Woodland City Council
September 5, 2023

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-5 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
ensure a thoughtful transition between the Specific Plan Area and the adjacent Spring Lake neighborhood, complementing the established community.

3. WRTP SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY
The WRTP Specific Plan is the overarching policy and planning document for the City’s designated new growth area for future specific plan development, SP-1A, as identified in the 2035 General Plan. The WRTP Specific Plan is comprehensive in scope, addressing land use, transportation, community design, housing, conservation of resources, economic development, public facilities and infrastructure, public safety, and open space, among many other subjects.

The Specific Plan chapters include:
► Chapter 1, “Introduction and Vision”
► Chapter 2, “Land Use Framework”
► Chapter 3, “Land Use Regulations, Development Standards & Guidelines” ► Chapter 4, “Circulation and Mobility”
► Chapter 5, “Public Utilities and Services”
► Chapter 6, “Implementation”
► Chapter 7, “Administration”
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 the 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 17.6 acres of parks and other types of open space.

The total number of dwelling units, the number of units shown for each land use designation, total square footage, and number of employees that could be accommodated are all assumptions used for the purposes of informing related planning efforts and the analysis of environmental impact of the WRTP Specific Plan.

In addition to the land use designations and zones, the WRTP Specific Plan delineates the Planning Area into three Planning Districts, each of which have sub-districts. The three Planning Districts are: (1) Technology Park, which contains two sub-districts of North Campus and South Campus, (2) the Village Center, which contains the subdistricts of the Village Center Mixed Use, The Yard, and the Village Center Residential, and (3) the Villages, which contains the sub-districts of the North Villages, East Villages, and Urban Villages. The Planning Districts are used to identify the geographic and form types within the Land Use Plan. The WRTP Specific Plan contains design standards and guidelines that are defined in the WRTP Specific Plan and organized by Planning District, with special character guidelines for selected zones within each District. The design standards are a prescribed set of threshold requirements for development, while the design guidelines are a set of discretionary recommendations for preferred outcomes of development. Together, the design standards and guidelines address the desirable features of the land uses identified in the WRTP Specific Plan within each Planning District, while informing development in ways that reduce environmental impacts and provide economic benefits.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-6 City of Woodland

MOBILITY AND CIRCULATION
A multi-modal street network and bike-pedestrian trail system in the WRTP Specific Plan have been designed to balance the circulation and flow of vehicular traffic with the provision of safe and accessible facilities for walking, biking, public transit, and ride share drop-off/pick-up. A modified grid street network provides circulation and access within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, to the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area, and adjacent areas of the city.

A network of bike/pedestrian trails connecting from a linear open space system throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area provide access between businesses, commercial centers, and residential areas throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area as well as to the adjoining Spring Lake residential community. The WRTP Specific Plan provides for pedestrian and bicycle circulation, both in-street (sidewalks and bike lanes) and off-street (pedestrian/bicycle trails and paths). The WRTP Specific Plan provides for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on all streets, consistent with guidance from the General Plan and the function of each street (Principal or Minor Arterial, Collector, Local).

Bus service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area, including local, express, and intercity bus service, shuttle, and/or other potential future circulator for the WRTP Specific Plan Area and Spring Lake Specific Plan Area, will be coordinated with the Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD) and UC Davis Transportation and Parking Services/Unitrans to support the transit demands of the WRTP Specific Plan Area as it builds out.

To address both inter-city and intra-city public transit needs, the WRTP Specific Plan proposes development of a shared mobility hub along within the Village Center Planning District, with passenger drop-off and pick-up locations for bus and other transportation forms, such as carshare, local shuttle, and ride hailing services, as well as car and vanpool parking, electric vehicle charging stations, and bicycle and scooter share docking stations. The shared mobility hub will be the primary point of connection to fixed route bus service as part of the City’s planned pulse route system

PARKS/OPEN SPACE
The City’s 2035 General Plan establishes a parkland requirement of 6.0 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents and encourages the distribution of parks such that every residence is within one-quarter mile of a neighborhood park.

The City will require the WRTP Specific Plan to meet these 2035 General Plan requirements.

The WRTP Specific Plan proposes the following:
► Mini/Pocket Parks and Plazas are proposed within the WRTP Specific Plan Area neighborhoods and multifamily developments, as well as the Research and Technology Park and commercial zones. A 0.5-acre pocket park is planned east of Road E along the Harry Lorenzo Avenue greenbelt. ► An 11.8-acre central linear green space, “The Yard,” is planned as the neighborhood park to serve the WRTP Specific Plan Area, inclusive of a pedestrian promenade. ► Greenways proposed for the WRTP Specific Plan Area also provide stormwater management, including drainage and connections to open space areas used for stormwater detention/retention.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-7 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
B. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT AREAS
While not a part of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, the EIR also addresses potential impacts associated with off-site improvement areas. Off-site improvement areas include a proposed approximately four-acre detention pond (i.e., South Regional Pond) that was not considered as part of the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP) EIR and would be immediately south of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and adjacent to CR 25A, and the Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area, at which improvements would be made to the SR 113/CR 25A interchange adjacent to the southwest corner of the WRTP Specific Plan Area.

C. CONSIDERATION OF THE EIR
In adopting these Findings, the City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, the lead agency’s decision-making body, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed project. The City Council finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

Adoption and implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan will require (but not be limited to) the following discretionary actions by the City of Woodland:
► Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the WRTP Specific Plan, adopting Findings of Fact, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; ► Adopt a resolution adopting the WRTP Specific Plan;
► Approve an amendment to the City’s General Plan to reflect the new City limits following annexation of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the Open Space (OS) land use designation for the South Regional Pond area; and
► Adopt Chapter 3, “Land Use Regulations, Development Standards and Guidelines, of the WRTP Specific Plan by ordinance, as Section 17.58 of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Woodland Municipal Code).

D. SUBSEQUENT PROJECT REVIEW
Further actions or decisions required to support implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan may include projectlevel approvals such as site plan reviews, tentative maps, building permits, grading permits, and other actions.

The WRTP Specific Plan permitted land use and design and development standards will be adopted by ordinance as part of the WRTP Specific Plan. The design and development standards supersede the City of Woodland Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code). Where a standard is not provided in the WRTP Specific Plan, the standards of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and/or Standards and Specifications will apply.

The on-site and off-site public improvements necessary to serve the WRTP Specific Plan Area will be designed in adherence with applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and the Design Standards and Design Guidelines provided in Section 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan, as applicable. Plans will include an infrastructure sequencing program that coordinates with and allows for orderly development. Building permits will not be issued until the City Engineer determines that proposed improvement plans are complete (engineered and approved) and found to be consistent with the WRTP Specific Plan and Financing Plan.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-8 City of Woodland
One of the City’s goals in preparing the WRTP Specific Plan and EIR is to minimize the amount of new information that would be required to approve future projects that are consistent with the WRTP Specific Plan. Accordingly, the WRTP Specific Plan and the EIR anticipate the effects of subsequent projects proposed within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, as well as off-site infrastructure required to serve future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The City will make full use of existing streamlining provided by CEQA, and will make use of streamlining techniques, as appropriate. Future projects that are consistent with the WRTP Specific Plan would either require no further environmental analysis or only focused, supplemental environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City will examine projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan to determine whether or not additional CEQA analysis will be necessary.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-9 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
III. GENERAL FINDINGS: CEQA PROCESS
Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a CEQA notice of preparation (NOP) and provided copies directly by mail and through the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) to CEQA responsible and natural resource trustee agencies, local municipalities, interested persons, organizations, agencies, and landowners. The City issued the NOP for the Specific Plan EIR and comments were accepted between June 16, 2017 and July 17, 2017.

The City held a public scoping meeting for the project on June 26, 2017 at the Woodland Community & Senior Center, 2001 East Street, Woodland, CA 95776. The NOP for the WRTP Specific Plan EIR, introducing the project and outlining the CEQA process, Notice of Special Meeting for the scoping meeting, and a Scoping Comment Form for directly providing comments were made available for review at https://www.cityofwoodland.org/584/Community-Outreach-Public-Hearing-Inform.

The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2017062042) was received by the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 45-day public review period from May 17 through July 2, 2021. A video presentation by staff, introducing the Project and outlining the CEQA process, was provided via teleconferencing. 2 A recording of the presentation was
made available for review at https://woodlandca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1498/media. Comments were accepted in during the meeting and in advance of the meeting via voice messages and email, as well as throughout the public comment period via mail to the City of Woodland Economic Development Department at 300 First Street, Woodland, CA, 95695, and via email to [email protected]. 2 Public meetings that occur through virtual means are held in compliance with both the Ralph M. Brown Act and the Governor’s Executive Orders, specifically Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20. Those orders modified Brown Act requirements to allow public meetings to occur through teleconferencing means with limited person-to-person physical contact.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-10 City of Woodland
IV. GENERAL FINDINGS: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
A. FINAL EIR
The Final EIR for the Specific Plan includes the following items:

1. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2017062042) dated May 14, 2021;

2. Response to Comments on the Draft EIR dated August 10, 2023;

3. Errata to the Draft EIR dated August 10, 2023; and

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated August 10, 2023.

As explained in Chapters 1 and 3 of the Draft EIR for the Specific Plan, the City’s General Plan update explicitly considered development of the Specific Plan Area. The City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR addresses impacts of development of the City’s Planning Area, including the WRTP Specific Plan Area. As such, the City’s General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR were extensively used in development of the Specific Plan and the Specific Plan EIR and these documents are a part of the administrative record for the Specific Plan EIR, along with technical reports prepared to support the General Plan and General Plan EIR.

B. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e) sets forth the contents of the administrative record for CEQA purposes and these findings. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the location and custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which these decisions are based is as follows:

Woodland Community Development Department
300 First Street
Woodland, CA 95695
(530) 661-5820
www.cityofwoodland.org

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-11 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” It also states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” And it states that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles of Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect. Inclusion of mitigating General Plan policies and implementation programs are among the “changes or alterations” referenced in this finding. Other “changes and alterations” are discussed herein. For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less-thansignificant level.

The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

The third potential finding is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. Moreover, “feasibility” under CEQA encompasses “desirability” to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.

In the process of adopting mitigation, the City Council has made a determination regarding whether the mitigation proposed in the EIR is “feasible.” In some cases, modifications may have been made to the mitigating policies and implementation programs to update, clarify, streamline, correct, or make other revisions. These are discussed herein.

