weeks prior to the start of each construction phase of the construction schedule;
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained and equipped with noise control components, such as mufflers, in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications;
• Re-route construction equipment away from adjacent noise-sensitive uses; • Locate noisy construction equipment away from surrounding noise-sensitive uses; • Use sound aprons or temporary noise enclosures around noise-generating equipment;
• Position storage of waste materials, earth, and other supplies in a manner that will function as a noise barrier for surrounding noise-sensitive uses; • Use the quietest practical type of equipment;
• Use electric powered equipment instead of diesel or gasoline engine powered equipment;
• Use shrouding or shielding and intake and exhaust silencers/mufflers; and • Other effective and feasible strategies to reduce construction noise exposure for surrounding noise-sensitive uses.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to and during
any construction
ground disturbing
activities.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-24 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
f. For construction of buildings that require the installation of piles, an alternative to installation of piles by hammering shall be used. This could include the use of augured holes for cast-in-place piles, installation through vibration or hydraulic insertion, or another low-noise technique.
3.11 Noise and
Vibration
IMPACT 3.11-2.
Generation of a
Substantial
Permanent (Longterm Operations)
Increase in Ambient
Noise Levels in the
Vicinity of the
Project in Excess of
Standards
Established in the
Local General Plan
or Noise Ordinance,
or Applicable
Standards of Other
Agencies.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-2– Reduce Noise Exposure from Transportation and NonTransportation Sources Future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area shall be required to meet allowable outdoor and indoor noise exposure standards. Noise mitigation measures that may be approved to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct facades with sound insulation to achieve acceptable interior noise; • Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use setbacks and/or sound barriers where applicable, feasible, and reasonable; • Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; • Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions; and
• Maximize site design so that buildings shelter outdoor areas Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Demonstrate
compliance with
noise standards prior
to issuance of a
grading permit.
3.11 Noise and
Vibration
IMPACT 3.11-3.
Generation of
Vibration.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3a – Implement Vibration Reduction Measures g. New development that proposes the use of piles for foundations shall include all feasible measures necessary with the goal to ensure that vibration exposure for adjacent buildings is less than 0.5 PPV and less than 80 VdB for adjacent vibrationsensitive uses and less than 0.2 PPV for adjacent historic buildings. These performance standards shall take into account the reduction in vibration exposure that would occur through coupling loss provided by each affected building structure. If it is determined necessary to avoid damage, the project applicant shall coordinate with the Chief Building Official to implement corrective actions, which may include, but is not limited to building protection or stabilization.
h. New developments that would generate substantial long-term vibration shall provide analysis and mitigation, as feasible, to achieve velocity levels, as experienced at habitable structures of vibration-sensitive land uses, of less than 80 vibration decibels.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
For construction that
would require use of
piles for foundations,
prior to and during
construction.
For operations that
would generate
substantial long-term
vibration,
demonstrate
compliance prior to
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
the issuance of a
permit to operate.
3.11 Noise and
Vibration
IMPACT 3.11-3.
(Continued)
Generation of
Vibration.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3b – Implement Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
and contractor(s).
Timing:
Prior to and during
any construction
ground disturbing
activities.
3.13 Transportation
and Circulation
IMPACT 3.13-1.
Conflict with A
Program, Plan,
Ordinance, or Policy
Addressing the
Circulation System,
including Transit,
Roadway, Bicycle,
and Pedestrian
Facilities.
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1a: The Draft WRTP Specific Plan Finance Plan shall incorporate a Transit Contribution.
While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under CEQA, the following would be required for planning purposes to ensure transit equipment, infrastructure, and service is adequately funded to provide necessary service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area:
The project applicant shall contribute its fair-share of the cost associated with providing transit service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area. It is anticipated that new transit vehicles may be required to provide additional service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area.
However, the final determination of additional capital equipment or other costs shall be determined by the City of Woodland in coordination with YCTD and as identified in the Master TDM/VMT Program. The fair-share cost or a plan for providing the fair-share cost over time shall demonstrate funding is adequate to provide the necessary transit service or range of services required to meet the demand in the WRTP Specific Plan Area, as determined through the WRTP Specific Plans required coordination with YCTD and UC Davis. The funding mechanism(s) for transit and other TDM measures shall be outlined in the WRTP Specific Plan Finance Plan, and development projects shall be required to commit to contributing fair-share costs prior to the issuance of respective building permits by the City of Woodland.