With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons in support of the finding that the project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. In the process of considering the EIR for certification, the City Council has recognized that impact avoidance is not possible in all instances. To the extent that significant

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-12 City of Woodland
adverse environmental impacts will not be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigating policies and implementation programs, the City Council has found that specific economic, social, and other considerations support approval of the proposed project. Those findings are reflected herein in Section V.B.4 (Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant) below and in Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations).

A. FINDINGS REGARDING EIR ERRATA AND EIR RECIRCULATION

1. STANDARD FOR RECIRCULATION UNDER CEQA
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after the lead agency gives public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. “Information” may include project changes, changes to the environmental setting, or additional data or other information. The Guidelines do not consider new information to be significant unless the lead agency changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate the impact that the agency or project proponent has declined to implement.

Section 15088.5 states “significant new information” requiring recirculation may include:
(1) A new significant environmental impact that had not previously been disclosed in the Draft EIR would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure; (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that had already been identified unless mitigation measures would be adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure would considerably lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the proponents will not adopt it; or (4) The Draft EIR was so inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Recirculation is not required if new information added to the EIR just clarifies or makes minor modifications to an otherwise adequate EIR.

2. CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Since the City released the Draft EIR, and as a result of public input and meetings, the City made various changes to the WRTP Specific Plan. The City made numerous non-substantive text changes to the proposed project to clarify terms, correct grammatical errors, correct figures, and place headers and other identifying information in the correct places. These changes did not substantively change the text of the WRTP Specific Plan. Rather, the changes corrected errors and provided additional clarity.

Within Exhibit 2-1, Land Use Plan, and Table 2.1, Land Use Summary, the proposed detention pond in the southeast corner of the WRTP Specific Plan Area was differentiated from the other open space land uses of the WRTP Specific Plan. Similarly, the general area available to serve a potential school was identified in Exhibit 2-1, Land Use Plan.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-13 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
The definitions of Open Space/Park Zones in Section 3.2.4, Description of Zoning Categories, was refined for clarity.

A performance standard limiting truck trips serving any individual use was added as Performance Standard E to Section 3.3.2 to support the intent of the WRTP Specific Plan permitted land uses.

Table 3.1, Permitted Uses, was updated to clarify that greenhouses are allowed indefinitely when associated with Research and Development; to remove Warehouse, Storage and Distribution / Logistics as a permitted or ancillary use identified in the table; and to identify the permitted school as a Transitional Kindergarten/Kindergarten through 12th grade facility.

Additional design standards and design guidelines were added pertaining to sustainable materials and construction practices, and, consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist, to require all commercial and multifamily residential parking lots and/or structures provide electric vehicle charging pursuant to the California Green Building Standards Code Tier 1 requirements, and all single-family townhomes and duplexes be electric vehicle capable.

Additional detail regarding design features such as bicycle facilities, landscaping, walkways, car-share/vanpool spaces and EV charging in the parking areas of the shared mobility hub, The Union, were added to Section 4.2.2.

Street classifications in Exhibit 4.3, Road Circulation Diagram, were refined and clarified to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, and detailed descriptions were refined throughout Section 4.5 for clarity.

Edits were made throughout Chapter 5, Public Utilities and Services, to reflect more current conditions and plans, such as reference to the more recently adopted 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, notation to the planned expansion of the recycled water utility into the Spring Lake and WRTP areas in 2024, and clarifications regarding proposed stormwater management systems. Additionally, changes to the green belt cross sections were made to accommodate the future recycled water line and provide at least 22 feet of clear distance between the underground utility and the western green belt property line in order to allow for a significant amount of tree coverage in the green belt.

Chapter 6, Implementation, was updated to acknowledge that implementation of the Specific Plan would also occur in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Nexus Study and Master Reimbursement Agreement, among the other plans and documents previously identified. In addition, the subsequent implementation documents and analysis, as listed in Section 6.2.3, was revised to more clearly describe the supplemental plans that must be prepared either prior to approval of the first development application or residential tentative map or as otherwise required by the conditions of approval and/or Environmental Impact Report and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program, or by the Community Development Director, as appropriate. Detailed assumptions and provisions pertaining to density transfer, as well as density requirements for each residential development zone, were also added to ensure future project consistency with the environmental analysis for the Specific Plan and with the General Plan development assumptions and project financing objectives.

Finding: None of the changes to the proposed project necessitated a change to the EIR. The changes did not create a new significant effect or worsen a previously identified one. The changes to the proposed project do not require any changes to the EIR; thus, recirculation is not necessary as the changes do not constitute significant new information under CEQA.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-14 City of Woodland

3. REVISIONS TO THE EIR AND ERRATA TO FINAL EIR
In response to comments from the public and public agencies on the Draft EIR, the City has incorporated minor revisions to the text of the Draft EIR into the Final EIR, which are described in Chapter 3, Errata, of the Final EIR.

As discussed in the Final EIR, the revisions to the text of the Draft EIR outlined below present minor corrections, additions, and revisions initiated by the Lead Agency (City of Woodland) based on comments received during the public review period by reviewing agencies and/or the public, as well as minor corrections added by the City during preparation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). None of the information added to the Draft EIR altered the significance conclusions. Rather, the new information amplified and clarified the information provided in the Draft EIR. None of the revisions or updates to the Draft EIR’s analyses represents “significant new information” as that term is defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

The City finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required: (1) because the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b); and (2) because no “substantial adverse” impact would result from any of the revisions to the portions of the Draft EIR that were not recirculated (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(e)).

Changes are limited to Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description; and Sections 3.3, Air Quality; 3.4, Biological Resources; 3.9, Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality; 3.11, Noise and Vibration; and 3.12, Public Services and Recreation, as well as the Executive Summary.

Changes to Section 3.4 include updating the current listing status of the tricolored blackbird in Table 3.4-4 of the Draft EIR due to a change in this status since the drafting of the Draft EIR. Changes to Section 3.9 were to update the citation to Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area from the 2017 to the 2018 document, 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. Changes to Section 3.12 were to edit a typo from “design capacity” to “District capacity” when referencing the school capacity contained within Table 3.12-2 of the Draft EIR, and to update the grades at the elementary schools to include transitional kindergarten and update the enrollment and capacity data to reflect a more recent Woodland Joint Unified School District Annual Enrollment Project Report. Changes to the Project Description and Section 3.12 also include a change in the amount of park acreage to be included as a part of the Specific Plan. These changes were minor and did not substantively change the analysis presented in the EIR or any of the conclusions described in the EIR.

Changes to Section 3.2 include expanding the Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b 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. Changes to Section 3.11 include revising Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 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 notice to all known occupied noise-sensitive 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. Since the City released the Draft EIR, the City made also amended two mitigation measures and Table ES-1 of the Draft EIR Executive Summary to take into account these changes. That errata is included as Exhibit A to the City Council’s Resolution Certifying the EIR for the proposed project. The

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-15 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
amendments to the two mitigation measures are set forth as follows (new text shown in underline, deleted text shown in strikethrough):

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. 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.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-16 City of Woodland
Finding: The City Council finds that this modified Mitigation Measure ensures that potential constructionrelated emissions are minimized to the extent feasible. This modified Mitigation Measure will not create a new, or worsen an existing, environmental impact.

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;
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;

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-17 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
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 noisesensitive 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.

Finding: The City Council finds that this modified Mitigation Measure ensures that potential constructionrelated noise is minimized to the extent feasible. This modified Mitigation Measure will not create a new, or worsen an existing, environmental impact.

Changes to the EIR that reflect a reduction in the amount of parkland acreage to be provided within the Specific Plan Area does not change the analysis provided in Section 3.12. As explained on page 3.12-4 of the Draft EIR, the City currently exceeds its parkland standard of 6 acres per thousand residents, and as explained on pages 3.12-17 through 3.12-19, the WRTP Specific Plan will meet its park obligation through a combination of park land development and through project impact fees – the WRTP Specific Plan will be required to meet the City’s requirements for new residential development to provide its fair-share of park acreage.

Because no new unmitigated environmental effects have been identified or created by the revised mitigation, and because no new significant information has been added to either the proposed project or the EIR, the EIR has not been changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental impact of the proposed project. The revisions to the EIR are improvements to the environmental analysis. No impacts identified in the EIR would be substantially increased as a result of changes to the proposed project or the EIR. There are no new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that are considerably different from those considered in the EIR that the City Council has declined to adopt. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is not required.

B. FINDINGS REGARDING SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Draft EIR identified a number of less than significant impacts associated with the WRTP Specific Plan that do not require mitigation. The Draft EIR also identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that may be caused in whole or in part by the Proposed WRTP Specific Plan.

Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided or substantially lessened through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Other effects cannot be, and thus may be significant and unavoidable. For reasons set forth in Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations), however, the City Council has determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable effects of the WRTP Specific Plan.

The City Council’s findings with respect to the WRTP Specific Plan’s significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the Final EIR and these Findings of Fact. The Summary of Findings does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Please refer to the Draft EIR and the Final EIR for more detail. Each of these documents is incorporated into these findings in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigating policies and implementation programs, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-18 City of Woodland
reasons for approving the WRTP Specific Plan project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

The Summary of Findings provides a summary description of each potentially significant and significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by the City Council, and states the findings of the City Council regarding the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and associated record (described herein), both of which are incorporated by reference. The City Council hereby ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the record into these findings, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

The following general findings are made by the City Council:
► For all impacts identified as less-than-significant in the EIR, the less-than-significant impact determination is hereby confirmed by the City Council based on the evidence and analysis provided in the record. ► For all adopted mitigation measures, the City Council finds that each such measure is appropriate and feasible and will lessen the impact to some degree.

Some of the measures identified in these Findings may also be within the jurisdiction and control of other agencies.

To the extent any of the mitigation measures are within the jurisdiction of other agencies, the City Council finds those agencies can and should implement those measures within their jurisdiction and control (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][2]).

1. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR addresses impacts of development of the City’s Planning Area, including the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Consistent with Section 15183(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis contained within the Specific Plan EIR focuses on project-specific significant effects of the WRTP Specific Plan that: (a) are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan or the site; (b) were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (including off-site or cumulative impacts); or (c) would be more severe than previously described based on substantial new information. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, relevant information from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2013032015) has been incorporated by reference into the EIR. The 2035 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR are available for public review on the City of Woodland Planning Division website at: https://www.cityofwoodland.org/1000/Documents, or in person at the City’s Community Development Department at 300 First Street, Woodland, CA 95695.