Implementation:
Fee requirements
pertain to Project
Applicant(s)/
Leaseholder(s) /
Developer(s)
Timing:
Demonstrate binding
commitment to
contributing fairshare costs prior to
the issuance of a
building permit by
the City of
Woodland.
3.13 Transportation
and Circulation
IMPACT 3.13-1.
(Continued)
Conflict with A
Program, Plan,
Ordinance, or Policy
Addressing the
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1b: On-site Transit Stops.
While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under CEQA, the following would be required for planning purposes to ensure proposed transit infrastructure provides for adequate service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area:
The WRTP Specific Plan calls for development of a shared mobility hub in the Village Center. The project applicant shall develop detailed plans, to be reviewed and approved by the City of Woodland and YCTD [Yolo County Transportation Department] and construct the shared mobility hub improvements in the Village Center and identify the Implementation:
Fee requirements
pertain to Project
Applicant(s)/
Leaseholder(s) /
Developer(s)
Timing:
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-26 City of Woodland Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
Circulation System,
including Transit,
Roadway, Bicycle,
and Pedestrian
Facilities.
specific locations of sheltered transit stops with bus turnouts at other locations. It is anticipated that other stops would be located near the business park uses north and west of the Village Center. The City of Woodland and YCTD shall approve the location, design, and implementation timing of the sheltered transit stops and bus turnouts prior to the prior to approval of the first final map or as otherwise required by the City. If transit stops are located on-street for segments of roadways that do not have designated curbside on-street parking that can be designated for a bus stop (i.e., only travel lanes, bike lanes), the street cross-sections shall be modified to provide for a curbside bus stop, or multiple stops if needed for bus operations.
Demonstrate binding
commitment to
contributing fairshare costs prior to
the issuance of a
building permit by
the City of
Woodland.
3.13 Transportation
and Circulation
IMPACT 3.13-2.
Substantially
Increase Hazards
Due to a Design
Feature or
Incompatible Uses.
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2: Implement a Construction Traffic Control Plan Prior to any construction activities for the WRTP Specific Plan, the applicant shall prepare a detailed Construction Traffic Control Plan and submit it for review and approval by the City Department of Public Works. The applicant and the City shall consult with Caltrans, Yolobus, and local emergency service providers for their input prior to approving the Plan. The plan shall ensure that acceptable operating conditions on local roadways and freeway facilities are maintained during construction. A copy of the construction traffic control plan shall be submitted to local emergency response agencies and these agencies shall be notified at least 14 days before the commencement of construction that would partially or fully obstruct roadways. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
• The number of truck trips, time, and day of street closures • Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks
• Limitations on the size and type of trucks, provision of a staging area with a limitation on the number of trucks that can be waiting
• Provision of a truck circulation pattern
• Provision of a driveway access plan so that safe vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movements are maintained (e.g., steel plates, minimum distances of open trenches, and private vehicle pick up and drop off areas)
• Maintain safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles • Maintain safe and efficient access routes for farming equipment and vehicles • Manual traffic control when necessary
• Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street closures • Provisions for pedestrian safety
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
Timing:
Plan preparation and
submittal to the City
prior to any
construction
activities.
A copy of the
construction traffic
control plan shall be
submitted to local
emergency response
agencies and these
agencies shall be
notified at least 14
days before the
commencement of
construction that
would partially or
fully obstruct
roadways.
3.14 Utilities
IMPACT 3.14-1.
Increased Demand
for Water Supply
Mitigation Measure 3.14-1: Prepare and Submit a Water Supply Conveyance Improvement Plan in Compliance with Applicable Standards and Construct Water Supply Conveyance Infrastructure Prior to Occupancy.
Implementation:
Project applicant(s)
Timing:
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland A-27 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility/Timing
Compliance
Verification
Date
Completed
Conveyance
Facilities.
While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under CEQA, the following would be required for planning purposes to ensure the water supply infrastructure is designed and sized to provide adequate service to the WRTP Specific Plan:
Before approval of the final subdivision map and issuance of building permits, project applicants for projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan shall prepare a detailed water conveyance infrastructure improvement plan that depicts the locations and appropriate sizes of all required conveyance infrastructure, in conjunction with other site-specific improvement plans. Proposed on-site water facilities shall be designed and sized to provide adequate service to the project site for the amount of development identified in the tentative subdivision map, based on City of Woodland Engineering Standards. A final water conveyance infrastructure improvement plan shall be approved by the City of Woodland Engineering Division before approval of the final subdivision map by the City of Woodland Planning Division and issuance of building permits from the City of Woodland Building Division. All required infrastructure shall be in place prior to occupancy of development anticipated under the proposed project.
Plan approval to
occur Prior to
approval of a final
subdivision map and
issuance of any
building permits for
a use proposing to
connect to public
water utilities.
All required
infrastructure shall
be in place prior to
occupancy of
development for
which the plan
applies.
3.14 Utilities
IMPACT 3.14-2.
Increased Demand
for Wastewater
Collection and
Conveyance
Facilities.
Mitigation Measure 3.14-2: Prepare Additional Analysis to Verify the Spring Lake Specific Plan Pump Station Capacity Prior to Development Beyond 87 Percent of the WRTP Specific Plan Area.
While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under CEQA, the following would be required for planning purposes to ensure the existing wastewater conveyance infrastructure has the capacity to provide adequate service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area:
Prior to any development beyond 87 percent of the WRTP Specific Plan, the WRTP shall fund additional analysis to verify that the Spring Lake Specific Plan Pump Station has adequate capacity to provide for sewer flows from full buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan. If additional capacity is required, it may be provided by upsizing the pumps as part of the City’s regular maintenance work of replacing the pumps. If the increased capacity is not provided by the City’s maintenance work, then the WRTP Specific Plan will be responsible for funding improvements at the pump station to provide the additional required capacity.
Implementation:
Fee requirements
pertain to Project
Applicant(s)/
Leaseholder(s) /
Developer(s)
Analysis
requirements pertain
to the City of
Woodland and its
contractor(s),
leaseholders
Timing:
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
development beyond
87 percent of the
WRTP Specific Plan
development square
footage.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-28 City of Woodland Table Notes:
[1]Technical guidance for designing bioretention facilities is available from the Central Coast LID Initiative. The guidance includes design specifications and plant lists appropriate for the Central Coast climate. (https://www.centralcoastlidi.org/projects.php) AMM = Avoidance and Minimization Measure
Cal-OSHA = California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CARB = California Air Resources Board
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Central Valley RWQCB = Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
City = City of Woodland
Conservancy = Yolo Habitat Conservance
dB = decibel
DTSC = California Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR =Environmental Impact Report
EMD = Environmental Management Department
ESA = Environmental Site Assessment
g/L -= grams per liter
HCP = Habitat Conservation Plan
HEPA = High Efficiency Particle Arresting
LID = low impact development
MERV = Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
NCCP = Natural Community Conservation Planning
NOX = nitrogen oxide
PM = particulate matter
PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PPV = peak particle velocity
SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District TAC = toxic air contaminant]
TDM = Transportation Demand Management
TRU = transport refrigeration unit
UC Davis = University of California, Davis
USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VdB = vibration decibel(s)
VELB = Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound
WRTP = Woodland Research & Technology Park
YCTD = Yolo County Transportation Department
YSAQMD = Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-29 City of Woodland
REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. 2005 (April). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012 (May). Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, CA.
CARB. See California Air Resources Board.
Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000. Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson's hawk nesting surveys in California's Central Valley.
Yolo Habitat Conservancy. 2018. Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan – Final.