The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Draft EIR of all project impacts identified as “not discussed further” and finds that a) there is no impact, or b) none of the factors triggering additional environmental review (as found in Section 15183(b)) exist because an impact was either addressed as a part of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and/or substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[f][7]), as described in the Draft EIR. The following bulleted list summarizes the impacts of the WRTP Specific Plan that are not discussed further based on Section 15183(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-19 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC

AESTHETICS
► Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista: Woodland’s relatively flat topography results in few scenic vistas.

Views consist mainly of the farmland surrounding the built environment seen from some adjacent properties at the urban edge. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that although views may be obstructed in localized areas due to proposed new development, views would not be affected on an area-wide basis.

Furthermore, since there are no new growth areas proposed along the western edge of the City’s Planning Area, where views of the Coastal Ranges are more dominant, new development, including that of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, was not expected to affect views of the Coast Ranges. As noted, development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area was planned for in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and determined to result in a less-thansignificant impact on scenic vistas. And, while the proposed South Regional Pond was not considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the row crops and nut tree orchard, including the areas south of CR 25A that include the southern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the proposed South Regional Pond, are typical of farmland throughout Yolo County and northern California as a whole. Furthermore, only a small portion of the Coast Ranges is visible in background views to the west, and only from a portion of the houses along the western margin of the Spring Lake development. The WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are of moderate visual quality and do not represent scenic vistas. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-12 through

3.1-13.)
► Damage to Scenic Resources in a State Scenic Highway: There are no State designated scenic highways in Yolo County (California Department of Transportation 2017). Old River Road, locally designated as a scenic highway by Yolo County, parallels the west side of the Sacramento River from the southern end of the Sacramento Bypass north to the Fremont Weir and is approximately 6.75 miles east of the WRTP Specific Plan Area (Yolo County 2009). Because of the flat topography in the region, Old River Road is not visible from the WRTP Specific Plan Area of the off-site improvement areas. Since there are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity from which the WRTP Specific Plan Area or off-site improvement areas would be visible, there would be no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-13.)

AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
► Conflict with Existing Williamson Act Contract: No lands are under Williamson Act contract on the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Therefore, implementing the WRTP Specific Plan would not conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-16.)
► Conflict with Existing Zoning for, or Cause Rezoning of, Forest Land, Timberland, or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production: The WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas are not zoned as forestland, timberland, or a Timberland Production Zone. Thus, the WRTP Specific Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestry resources. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-16.) ► Result in the Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use: The WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas do not contain timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526 or contain 10 percent native tree cover that would be classified as forestland under Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Thus, the WRTP Specific Plan would not result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-16.)

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-20 City of Woodland

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
► Substantial Adverse Effects on Special-Status Plant Species: The WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas do not provide habitat for special-status plant species. Because the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvements would not affect special-status plants, this issue is not discussed further. (Draft EIR, p.

3.4-23.)
► Substantial Adverse Effects on Riparian Habitat, or Other Sensitive Natural Community: The WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas do not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities (alkali prairie habitat) identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR or other local or regional plans. Because the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvements would not affect sensitive habitats, this issue is not discussed further. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-23.)

CLIMATE CHANGE, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY
► Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions or Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases: The WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s 2035 CAP, and the CAP 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 and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-26.)

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
► Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Historical Resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Based on review of background research, combined with cultural resources pedestrian surveys, and Native American correspondence, two previously unrecorded cultural resources were identified in the WRTP Specific Plan Area that may be potentially affected by the proposed project: a historic-age site with house foundations and associated refuse deposit, and two historic-age buildings consisting of a barn and residence on a single parcel. These resources are not considered significant under CRHR criteria or as City of Woodland historical resources. None of the cultural resources were identified as meeting the eligibility requirements to be considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Therefore, further discussion of impacts to historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is not discussed further. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-11.)
► Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074: There are no known tribal cultural resources that would be impacted resulting from implementation of WRTP Specific Plan or off-site improvement areas. Per AB 52 consultation for the WRTP Specific Plan and the EIR, the Yocha Dehe tribe sent a letter to the City indicating that they are not aware of any tribal cultural resources near the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Therefore, further discussion of impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 is not discussed further. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-11.)

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-21 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC

GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERALS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ► Surface Fault Rupture. The WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, and there is no evidence of any known fault.

Therefore, surface fault rupture would not pose a hazard for implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan, and this impact is not addressed further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7-10.) ► Landslide Hazards. Slopes within and immediately adjacent to the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas are nearly flat, ranging from 0–4 percent. Therefore, landslides would not pose a hazard for the proposed project, and this impact is not addressed further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7-10.) ► Soil Suitability for Septic Systems. Wastewater treatment for the WRTP SpecificPlan Area would be provided through connections with the City’s existing wastewater conveyance pipelines for treatment at the City’s Water Pollution Control Facility. Because septic systems or other forms of on-site wastewater treatment would not be employed under the WRTP Specific Plan, there would be no impact. Therefore, this impact is not addressed further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7-10.)
► Loss of Availability of Mineral Resources. There are no areas of known mineral resources within or immediately adjacent to the WRTP Specific Plan Area (i.e., areas that have been classified as MRZ-2 by CGS), and the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas are more than 5 miles southeast of the designated Cache Creek mineral resource sector. Therefore, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would have no impact related to the loss of availability of mineral resources, and this impact is not addressed further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7-10.)
► Seismic Hazards Related to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking and Liquefaction. Although there are no faults present within the city of Woodland, people and structures within the Planning Area could experience seismic shaking or liquefaction as a result of earthquakes in the Sacramento Valley. However, the CBC regulates all aspects of building and foundation design and construction, including regulations that are specifically designed to reduce the risks from seismic hazards to the maximum extent practicable. Compliance with the CBC is required by law. General Plan Policies 8.A.1 and 8.A.2 are also designed to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to people or structures from seismic shaking and liquefaction. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact was less than significant. Crawford & Associates (2020) estimated that the projected PGA at the proposed Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area would be 0.36g. This calculation indicates that the proposed off-site interchange may be subject to moderate level of ground shaking during a large magnitude earthquake. They also determined that although active seismic sources are relatively close and most of the project site consists of Holocene-age deposits, these deposits are composed of stiff/dense soil layers, and given that groundwater is present at depths of 28.5 to 37.2 feet below the ground surface, Crawford & Associates (2020) determined that liquefaction likely does not represent a hazard. Because the Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area is located in the same geologic formations and is the same distance from active seismic sources as compared to the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the proposed off-site South Regional Pond location, the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the proposed off-site South Regional Pond would likely experience a similar level of seismic ground shaking and a similar susceptibility to liquefaction as the Caltrans Offsite Improvement Area. Design and construction of buildings, foundations, and retaining walls throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area are subject to the requirements of the CBC. Design and construction of infrastructure in the WRTP Specific Plan Area are regulated by the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-22 City of Woodland
Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a). Similarly, design and construction of the off-site South Regional Pond is an allowed use under Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Yolo County Code, and would be subject to the Yolo County permit and ordinance requirements, including Title 7, Building Regulations, of the Yolo County Code. These standards apply to transportation, storm drainage, sewer, wastewater pumping, water distribution, graywater distribution, underground pipelines, and other improvements, and are designed, in part to avoid impacts related to geologic and seismic constraints. Existing seismic safety standards are enforced by the City through requirements that development to be designed to minimize risk related to earthquakes, and that site-specific geotechnical reports be prepared to identify methods to reduce hazards. Design and construction of the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A intersection improvements are regulated by Caltrans, and would comply with requirements contained in the Standard Plans and Specifications (Caltrans 2018) and the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2020). Therefore, impacts related to seismic hazards from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and related off-site infrastructure improvements were addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and are substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, p.

3.7-11.)
► Impacts Related to Soil Erosion. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.7-2 (pages 4.7- 27 through 4.7-29) (City of Woodland 2016b), construction projects have the potential to cause an increase in soil erosion due to increased grading, excavation, movement of construction vehicles, and other developmentrelated construction activities. As presented above in Table 3.7-2, most soils within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas have a moderate erosion potential and a high stormwater runoff potential. In addition, the Reiff soil type has a high wind erosion potential. Chapter 15.12 of the City of Woodland Municipal Code addresses erosion and sediment control under the City’s Grading Ordinance. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan, including the off-site South Regional Pond if this feature is constructed by a private entity rather than the City, must obtain a grading permit that includes submittal of a soils engineering report and an engineering geology report specific to the project site, as required by Appendix Chapter 33 of the CBC, Section 3309. Chapter 8.08 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates discharges into the municipal storm drain system including compliance with applicable provisions of construction NPDES permit requirements, including design of and discharge from the proposed off-site South Regional Pond. Furthermore, projects with the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the South Regional Pond, because they would disturb more than 1 acre of land, must comply with the requirements in the SWRCB General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-009- DWQ as amended by Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWRCB general permit contains a numeric, two-part, risk-based analysis process and requires development of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs. The SWPPP must include a site map and a description of construction activities, and must identify the BMPs that will be employed to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan must comply with the City’s Engineering Standards:

Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a). These standards apply to transportation, storm drainage, sewer, wastewater pumping, water distribution, graywater distribution, underground pipelines, and other improvements, and are designed, in part, to avoid impacts related to geologic and seismic constraints. Design and construction of the off-site South Regional Pond is an allowed use under Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Yolo County Code, and would be subject to the Yolo County permit and ordinance requirements, including Title 7, Building Regulations, of the Yolo County Code. Design and construction of the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A intersection improvements is regulated by Caltrans, and

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-23 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
would comply with requirements contained in the Standard Plans and Specifications (Caltrans 2018) and the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2020). Furthermore, Caltrans has its own NPDES permit issued by SWRCB (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003), with which all Caltrans projects are required to comply. This NPDES permit regulates construction-related erosion and operational discharge on all Caltrans projects throughout the state. Therefore, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and related off-site improvements would be consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, which determined that this impact was less than significant. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan, including the off-site South Regional Pond if this feature is constructed by a private entity rather than the City, must implement BMPs and develop and implement SWPPPs, as required by CVRWQCB, and obtain grading permits from the City, all of which are specifically designed to minimize constructed-related soil erosion to the maximum extent feasible. Caltrans also must implement BMPs and develop and implement a SWPPP as required by its agency-specific NPDES permit. Therefore, the soil erosion impact from construction of the WRTP Specific Plan and related off-site infrastructure improvements was addressed by the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and is substantially mitigated by City administered uniformly applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp.

3.7-11 through 3.7-12.)
► Geologic Hazards Related to Unstable and Expansive Soils. A review of NRCS (2020) soil data (see Table 3.7- 2) indicates that most of the soils within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas have been rated with severe limitations for construction of buildings and roads because of high shrink-swell potential, low soil strength, and ponding and soil saturation. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact

4.7-3 (pages 4.7-30 and 4.7-31) (City of Woodland 2016b), construction in unstable and expansive soils could result in structural damage to buildings, roads, and bridges. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture change. These volume changes can result in damage over time to building foundations, underground utilities, and other subsurface facilities and infrastructure if they are not designed and constructed appropriately to resist the damage associated with changing soil conditions. Low soil bearing strength and long periods of soil saturation can result in subsidence from the weight of overlying structures. However, the CBC regulates all aspects of building and foundation design and construction, including regulations that are specifically designed to reduce or eliminate hazards from construction in expansive soil. Compliance with the CBC, which is required by law, ensures appropriate design and construction of building foundations to resist soil movement. In addition, the CBC also contains drainage-related requirements to reduce seasonal fluctuations in soil moisture content.

Construction in soils of low strength is also addressed in the CBC through implementation of soil engineering tests and amending and compacting soils. General Plan Policies such as 8.A.1, 8.A.2, and 8.A.3 are designed to reduce hazards from construction in unstable soils by requiring preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report and incorporating special design requirements in areas of differential settlement. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact was less than significant. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan are required to comply with design and construction requirements contained in the CBC and the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a). Similarly, design and construction of the off-site South Regional Pond would be subject to the CBC and Yolo County permit and ordinance requirements including Title 7, Building Regulations, of the Yolo County Code. Project applicants must prepare site-specific geotechnical reports to identify soil constraints such as settlement and shrink-swell potential and implement design specifications to prevent damage associated with these limitations. Design and construction of the offsite SR 113/County Road 25A intersection improvements is regulated by Caltrans, and would comply with

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-24 City of Woodland
requirements contained in the Standard Plans and Specifications (Caltrans 2018), which contain provisions to address unstable and expansive soils. Therefore, impacts from WRTP Specific Plan construction and related off-site infrastructure improvements in unstable and expansive soils are addressed by the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and are substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-12 through 3.7-13.)

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
► Disposal of Hazardous Materials. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.8-1 (pages

4.8-29 through 4.8-32) (City of Woodland 2016b), new land uses would require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous material and waste and may increase exposure to risk of hazards. Construction activities may also generate hazardous materials and waste, such as fuels and oils from construction equipment and vehicles. Federal and State regulations require adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transportation, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials, as described in the Regulatory Framework section above. The U.S. EPA is responsible for administering the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act and RCRA, which regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The Yolo County Department of Community Services Environmental Health Services Division is the CUPA for the County and responsible for implementing hazardous waste and materials State standards, including HMBP, California Accidental Release Prevention Program, and managing fuel storage tanks. The U.S. Department of Transportation, Caltrans, and the California Highway Patrol regulate and manage routine transport of hazardous materials on I-5 and SR 113. The Yolo County Environmental Health HazMat Unit and Multi-Agency Emergency Response Team, which includes the City of Woodland, respond to local hazardous materials emergencies. Furthermore, implementation of General Plan Policies 3.I.1, 3.I.2, 8.E.1, 8.E.2, 8.E.3, and 8.E.4 are also designed to reduce the potential for adverse impacts from routine transport and use of hazardous materials. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact was less than significant. As emphasized by WRTP Specific Plan Performance Standard C, in Section 3.3.2 of the WRTP Specific Plan, all permitted land uses under the WRTP Specific Plan, including industrial and commercial tenants in the WRTP Specific Plan Area, shall comply with the provisions of the California Hazardous Materials Regulations and other federal, State, and local regulations and requirements discussed in the “Regulatory Framework” section above, including preparation of a Hazardous Material Business Plan. Design and construction of the SR 113/CR 25A interchange improvements would be regulated by Caltrans, and hazardous materials at Caltrans projects are address in the Standard Specifications (Caltrans 2018). Impacts from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvements related to the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials were addressed as a part of the City’s General Plan and CAP EIR and are substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development standards administered at the local, state, and federal level and, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-15.) ► Be Located on a Hazardous Materials Site Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (the Cortese List). The results of records searches of federal, State, local, and tribal databases indicate that the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are not located on a known hazardous materials site on the Cortese List. Thus, there would be no impact and this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-15.)

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-25 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
► Safety Hazards Related to Public Use Airports. The WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are located 6.2 miles northeast of the nearest public use airport (Yolo County Airport). The WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are not located within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area. Thus, there would be no impact related to safety hazards from a public use airport, and this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR. (See Impact 3.8-3 for safety hazards related to the Medlock Field private-use airport.) Airport noise hazards are addressed in Section 3.11, “Noise and Vibration,” of the EIR. (Draft EIR, p.

3.8-15.)
► Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.8- 6 (pages 4.8-41 through 4.8- 43) (City of Woodland 2016b), new development and population growth would result in an increased population that may require evacuation. The adopted Yolo County Emergency Operations Plan (of which the City is a participant) addresses the County and incorporated Cities’ planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with any type of natural disaster, technological incident, or state of war emergency.

General Plan Policy 8.F.2 supports the continued coordination between the City and relevant agencies in preparing for and operating during an emergency. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact was less than significant. The WRTP Specific Plan and proposed off-site South Regional Pond are subject to design review by the City, and are required to comply with City standards relating to appropriate street design to accommodate emergency vehicles and emergency evacuation thoroughfares. Construction equipment would be staged on site, and therefore would not impede emergency access or emergency evacuation roues on the surrounding local roadways. Design and construction of the SR 113/CR 25A interchange improvements would be regulated by Caltrans, and would be designed for appropriate emergency vehicle access as per the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2020). Impacts from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvements related to interference with an emergency response to evacuation plan were addressed as a part of the City’s General Plan and CAP EIR and are substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development standards and, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (f), no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-15 through 3.8-16.)
► Exposure to Wildland Fire Hazards. As shown on General Plan Figure 8- 7, “Fire Hazards,” and Exhibit 4.8-4 in the 2035 General Plan CAP EIR (City of Woodland 2016b:4.8-15), the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are not located in or near a State Responsibility Area, but are located in a Local Responsibility Area. Furthermore, the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are not located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone and are not located in a wildlandurban interface fire area. As a result, the wildland fire threat is considered low by the local agency responsible for fire protection services (i.e., the City of Woodland). Furthermore, as discussed in the EIR in the “Regulatory Framework” of Section 3.8, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” and in Section 3.12, “Public Services and Recreation,” the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas would be provided with adequate fire suppression services by the City of Woodland, and design of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site South Regional Pond is required to comply with fire flow requirements contained in the City of Woodland Engineering Standards. Thus, there would be no impact related to wildland fire hazards, and this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-16.)

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-26 City of Woodland

HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND WATER QUALITY
► Impede or Redirect Flood Flows. General Plan Policy 2.B.2 was not intended to constrain development that is not located in a 200-year floodplain. The WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are classified by FEMA (2012) as unshaded Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard that is located outside the 100-year (0.01 AEP) floodplain and is higher than the elevation of the 500-year (0.2 AEP) floodplain. Since the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are not located in a floodplain, there would be no impact and this topic is not evaluated further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-14.) ► Risk Release of Pollutants in a Flood Hazard, Seiche, or Tsunami Zone. — General Plan Policy 2.B.2 was intended to provide general guidance, and was not intended to constrain development that is not located in a 200-year floodplain. The WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are classified by FEMA (2012) as unshaded Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard that is located outside the 100- year (0.01 AEP) floodplain and is higher than the elevation of the 500-year (0.2 AEP) floodplain. Furthermore, there are levees on both the east and west sides of the Yolo Bypass (which is located between the city and the Sacramento River), as well as levees on the west side of the Sacramento River, that were designed and engineered to meet U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards for levee stability (see Exhibit 4.9-2 on page 4.9-9 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR [City of Woodland 2016b]). Because of the WRTP Specific Plan Area’s distance from the Pacific Ocean, tsunamis would not represent a hazard. Seismic seiches have not been recorded in the Sacramento River north of the Delta; furthermore, levees on both sides of the Sacramento River have been designed and engineered to withstand seismic hazards such as seiches. Therefore, because the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are not located in a flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami hazard zone, the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site improvements would not result in increased risk of release of pollutants, and this impact is not addressed further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-14.) ► Violation of Water Quality Standards. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-1 (pages

4.9-33 through 4.9-38) (City of Woodland 2016b), land use changes have the potential to alter the types, quantities, and timing of contaminant discharges in stormwater runoff. Sediment, trash, organic contaminants, nutrients, trace metals, pathogens (e.g., bacteria and viruses), and oil and grease compounds are common urban runoff pollutants that can affect receiving water quality. In addition, agricultural runoff commonly contains elevated levels of nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides. However, before new urban development can proceed, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted to the City Department of Public Works that must incorporate stormwater pollution control as well as storm drainage design features to control increased runoff from the implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan, as required by Municipal Code Chapter 16. The City’s Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance requires implementation of BMPs where a discharge has the potential to cause or contribute to pollution or contamination of stormwater, the City’s storm drainage system, or receiving waters. Urban development projects are also required to comply with the City's Post-Construction Standards Plan (2015) to reduce post-construction runoff through the incorporation of BMPs, LID, and hydromodification management techniques. Industrial and commercial facilities require appropriate NPDES permits/WDRs, and implementation of BMPs consistent with the CASQA Industrial/Commercial BMP Handbook (2019b) or its equivalent, including annual reporting of any structural control measures and treatment systems. Urban development projects must also comply with the requirements in the SWRCB’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order 2009-009-DWQ as amended by Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) with requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs designed to reduce erosion and pollutant transport. Furthermore,