Prepared by ICF. Yolo County, California. April 2018.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A-30 City of Woodland This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT B
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-i CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 1 II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. 2 A. Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Relationship with the General Plan ................................................................................................ 2
2. Project Objectives.......................................................................................................................... 3
3. WRTP Specific Plan Summary ...................................................................................................... 5 B. Off-Site Improvement Areas................................................................................................................ 7 C. Consideration of the EIR...................................................................................................................... 7 D. Subsequent Project Review.................................................................................................................. 7 III. GENERAL FINDINGS: CEQA PROCESS............................................................................................. 9 IV. GENERAL FINDINGS: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS..................................................................... 10 A. Final EIR........................................................................................................................................... 10 B. The Administrative Record ................................................................................................................ 10 V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA .............................................................................................. 11 A. Findings Regarding EIR Errata and EIR Recirculation ....................................................................... 12
1. Standard for Recirculation Under CEQA...................................................................................... 12
2. Changes to the Proposed Project .................................................................................................. 12
3. Revisions to the EIR and Errata to Final EIR................................................................................ 14 B. Findings Regarding Specific Environmental Impacts.......................................................................... 17
1. Findings Regarding Impacts Not Discussed Further ..................................................................... 18
2. Findings Regarding Less than Significant Impacts Not Requiring Mitigation ............................... 42
3. Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated ................................................................................................................................ 51
4. Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts That Cannot Be Fully Mitigated To A Less Than Significant Level ......................................................................................................................... 87 C. Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................................114 D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program..................................................................................115 E. Growth Inducement ..........................................................................................................................115 F. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes................................................................................116 G. Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................................................................118
1. AESTHETICS............................................................................................................................118
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ...................................................................120
3. AIR QUALITY ..........................................................................................................................121
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.....................................................................................................123
5. Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy...............................................................123
6. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..........................................................125
7. GEOLOGY, SOILS, MiNERALS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................125
8. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...................................................................127
9. HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND WATER QUALITY...........................................................128
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING, POPULATION AND HOUSING .............................................130
11. NOISE AND VIBRATION ........................................................................................................131
12. PUBLIC SERVICES and RECREATION...................................................................................132
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-ii City of Woodland
13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.............................................................................133
14. UTILITIES.................................................................................................................................135 VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................138 A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected from Detailed Analysis...........................................................139
1. Off-Site Development Alternative...............................................................................................139
2. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR................................................................................................140
3. Environmentally Superior Alternative.........................................................................................164
4. Findings for Project Alternatives ................................................................................................164 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................165 A. Benefits of the Proposed Project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.................................165 VIII. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................................168 IX. REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................169
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-iii CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Acronyms
AMM avoidance and minimization measures
ARB California Air Resources Board
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
CalGreen California Green Building Standards
Cal-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CAP Climate Action Plan
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Woodland
CO carbon monoxide
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMD Environmental Management Department
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
g/L grams per liter
Handbook California Air Resources Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HEPA High Efficiency Particle Arresting
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LOS Level of Service
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning
NOP notice of preparation
NOX nitrogen oxide
OS Open Space
PM particulate matter
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-iv City of Woodland
PM10 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PPV peak particle velocity
proposed project Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan ROG reactive organic gas
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District
SP Specific Plan
SP-1A Specific Plan Area is planned for development
SR State Route
SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin
TAC toxic air contaminant
TRUs transport refrigeration units
UC Davis University of California, Davis
ULL Urban Limit Line
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VdB vibration decibels
VELB Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
VMT vehicle miles travelled
VOC volatile organic compound
WRTP Specific Plan Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan YCTD Yolo County Transportation District
YSAQMD Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-1 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) requires the City of Woodland (City), as the lead agency, to make certain written findings and to identify overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan (referred to as the “WRTP Specific Plan” or “proposed project”).
CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 set forth the specific requirements for these findings.
CEQA requires an EIR to be prepared when the lead agency has determined that a project may or will have significant impacts on the environment. Prior to project approval, the EIR must be certified pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines. When an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale, pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, for each identified significant impact:
a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final environmental impact report. b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 states that after consideration of an EIR, and in conjunction with making the Section 15091 findings identified above, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. A project that would result in a significant environmental impact cannot be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact.
However, in the absence of feasible mitigation, an agency may approve a project with significant and unavoidable impacts if there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to document and substantiate any such determination in “statements of overriding considerations” as a part of the record.
The requirements of Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 as summarized above are all addressed herein.
This document is intended to serve as the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations authorized by those provisions of the CEQA Guidelines. The findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding the proposed project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the proposed project, and the overriding considerations that justify approval of the proposed project despite its environmental effects.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-2 City of Woodland
II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW: PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
A. PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is adoption of WRTP Specific Plan. The WRTP Specific Plan Area is an approximately 350- acre area located in the southern-central portion of the City of Woodland’s Planning Area, south of Farmers Central Road, east of State Route (SR) 113, west of Harry Lorenzo Avenue, and north of the Urban Limit Line (ULL).
1. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The City’s General Plan requires that substantial new residential development on “greenfield” or previously undeveloped land be planned through the specific plan process, as has been done in the past with Spring Lake, the Southeast area, and others. Addressed in Government Code Section 65450, a specific plan is a comprehensive planning and zoning document for a defined geographic region. It implements the general plan by providing a special set of development policies and standards that are applied to the specific plan area, and by specifying zoning, needed infrastructure, and an infrastructure financing plan to facilitate implementation.
Per the City of Woodland 2035 General Plan, adopted May 16, 2017,1 Woodland has designated three new growth areas for future specific plan development: Specific Plan (SP)-1 in the south, SP-2 in the east, and SP-3 in the north.
SP-1 is further separated into three sub-areas. SP-1A, which is the area covered by the WRTP Specific Plan, encompasses approximately 350 acres and is located on the eastern portion of SP-1 between SR 113 and the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area. SP-1B is located between East Street and SR 113, covering 248 acres. SP-1C is the smallest of the three at 151 acres and is located west of East Street. The City’s Planning Area and the designated Specific Plan areas and subareas are shown in Exhibit 2-2.
SP-1A and SP-1B are envisioned to develop as mixed-use neighborhoods anchored by a research and technology business park in the “Southern Gateway” located at CR 25 and SR 113. SP-1C will be entirely residential, with a lower-density residential profile containing executive homes and rural estates on larger lots. Referred to as “SP1A” in the General Plan, the City “envisions the [WRTP] Specific Plan Area to develop as a mixed-use neighborhood anchored by a research and technology business park in the ‘Southern Gateway’ [to the city] located at CR 25A and SR 113” (City of Woodland 2017, page LU 2-55). According to direction in the 2035 General Plan, for SP-1A (the WRTP Specific Plan Area):
“The highest intensity of development will occur within the business park area, providing a prime opportunity for job creation within Woodland. The remainder of SP-1A will be largely residential with some open space and recreation areas.”
As directed by the General Plan (Policy 2.L.2, page LU 2-77), the City will:
Promote development of SP-1A as a mixed-use residential district anchored by a research and technology business park in the Southern Gateway area at CR 25 and SR 113. Concentrate the highest intensity of development within and in close proximity to the business park area, with 1 The City’s 1996 General Plan (amended in 2002) also included 316 acres of the WRTP Specific Plan Area in City’s Planning Area and Urban Limit Line (ULL).
Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-3 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
lower-density, largely residential uses to the north. Encourage sustainable development through the use of renewable energy sources and water conservation tools with the goal of striving to achieve zero net energy at the building and neighborhood level to the extent feasible.
Appendix B to the General Plan identifies assumed growth of 2.16 million square feet of nonresidential building space and 1,600 housing units will be developed within the WRTP Specific Plan (SP-1A) Area (City of Woodland 2017, Table B-1, page B-2). These assumptions serve to inform related planning efforts and the analysis of environmental impact of the General Plan – these assumptions were not adopted as a part of the 2035 General Plan.
The City Council will consider consistency of the WRTP Specific Plan with the 2035 General Plan as a part of its actions on the WRTP Specific Plan.
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
An early step in the WRTP Specific Plan process was the development of a vision for the future and guiding principles to inform the method to achieve that vision. The vision statement is an aspirational description of what the WRTP Specific Plan would be like in the future. Guiding principles are shared values that will be used to develop the WRTP Specific Plan that would, once implemented, achieve the vision. The vision statement and guiding principles are outlined below. The guiding principles serve as the Project Objectives for the EIR.