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-27 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
implementation of General Plan Policies 5.I.5, 5.I.7, and 7.A.4 are also designed to reduce the potential for violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR included Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (pages 4.9-38 and 4.9-39), which recommended adoption of General Plan Policy 5.I.4 related to implementation of LID features to improve stormwater quality. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that after incorporation of General Plan Policy 5.I.4, the impact would be less than significant. Since the WRTP Specific Plan Area has been in use for cultivation of row crops for decades, existing stormwater runoff from the WRTP Specific Plan Area, which flows into Willow Slough, likely contains elevated levels of nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides. Project implementation would reduce these agricultural pollutants. However, long-term operational discharges of contaminants into the City’s stormwater drainage system and ultimate receiving waters would still occur with development of the WRTP Specific Plan, because conversion to urban land uses would increase the amount of impervious surfaces. Therefore, stormwater runoff that transports pollutants from parking lots, driveways, streets, rooftops, and sidewalks would increase. In addition, the presence of additional industrial, commercial, and other urban land uses that utilize potential pollutants (e.g., cleaning agents, pesticides, oil) could result in discharges if proper storage, application, and/or disposal does not occur. However, project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan, as well as the off-site South Regional Pond are required to comply with the stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations described above and with General Plan Policies 5.I.4, 5.I.5, 5.I.7, 5.I.8, and 7.A.4; all of which are designed to reduce stormwater runoff, improve water quality, and prevent violations of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements as set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWQCB 2018). Design and construction of the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A intersection improvements are regulated by Caltrans, and would comply with requirements contained in the Standard Plans and Specifications (Caltrans 2018) and the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2020). Furthermore, Caltrans has its own NPDES permit issued by SWRCB (Order No. 2012- 0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003), with which all Caltrans projects are required to comply. This NPDES permit regulates construction-related erosion and operational discharge on all Caltrans projects throughout the state (SWRCB 2015). Therefore, impacts from WRTP Specific Plan construction and related infrastructure improvements related to violation of water quality standards are substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-14 through 3.9-15.)
► Substantial Depletion of Groundwater Supplies or Substantial Interference with Groundwater Recharge such that Sustainable Groundwater Management of the Basin would be Impeded. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-4 (page 4.9-48) (City of Woodland 2016b), an increase in water demands and associated depletion of groundwater supplies could result from the land use changes throughout the City’s Planning Area. In a partnership with the City of Davis, Woodland has secured water rights on the Sacramento River and the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency Regional Water Treatment Facility was designed to provide up to 18 million gallons per day (55 acre-feet per day) of surface water to Woodland. As part of the Woodland-Davis Regional Water Supply Project (which was completed in 2016), Woodland now has direct use of surface water, as well as the ability to store some of the treated surface water in the aquifer during low water demand months to be recovered and distributed to customers during high water demand months, under the City’s aquifer storage and recovery program. The City also maintains wells for emergency use and for landscape irrigation in City parks. A limited amount of groundwater from three existing City wells is blended with the surface water; by adding surface water as well as recycled water (for industrial use) to the water supply that has previously been entirely dependent on groundwater, the potential for groundwater depletion is

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-28 City of Woodland
decreased even though implementation of the 2035 General Plan would involve projects that could increase water demand. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan projects zero retail water to come from groundwater sources between 2020 and 2040; 100 percent of water supplies would come from surface water and recycled water supplies. Thus, the addition of surface water to Woodland’s water supply portfolio will substantially reduce groundwater extractions, reduce reliance on groundwater resources, as well as improved water quality.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant. The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin – Yolo Subbasin is a high priority basin as designated by DWR, but is not in a state of critical overdraft (DWR 2019). The Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency is the GSA responsible for preparation of the required GSP. The Yolo Subbasin GSP is in process and will be completed by January 1, 2022, as required by DWR (Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency 2020). As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-4 (pages 4.9-47 through 4.9-50) (City of Woodland 2016b), the primary areas of groundwater recharge in the Woodland area are the Sacramento River and other active stream channels. There are no major groundwater recharge areas in the City. Groundwater recharge also occurs as rainfall infiltrating through the soil to the aquifer, particularly in agricultural and open space areas. When impervious surfaces associated with new urban development are constructed on soils with a high water infiltration rate, a localized reduction in groundwater recharge can occur. However, most soils in the City are composed of loams and clays, which typically have low infiltration rates. Furthermore, new urban development projects in the City are required to comply with the City's Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2006b) and Post Construction Standard Plan (2015) and incorporate BMPs, such as conserving natural areas and minimizing impervious area, which would reduce potential project interference with groundwater recharge.

In addition, new development is required to comply with General Plan Policy 5.I.4 requiring the implementation of LID features, which could have the potential to locally, and likely minimally, increase groundwater recharge through the construction of infiltrative storm drainage facilities. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant. Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would convert a large agricultural area (approximately 350 acres, plus approximately 4 acres for the off-site South Regional Pond) to urban development with new impervious surfaces including streets, parking lots, and commercial, light industrial, and residential buildings. As discussed above, most of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are composed of hydrologic Group C soils (i.e., the Brentwood, Capay, and Sycamore soil types), which have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet and therefore have a high runoff potential (NRCS 2020). However, a limited amount of groundwater recharge does occur in the WRTP Specific Plan Area through the Reiff Group A soil and the Yolo Group B soil. As shown in Exhibit 2-8 (Chapter 2, “Project Description”) and discussed in the Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan, Draft (City of Woodland 2020b), the proposed site design includes approximately 20 acres of landscaped open space.

Some of the water applied to landscaping in the open space and in other landscaped areas throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area (particularly to lawn grass in the residential housing areas), the on-site detention basin, and the on-site conveyance channel along the east side of SR 113 and the north side of County Road 25A, as well as the proposed off-site South Regional Pond would percolate through the soil and reach the groundwater aquifer as recharge. There are no active stream channels or other substantial sources of groundwater recharge in the WRTP Specific Plan Area or the off-site improvement areas. As stated above, the WRTP Specific Plan is required to comply with the City's Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2006b) and Post Construction Standard Plan (2015) and incorporate BMPs, such as conserving natural areas and minimizing impervious area, which would reduce potential project interference with groundwater recharge.

The proposed off-site improvements to the existing SR 113/County Road 25A would occur in hydrologic Group C soils and would involve only a minor increase in impervious surfaces. The WRTP Specific Plan is also

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-29 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
required to comply with General Plan Policy 5.I.4 requiring the implementation of LID features, could have the potential to locally, and likely minimally, increase groundwater recharge through the construction of infiltrative storm drainage facilities. Because development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area with urban land uses and the SR 113/County Road 25A interchange are planned as part of the City’s General Plan, they will be included as part of regional planning efforts for the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin – Yolo Subbasin. Therefore, WRTP Specific Plan and associated off-site impacts from substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge that would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin are substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp.

3.9-16 through 3.9-17.)
► On- and Off-site Erosion Impacts. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-2 (pages

4.9-40 through 4.9-43) (City of Woodland 2016b), earth-moving activities associated with construction of new urban development would result in increased erosion and sedimentation, that could in turn result in degradation of waterways and conflict with beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and standards established in the as set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWQCB 2018).

In addition, accidental spills of construction-related contaminants (e.g., fuels, oils, paints, solvents, cleaners, concrete) could also occur during construction, thereby degrading water quality. Construction dewatering also has the potential to degrade water quality if proper dewatering procedures are not followed and water is not properly stored and disposed of. Chapter 15.12 of the City of Woodland Municipal Code addresses erosion and sediment control under the City’s Grading Ordinance. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan and supportive infrastructure improvements must obtain grading permits that include submittal of a soils engineering report and an engineering geology report specific to the project site, as required by Appendix Chapter 33 of the CBC, Section 3309. Chapter 8.08 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates discharges into the municipal storm drain system including compliance with applicable provisions of construction NPDES permit requirements. Furthermore, projects that disturb more than 1 acre of land must comply with the requirements in the SWRCB General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-009-DWQ as amended by Order No. 2012-0006- DWQ). The SWRCB general permit contains a numeric, two-part, risk-based analysis process and requires development of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs. The SWPPP must include a site map and a description of construction activities, and must identify the BMPs that will be employed to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants. Finally, project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan and supportive infrastructure improvements must comply with the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a).

These standards apply to transportation, storm drainage, sewer, wastewater pumping, water distribution, graywater distribution, underground pipelines, and other improvements, and are designed, in part to avoid impacts related to geologic and seismic constraints. Furthermore, implementation of General Plan Policies 5.I.3,

5.I.5, and 5.I.7 are also designed to reduce the potential for violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR included Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 (page 4.9- 43), which recommended adoption of General Plan Policy 5.I.4 related to implementation of LID features to improve stormwater quality. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that after incorporation of General Plan Policy 5.I.4, the impact would be less than significant. As presented in Table 3.7-2 of the EIR (see Section 3.7, “Geology, Soils, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources”), most soils in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas have a moderate erosion potential and a high stormwater runoff

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-30 City of Woodland
potential. In addition, the Reiff soil type has a high wind erosion potential. Development of the WRTP Specific Plan must occur in compliance with the existing land use, stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations described above and must implement applicable General Plan Policies such as 5.I.3, 5.I.4, 5.I.5, and 7.A.4.

Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan and the offsite South Regional Pond are required to implement BMPs and develop and implement SWPPPs as required by CVRWQCB, and obtain grading permits from the City, all of which are specifically designed to minimize degradation of water quality to the maximum extent feasible. Design and construction of the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A intersection improvements is regulated by Caltrans, and would comply with requirements contained in the Standard Plans and Specifications (Caltrans 2018) and the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2020).

Furthermore, Caltrans has its own NPDES permit issued by SWRCB (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003), with which all Caltrans projects are required to comply. This NPDES permit regulates constructionrelated erosion and operational discharge on all Caltrans projects throughout the state (SWRCB 2015). Therefore, impacts from WRTP Specific Plan construction and related off-site infrastructure improvements from construction-related degradation of water quality are substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-17 through 3.9-18.)

LAND USE PLANNING, POPULATION, AND HOUSING
► Physically Divide an Established Community. The WRTP Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community. Only one rural residence is within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and no residents are within the off-site improvement areas. This residence is not formally or informally known as a community.

Implementing the WRTP Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-15.) ► Conflict with an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas are outside of the Yolo County Airport and Sacramento International Airport Influence Areas1. Issues relating to potential conflicts with an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are discussed in Section 3.8, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” of the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-15.) ► Conflict with the Yolo County General Plan and Planning Regulations. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.10-2 (pages 4.10-24 through 4.10-26) (City of Woodland 2016), the 2035 General Plan proposes land use designations for all parcels within the City’s Planning Area, including on unincorporated county land. Yolo County has jurisdiction over unincorporated land in the County, including the WRTP Specific Plan Area, but approval and implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan requires no discretionary review by the County once the WRTP Specific Plan Area is annexed into the City’s jurisdictional boundary, so the County’s policies and standards do not apply. The South Regional Pond would not be annexed to the City. Land use inconsistencies resulting from development of the South Regional Pond and the Yolo County General Plan policies are not physical effects on the environment under CEQA unless it relates to a physical impact on the environment. Each technical section of the EIR provides a detailed analysis of other relevant physical environmental effects that could result from development of the South Regional Pond, as appropriate. The proposed WRTP Specific Plan would not conflict with the land use designation or zoning for the area proposed for the South Regional Pond in a way that would generate any adverse physical impacts beyond those addressed in detail in the environmental sections of the EIR (air quality, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, etc.). The WRTP Specific Plan Area is located outside the current City limits and will require

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-31 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
annexation into the City prior to development. The WRTP Specific Plan Area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and Urban Limit Line. The 2035 General Plan requires annexation before provision of City services to the area. Policy 2.B.6 Other Development in Unincorporated Areas within the Urban Limit Line. Prior to the provision of City services to unincorporated areas within the Urban Limit Line, require those unincorporated properties to be annexed into the City, or that a conditional service agreement be executed agreeing to annex when deemed appropriate by the City. There are no adverse physical environmental impacts related to Yolo County policies or standards that are not addressed in the General Plan and CAP EIR. Conflicts the Yolo County General Plan are addressed through the City’s review and processing of the WRTP Specific Plan, which includes prezoning and annexation. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-15.)
► Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth in an Area, either Directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or Indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.10-1 (pages 4.10- 26 through 4.10-30) (City of Woodland 2016), the 2035 General Plan anticipates development of currently undeveloped areas, which would result in infrastructure being extended into areas that are currently undeveloped and could result in pressure to plan for and entitle development beyond that anticipated under the 2035 General Plan. General Plan Policy

2.L.2 promotes development of SP-1A (the WRTP Specific Plan Area) as a mixed-use residential district, indicating that population growth in this area was considered. The WRTP Specific Plan Area had been subject to planning prior to the City’s General Plan update, as well, as a part of broader planning for the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area and associated infrastructure master planning. More information on consistency with the 2035 General Plan is found below in Impact 3.10-1. The 2035 General Plan includes specific policies for both infill and new development that would avoid unplanned development that could be induced through infrastructure expansions into new growth areas (Policy 8.C.2 and Policy 8.C.5). This reduces the potential for unplanned, induced growth. In addition, the City’s ultimate boundaries are circumscribed by a permanent Urban Limit Line established by a vote of the people in 2006 (Policy 2.A.1). The Urban Limit Line may only be modified by another vote by the people, and the initiative measure also places restrictions on the provision of services outside of the Urban Limit Line. The WRTP Specific Plan Area is within the Urban Limit Line. This provides an effective constraint to induced growth outside of the boundary. As stated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, growth inducement may indirectly lead to environmental effects. Such environmental effects may include increased traffic, degradation of air quality, conversion of agricultural land to urban uses directly from population and employment growth and indirectly from development associated with goods and services needed by such growth. Physical impacts associated with development of residential and nonresidential land uses, such as traffic, air quality degradation, noise generation, greenhouse gas emissions, and increased demand for public services and utilities, are evaluated in the respective specific resource areas throughout the EIR. The actual level of buildout and the timing of construction and development activities is subject to market conditions, economic trends, and other factors beyond the City’s control. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact was less than significant. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan Area that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-16.) ► Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing People or Housing. As previously stated, only one rural residence is within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan could potentially result in the demolition of the one residence that is currently located within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. However, the demolition of one residence when compared to the number of existing residences currently located in Woodland

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-32 City of Woodland
and in the unincorporated county is very minimal. Due to the low number of homes that could potentially be demolished with development of WRTP Specific Plan and because numerous homes are available, the City does not consider this level of displacement to be substantial. The WRTP Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing. Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-16.)

NOISE AND VIBRATION
► Expose People to Excessive Airport Noise. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 3.11-63 to 3.11-64) discusses noise impacts from aircraft noise exposure. The EIR determines that the closest airport to the City’s Planning Area is the Watts Woodland Airport, which is located 3.7 miles from the western city limits. The Sacramento International Airport is located approximately five miles northeast and Yolo County Airport approximately five miles southwest of the City limits. Based upon the most recent noise contours for the Watts Woodland and Yolo County Airports contained within the Yolo County 2030 General Plan EIR (April 2009) and recent noise contours obtained from Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (SACOG 2013), areas within the City’s Urban Limit Line are located outside of the 60 dB CNEL contours. The WRTP Specific Plan Area is within the City’s Urban Limit Line; the only proposed development outside of the Urban Limit Line is the off-site South Regional Pond, which is not considered a sensitive noise receptor.

Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would result in no different impact conclusion than disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. This impact is less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-20.)

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
► Impacts Related to Fire Protection Services. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12- 1 (pages 4.12-29 through 4.12-32) (City of Woodland 2016), Goal 5.B establishes a comprehensive program of fire protection services as a priority in the 2035 General Plan. Service standards for fire protection are addressed in Policies 5.B.1, which states the City should maintain a response time of 4 minutes or less for fire suppression calls, at least 90 percent of the time. Policy 5.B.4 requires development projects to develop and/or fund fire protection facilities, equipment, personnel, and operations and maintenance that maintain the City’s standards.

Policies 5.B.2 and 5.B.6 ensure high-quality staff and equipment, including adequate fire suppression throughout the city; Policy 5.B.7 reduces the need for new facilities through enforcement of safe building standards; and Policy 5.B.8 requires review of development applications by the fire department. Policy 5.B.10 of the 2035 General Plan specifically addresses the location of new fire stationsin relation to planned growth.

The environmental effects from construction and operation of new or expansion of existing fire stations were evaluated programmatically in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR throughout the individual environmental topic sections. Individual development projects would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval. Additionally, any new construction of fire facilities would be subject to construction permitting and Fire and Building Code standards. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant. Fire protection services for the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be provided by Station Three currently located at 1550 Springlake Court. As discussed in Section 3.12.1, “Environmental Setting,” of the EIR, the City plans to relocate Station Three to improve service to existing and proposed development within the southeast portion of the City, including the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The City would conduct project-level CEQA analysis, if necessary, to analyze specific impacts and identify any required mitigation measures for construction and operation of Station Three. To the extent feasible, the environmental impacts associated with the construction of Station Three would be mitigated to

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-33 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
below a level of significance, consistent with CEQA. As concluded in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, if siting and construction practices are consistent with the General Plan’s policies and other existing regulatory standards, environmental impacts related to construction and operation of fire protection facilities should be minimal (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR page 3.12-32). Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would be required to submit project design plans to the Woodland Fire Department for review and implement recommended conditions (General Plan Policy 5.B.8). The proposed WRTP Specific Plan would not affect Woodland Fire Department response times because project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would provide funding to ensure fire protection personnel and equipment is provided to meet increased demand for fire protection services (General Plan Policy 5.B.4).

Incorporation of all California Fire Code, City development standards, and Woodland Fire Department requirements into project designs would reduce the dependence on fire department equipment and personnel by reducing fire hazards. Therefore, impacts from WRTP Specific Plan construction and related infrastructure improvements related to fire protection services are substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-13 through 3.12-14.) ► Impacts Related to Police Protection Services. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact

4.12-2 (pages 4.12-32 through 4.12-35) (City of Woodland 2016), future development consistent with the General Plan is not expected to require new Woodland Police Department facilities, but may require additional staff and policing resources to account for workload and to meet response time standards. Goal 5.A provides for sufficient law enforcement services that will adequately meet the needs of increasing population and nonresidential development. Policies 5.A.1 and 5.A.2 require efficient and high-quality service standards.

Development projects are required to fund police facilities according to Policy 5.A.3. Policies 5.A.4, 5A.5,

5.A.6, and 5.A.7 reduce the need for additional police services through public safety programs and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design strategies, and development application review by the Police Department. In the event that new police facilities would be needed, they would be located within the development footprint analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The environmental effects from construction and operation of new police stations were evaluated programmatically in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR throughout the individual environmental topic sections. Individual development projects would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant. Police protection for future development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be provided by the Woodland Police Department. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would be required to submit project design plans to the Woodland Police Department for review and implement recommended conditions of approval (General Plan Policy 5.A.7). The proposed WRTP Specific Plan would not affect Woodland Police Department response times or other performance objectives because project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would provide funding to ensure police protection personnel and equipment is provided to meet increased demand for police protection services (General Plan Policy 5.A.3). Therefore, impacts from WRTP Specific Plan construction and related infrastructure improvements related to police protection services are substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-14 through 3.12-15.) ► Impacts Related to School Services. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12-3 (pages

4.12-35 through 4.12-39) (City of Woodland 2016), future development consistent with the General Plan, based

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-34 City of Woodland
on the State’s classroom loading factors, would require new schools. Implementation of the 2035 General Plan will reduce the impacts related to school services. Specifically, Goal 5.E and Policy 5.E.2 encourages coordination with WJUSD and other educational institutions regarding future school sites. However, the siting of new schools is regulated by the California Department of Education, not the City of Woodland. As a result, the potential impacts associated with the construction of new schools could not be fully predicted at the time of analysis for the 2035 General Plan; the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be potentially significant. Funding for new school construction is provided through State and local revenue sources. Senate Bill 50 (Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998) governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development.

Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.”3,4 The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that pursuant to State law the impact is considered less than significant after mitigation.