VISION STATEMENT
The WRTP Specific Plan is envisioned as a new technology hub for the City of Woodland, intended to serve an array of research and technology companies interested in locating and growing near U.C. Davis, and other research and technology institutions within the Sacramento region. The WRTP Specific Plan will offer a unique business environment, supporting research and development, technology, and science and engineering-based companies. The WRTP Specific Plan is proposed as a new type of employment center that also includes a range of housing options, and a commercial mixed-use town center focused around a central green and connected by a multi-modal street network and trail system. Although the City anticipates that agricultural-related research will be a major focus at the WRTP Specific Plan, the plan will also support an environment of innovation in flexible formats for a wide variety of businesses in medical and veterinary, bio-tech, engineering, and other fields. The WRTP Specific Plan will also provide incubation spaces for small start-up firms, facilities for established mid-size or large size companies that require larger floorplates, flexible building spaces for high-tech research and light manufacturing/flex space for product testing and development. Employee-support services and retail will create an active landscape for collaboration and innovation.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The following principles provide the envisioned outcome and overarching vision for development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area:
► Innovation – The Specific Plan Area will develop as a state-of-the-art innovation center campus for technology, research and development, and office uses. Flexibility in design and implementation is supported, allowing businesses to respond to market demand through phasing of construction and the ability to offer a variety of building types and sizes. Complementary uses within immediate proximity to the business park, including hotel, commercial, employee-serving retail and recreational opportunities will support day-to-day needs of businesses, their clients, and their employees.
AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-4 City of Woodland
► Technology Capture / Talent Retention – Collaboration with University of California, Davis (UC Davis), Woodland Community College and others will bolster start-up businesses and growing mid-to-large size companies through technology transfer and IP sourcing. The Specific Plan will accommodate advanced technology-related jobs and training that allow a greater number of Woodland residents and college graduates from the Woodland Community College and throughout the region to live and work in the community, generating an infusion of intellectual capital.
► Business Partnerships – Companies locating in the Tech Campus will have the opportunity to take positive advantage of the existing and thriving seed, food, and agricultural-based industries currently located and doing business in and around Woodland. Access to additional resources and new markets, new ideas, materials, and expertise will grow through strategic partnerships with new and existing businesses in Woodland. ► Sustainable and Resilient – The Specific Plan Area will lead in energy efficiency and sustainable design.
Development within the Specific Plan Area will incorporate cutting edge green building practices. Land use strategies and transportation demand management will reduce vehicle miles traveled and facilitate the use of alternative fuel vehicles. The city’s urban forest canopy will be increased and projects will incorporate naturalized stormwater management. These and other measures will contribute to meeting City goals for greenhouse gas reduction by 2035 contained in its 2035 Climate Action Plan. ► Gathering Place – A successful Village Center and featured 11-acre linear park will provide a mix of social gathering spaces for employees, residents, and visitors to connect, recreate, and relax. These informal networking opportunities will foster greater innovation and engagement among the workforce and allow for the balanced integration of work and life that the next generation of professionals seek. ► Connectivity / Mobility – A combination of well-designed complete streets, protected bicycle lanes, and pedestrian / bicycle greenways will prioritize the pedestrian experience throughout the Specific Plan Area.
Well-connected parks, open spaces and greenbelts will encourage residents and employees to walk, bike, or scooter rather than drive to work, home and play. Existing bike trails and greenbelts will extend from and connect to the adjacent community including nearby schools, community center and shopping center. A shared mobility hub will serve as a point of connection for those arriving and departing the Tech Campus by various forms of alternative transportation – including micro transit stops and fixed bus routes with frequent service to Downtown Woodland and UC Davis. Amenities to support last mile active transportation alternatives are featured, including bike and scooter share services.
► Healthy Community – Connected streets with bicycle and pedestrian facilities, trails, accessible parks and open spaces with passive and programmed recreation will facilitate and encourage active, healthy living. Access to healthy foods through community gardens, a farmer’s market and/or fresh produce market in the Village Center will be promoted. A mix of social gathering places will enable employees and residents to come together for fun and relaxation, boosting emotional wellness.
► New Neighborhoods / Seamless Transitions – Diverse, high quality and attractive new neighborhoods and housing options, including single and multi-family residential units and mixed-used projects will allow Tech Park employees to live and work close by and “move up” within the same neighborhood as families grow or nests are emptied. Land use and circulation planning, coupled with design and development standards will