The WRTP Specific Plan Area is located within the WJUSD boundaries and could result in the construction and occupation of approximately 1,600 residential dwelling units. WJUSD uses student generation factors (students per new dwelling units) for single- and multi-family development in order to project student enrollment as shown in Table 3.12-5. Based on student-yield generation rates from WJUSD, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would generate approximately 376 new elementary school students (grades K–6), 104 middle school students (grades 7–8), and 222 high school students (grades 9–12). This yield is a general estimate. Actual student generation could be different for different housing types and would vary according to demographic and other influences. 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 (as revised in Chapter 3, “Errata,” of this Final EIR, these schools are 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 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). Therefore, a shortfall of elementary school, middle school, or high school services and facilities would not occur. Depending on the timing of future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, future students could potentially be bused or driven to schools within the WJUSD boundaries, resulting in indirect impacts related to transportation, such as air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation noise. These potential impacts were considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR analysis for the relevant resource areas, and are addressed as part of the impact analyses in each of the environmental topic-specific sections of the EIR. As noted, in the case that additional students resulting from new residential development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would exceed the elementary school capacity or an additional school is otherwise determined by the WJUSD and the California Department of Education to be necessary, the WRTP Specific Plan provides for a new elementary school within the Planning Area. The proposed development in the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with that assumed for analysis in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, including increased students within the school district due to residential development, and planning for additional schools. Funding for new school construction, as provided through fees authorized by SB 50 and identified as mitigation under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR would be applicable to development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would pay the State-mandated school

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-35 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
impact fees to the WJUSD that are being levied at the time of development. The City would determine the assessable square footage that would be subject to the fee at the time of development. The California Legislature has declared that payment of the applicable school impact fee is deemed to be full and adequate mitigation under CEQA for impacts on school facilities (California Government Code Section 65996). Direct effects associated with the construction and operation of a new elementary school within the WRTP Specific Plan Area are addressed in specific resource area analyses, as appropriate, throughout the EIR. The indirect effects associated with transporting students were addressed in the General Plan and CAP EIR and are addressed, as appropriate, in the respective sections throughout the EIR. No additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-15 through 3.12-16.)
► Impacts Related to Parks and Recreation Services. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact

4.12-4 (pages 4.12-39 through 4.12-43) (City of Woodland 2016), 2035 General Plan Policy 5.C.3 states the City will “strive to achieve” 6.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The Quimby Act authorizes cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. General Plan Policy 5.C.3 requires that the development of parks and recreation facilities keeps pace with development according to the City’s parkland standard. Policy 5.C.4 requires that new residential development meet its fair share of the park acreage goal by either dedicating land for new parks, paying a fair share of the costs for new parks and recreation facilities, and/or renovating existing parks and facilities. Policy 5.C.12 requires that the City’s parks, open space, and recreational resources and facilities include a variety of amenities and features to meet the needs of the community, and that factors such as water conservation, urban forest canopy, drinking fountains, restrooms, lighting, and parking be considered in the design of new parks and recreation facilities. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR states that for any new future master or specific plan area, parkland would be required to support residential development according to the 2035 General Plan standard, which is 6.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The amount, type, and location of the new parks and recreational facilities are determined during the planning process. The environmental effects from construction and operation of new parkland were evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR throughout the individual environmental topic area sections. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to parks and recreation services would be less than significant. Table 3.12-6 shows the parkland acreage calculations based on the projected new residential population in the WRTP Specific Plan Area. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the planned residential land use will support a total projected population of approximately 4,386 people. Therefore, assuming 6 acres per thousand residents, 26.3 acres of parkland would be required. As explained in Chapter 5 of the WRTP Specific Plan, additional parks, open space, mini parks and public or private plazas may be identified within individual developments and with Tentative Subdivision Maps. The WRTP Specific Plan will meet its park obligation through a combination of park land development and through project impact fees. Therefore, the WRTP Specific Plan would meet or exceed the City’s requirements for new residential development to provide its fair-share of park acreage. As stated above, General Plan Policy 5.C.12 requires that the City’s parks, open space, and recreational resources and facilities include a variety of amenities and features to meet the needs of the community, and that factors such as water conservation, urban forest canopy, drinking fountains, restrooms, lighting, and parking be considered in the design of new parks and recreation facilities. The WRTP Specific Plan includes a central park, “The Yard”, of 11.6 acres that would serve as the primary park/open space feature; smaller parks, open spaces, and greenways are proposed throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The Yard would include one or more areas for field and court sports, playgrounds/tot lots, restrooms, picnic tables, shade structures and shaded seating areas, passive recreation areas, and improvements at the southern end to provide a central gathering

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-36 City of Woodland
place for outdoor socializing and events (such as a weekly farmers market). Smaller parks and open spaces would be designed for a variety of passive and active uses, depending on the size and configuration of the park/open space. The interconnected open space, and thee active and passive recreation facilities will be required to provide ample places for physical activity and recreation. The Design Standards and Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan contain criteria for parkland design related to water conservation, urban forest canopy, drinking fountains, restrooms, lighting, and parking. The environmental effects from construction and operation of the WRTP Specific Plan, including proposed recreational facilities, are evaluated throughout the individual environmental topic area sections in the EIR. There are no other known environmental effects associated with park facilities or services that are beyond the impacts disclosed in the relevant environmental topic area sections of the EIR. Therefore, impacts from WRTP Specific Plan implementation related to parks and recreation services are substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-18.) ► Impacts Related to Increased Use of Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12-6 (pages 4.12-46 through 4.12-48) (City of Woodland 2016), additional population growth would place added physical demands on existing park facilities by increasing the number of people using the parks, lengthening the periods of time during which the parks would be in active use, and/or increasing the intensity of use over the course of a typical day. However, the City also anticipated that new parkland would be created to serve new residential growth areas. Therefore, as additional parkland was added over time with new development, impacts related to use overall would be spread over more facilities, and thus the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities. Furthermore, General Plan Policy 5.C.3 requires that the development of parks and recreation facilities keeps pace with development and growth within the city according to the City’s parkland standard. General Plan Policy 5.C.4 requires that new residential development meet its fair share of the park acreage goal by either dedicating land for new parks, paying a fair share of the costs for new parks and recreation facilities, and/or renovating existing parks and facilities. Therefore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. The WRTP Specific Plan would provide a total of 17.6 acres of parks and open space for the use of new residents, visitors, and employees in the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Parkland created in the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be located in proximity to proposed and existing nearby housing, promoting use of new parkland. In addition, new residents, visitors, and employees may also use existing City park facilities such as the 28-acre Woodland Sports Park approximately 0.35 mile west of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, the 10- acre Rick Gonzales Sr. Park approximately 0.6 mile east of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, and the Woodland Regional Park approximately 1 mile east of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. As the Spring Lake Specific Plan continues to be implemented, additional parks would also be developed north and east of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Additionally, although it cannot be fully ascertained with any degree of certainty exactly how many residents and with what frequency they would choose to use off-site recreational facilities, General Plan Policy

5.C.11 promotes mechanisms to adequately fund the ongoing maintenance and repair of the City’s open space, parks, and recreational resources and facilities. In addition, General Plan Implementation Program 5.2 calls for the production and regular update of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Master Plan that would, among other items, identify funding sources for the development and maintenance of parks, recreation centers and open space resources. Therefore, impacts related to increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan are substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-37 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
applied development standards, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-19.)
► Impacts Related to New Parks and Recreational Facilities. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12-7 (pages 4.12-48 through 4.12-52) (City of Woodland 2016), new recreational facilities would be created to serve new growth. For any new future master or specific plan area, parkland is required to support residential development, and there may be new recreational facilities associated with new parkland. The precise amount, type, and location of the new parks and recreational facilities would be determined during the planning process for individual development projects or Specific Plans, and must be consistent with the requirements of the 2035 General Plan. Any new construction or expansion of recreation facilities would be subject to construction permitting and Fire and Building Code standards. Additionally, General Plan Policy 5.C.3 requires that development of recreation facilities keeps pace with development and growth within the city and Policy

5.C.5 supports the placement of parks and recreational facilities in proximity of housing. New development is required to meet its fair share of the park acreage goal, including greenbelt parks, according to Policies 5.C.4 and 5.C.9. Appropriate funding mechanisms for parks and recreational facilities must be identified according to Policy 5.C.11. Policy 5.C.12 requires that a variety of factors are considered in the design of new and renovated parks and recreational facilities, including flexibility for programming activities, travel distance of users, and citizen input. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to creation of new parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. The WRTP Specific Plan includes the creation of new on-site parks and recreational facilities, as well as payment of in-lieu fees towards expansion of the Woodland Sports Park, as required by the City. Parkland created in the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be located in proximity to proposed and existing nearby housing. The WRTP Specific Plan Design Standards contained in Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan require that a variety of factors are considered and incorporated into the new parks, including safety, security, water conservation, urban forest canopy, accessibility, restroom facilities, drinking fountains, and bike access and accommodations. The environmental effects from construction and operation of the WRTP Specific Plan, including proposed recreational facilities, are evaluated throughout the individual environmental topic area sections in the EIR. There are no other known environmental effects associated with park facilities or services that are beyond the impacts disclosed in the relevant environmental topic area sections of the EIR. Thus, no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-19.)

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
► Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The proposed land use types and density and the proposed transportation network for the WRTP Specific Plan are consistent with that anticipated under the 2035 General Plan. The transportation network described in the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with the planned Citywide Circulation Diagram (Figure 3-2) in the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element as follows. The General Plan Citywide Circulation Diagram shows planned arterial and collector streets for the South Growth Area (SP-1) in which the WRTP is located. This includes Parkland Avenue (a new east-west principal arterial between East Street and Pioneer Avenue), a new north-south road designated as Road B in the WRTP Specific Plan (a new north-south minor arterial between CR 25A and Parkland Avenue), an extension of Marston Road (east-west collector street, new segment between Parkland Avenue and Road B), and widening of CR 25A (east-west minor arterial, widening between Road B and SR 113). Planned bikeways shown on Figure 3-3 in the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element include Class I and II facilities on portions of Parkland Avenue, CR 25A, and Road B as well as a Class I bicycle facility on Marston Road. All

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-38 City of Woodland
of these streets and bicycle facilities are included in the WRTP Specific Plan, as shown on the network alignment and street crosssections. The WRTP Specific Plan includes a Comprehensive Transportation Demand Management/Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program (TDM/VMT Program) that requires the project “achieve a 10 percent reduction in Plan Area VMT per capita compared to baseline conditions by 2035,” as required by the 2035 General Plan Policy 3.A.4 (Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled [VMT]) for new development, as well as “financing strategies, sources, and mechanisms to ensure short-term and long-term funding for implementation and monitoring of the TDM/VMT Program.” As detailed in Section 6.2.3, “Subsequent Implementation Documents/Analysis,” of the WRTP Specific Plan, the Master TDM/VMT Program shall: 1) establish transportation strategies, programs, facilities or services for the purpose of VMT reduction that are financed by and consistent with the strategies and requirements of the Development Agreement2 ; and 2) provide project-specific VMT reduction strategies that all property owners/tenants shall be required to implement through individual project-level TDM Plans consistent with the Master TDM Program. These measures are consistent with Policy 3.A.4 of the 2035 General Plan, and shall, in combination, achieve a 10 percent reduction in VMT per capita for the WRTP Specific Plan Area compared to baseline conditions by 2035. The Master TDM/VMT Program will include a monitoring plan for collecting VMT data in the interim years to 2035, every five years as input to citywide GHG monitoring, so that the effectiveness of the VMT reduction strategies can be confirmed and any required strategy adjustments made to reach VMT reduction targets. Monitoring reports shall be reviewed by the City, which may make adjustments to reach project VMT reduction targets, as necessary. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the level of service (LOS) analysis that evaluated a project’s impacts on traffic conditions on nearby roadways and intersections. Although the State’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provides recommendations for adopting new VMT analysis guidelines, lead agencies have discretion in selecting and development a methodology to evaluate VMT. Lead agencies must demonstrate that their selected analysis methodology aligns with SB 743’s goals to promote infill development, reduce GHGs, and reduce VMT. OPR Tech Advisory is guidance and not a program, plan, ordinance, or policy.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR demonstrated that the mix of actions and policies to reduce emissions, inclusive of a 10 percent reduction in VMT across the City’s Planning Area, would achieve the necessary GHG reductions for the City’s Planning Area. The City’s CAP provides for interim monitoring and reevaluation over time to ensure that reduction targets are being met and to allow for adjustments in reduction strategies and policies if they are not being met. As the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with the 2035 General Plan transportation network and land use program, including residential density and population estimates and nonresidential building square footage, and includes a TDM/VMT Program and funding to achieve the 10 percent VMT reduction required for new projects per General Plan Policy 3.A.4, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and potential impacts are substantially mitigated by uniformly applied development standards, being the WRTP Specific Plan’s TDM/VMT Program and funding mechanism. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-15 through 3.13-16.)

UTILITIES
► Impacts Related to Increased Demand for Water Supplies. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.14-2 (pages 4.14-37 through 4.14-42) (City of Woodland 2016), additional residential, commercial, and industrial uses would increase demand for water supplies and water treatment facilities. General Plan goals and policies call for reductions in water use and ensure water system facilities are provided. General Plan Goal

5.G is to provide adequate potable water supply and delivery system to meet the needs of the city. General Plan

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-39 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Policy 5.G.1 directs the City to provide an adequate water supply, while Policy 5.G.3 requires connection to the City’s water system. Policy 5.G.2 requires preparation of a Water Supply Assessment for significant projects (those larger than a 500-dwelling unit project or 250,000 square foot commercial development), pursuant to Sections 10910 through 10915 of the California Water Code. Policies 5.G.5, 5.G.7, 5.G.9, and 7.A.5 reduce the demand on potable water production and delivery systems by requiring the expansion of the recycled water system, maintenance of existing facilities, coordination with regional partners to improve water efficiency and conservation, and updated landscaping regulations. Policy 7.A.5 encourages efficient use of water in landscaping. CAP Water and Solid Waste Objective 1 promotes reduced water demand, which is supported by a number of Actions outlined in Chapter 4 the CAP. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that, based on the supply of surface water and groundwater, the City is expected to successfully meet water demand through 2035 (Table 4.14-3 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR). The environmental effects from placement of infrastructure were evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR throughout the individual environmental topic area sections. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to increased demand for water supplies and water treatment facilities would be less than significant. Development of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan would increase the demand for municipal water supplies. The City of Woodland Engineering Standards water-demand factors were applied to the acreage for each land use designation that generates municipal water use within the city. As shown in Table 3.14-2, the estimated potable water demand would be approximately 1.14 million gallons per day, which is approximately 1,278 afy at buildout nof the WRTP Specific Plan Table 3.14-1 identifies water supplies and demand within the City over the UWMP’s planning period in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. In all year types, if demand cannot be met from surface water alone, the City plans to meet any additional demand through reclaimed water and groundwater pumping. As stated above and shown in the Table 3.14-1, water supply is projected to be sufficient to meet demand through 2035 in all water years. The future water demands accounted for within the City’s UWMP are based upon the population growth rate developed in the City’s 2035 General Plan for the anticipated development within the City’s Urban Limit Line, which included projections for the WRTP Specific Plan Area (West Yost Associates 2016); for the purposes of analysis, the EIR assumes the mix of land uses and overall amount of development in this WRTP Specific Plan Area of approximately 1,600 dwelling units and 2.2 million square feet of nonresidential building space, consistent with the 2035 General Plan. Therefore, the water demands for the WRTP Specific Plan Area were accounted for in water demand projections contained in the City’s UWMP and evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and sufficient water supplies would be available to meet the demands of the WRTP Specific Plan. The WRTP Specific Plan provides guidelines and recommendations to reduce water demands through the use highperformance, low-flow water fixtures; minimizing use of lawn and turf grass; the use of native plants and non-living groundcovers; and installation of climate sensitive irrigation systems. A reclaimed water system would be installed to meet landscape irrigation demands for medians, parks, and greenways to further reduce potable water demands. The City Public Works Department completed a Water Supply Assessment for the proposed land use plan contained within the WRTP Specific Plan. As documented in the Water Supply Assessment and Certification Form, the City has sufficient water supplies for the proposed project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years over a 20- year period (City of Woodland 2019b). Therefore, as with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the impact related to additional water demand is less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 3.14-12 through 3.14-13.) ► Impacts Related to Exceedance of Wastewater Treatment Requirements and Increased Demand for Wastewater Treatment Facilities. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.14-1 (pages 4.14-32 through

4.14-36), Impact 4.14-2 (pages 4.14-37 through 4.14-42), and Impact 4.14-5 (pages 4.14-49 through 4.14-51)

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-40 City of Woodland
(City of Woodland 2016), additional residential, commercial, and industrial uses anticipated under the General Plan would generate greater amounts of wastewater effluent compared to existing conditions. General Plan Goal 5.H ensures that wastewater treatment facilities are provided in a timely fashion to serve existing and future needs. General Plan Policy 5.H.6 requires all sewage generators within the Planning Area to connect to the City’s system. General Plan Policies 5.F.1 ensures that there would be sufficient public services, including wastewater treatment facility capacity, to serve existing and new development in Woodland. Policies 5.F.2,

5.F.3, 5.F.4, and 5.F.5 address fiscal and funding impacts of new development to ensure there is funding available to support public facilities and services. Policies 5.H.2, 5.H.3, 5.H.4, and 5.H.5 address the need to plan for wastewater needs by requiring updates to the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, consideration of the wastewater needs in amendments to the adopted General Plan, active planning for maintenance and repairs, and evaluation and updates to the Capital Improvement Program. Policy 5.H.9 requires a reduction in wastewater system demand. The WPCF was permitted and meeting facility specific permitted conditions under the State Water Resource Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements at the time of adoption of the 2035 General Plan, and the permit has been renewed and conditions continue to be met.

Implementation of policies in the 2035 General Plan, along with existing local, State, and federal requirements would ensure that the wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board would continue to be met for amount of wastewater effluent. In terms of wastewater treatment, the hydraulic capacity of the City’s WPCF is expected to meet the city’s projected needs through 2035. The environmental effects from placement of infrastructure were evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR throughout the individual environmental topic area sections. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to increased demand for wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.

Wastewater flows generated by development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area were accounted for in wastewater flow projections contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Land use proposed in the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with that contemplated for SP-1A in the 2035 General Plan, and therefore anticipated wastewater flows analyzed as part of the General Plan and CAP EIR would be the same, if not less due to recent regulatory changes and conservation measures, as that analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As described in the WRTP Wastewater Collection System Technical Memorandum, due to recent regulatory changes and implementation of the Model Calibration and Master Plan Update Recommendations prepared by Water Works Engineers in 2012, the City has reduced residential and commercial wastewater design sanitary sewer flow rate assumptions for the WRTP Specific Plan Area (Cunningham Engineering 2020c). As analyzed in support of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, future average hydraulic flow to the WPCF would increase to about 8.3 mgd in 2035 with buildout of the General Plan, which is within the capacity of the WPCF (City of Woodland 2015). Similarly, the WPCF organic capacity would not be exceeded with buildout of the 2035 General Plan (City of Woodland 2015). As stated above and confirmed by the City’s Wastewater Treatment Capacity Verification, the capacity of the City’s WPCF is expected to exceed the city’s projected needs through 2035, including the needs of the WRTP Specific Plan (City of Woodland 2019a). Thus, the WPCF would have adequate capacity to treat wastewater flows generated by the WRTP Specific Plan, as well as future development within the WPCF service area. Therefore, impacts from the WRTP Specific Plan related to exceedances of wastewater treatment requirements and increased demands that would be placed upon existing wastewater treatment facilities were addressed for the proposed WRTP Specific Plan as part of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and are substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact was less than significant. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan Area that were not addressed in the 2035 General

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-41 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-13 through 3.14-14.)
► Impacts Related to Increased Generation of Solid Waste and Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impacts 4.14-6 and 4.14-7 (pages 4.14-51 through 4.14-56) (City of Woodland 2016), future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses anticipated under the General Plan would increase solid waste generation compared to existing conditions. General Plan Policies 5.J.1 and

5.J.2 require adequate solid waste services and compliance of solid waste collection in new development with local regulations, and Policy 5.J.4 requires compliance with State regulations. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that existing State laws and regulations would reduce the potential environmental impact associated with solid waste generation (AB 341’s solid waste diversion requirements and AB 1826’s mandatory commercial organics recycling requirements). Furthermore, the City of Woodland Municipal Code reduces the potential environmental impact by regulating solid waste receptacles and disposal services, recyclable materials, and construction and demolition debris. The 2035 General Plan and CAP determined existing landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs from anticipated future growth. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to increased generation of solid waste and compliance with solid waste regulations would be less than significant. Construction activities for future projects under the WRTP Specific Plan would require site clearing and generate various construction-period wastes, including scrap lumber, scrap finishing materials, various scrap metals, and other recyclable and nonrecyclable construction-related wastes. The 2019 CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations) requires all construction contractors to reduce construction waste and demolition debris by 65 percent. Code requirements include preparing a construction waste management plan that identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal by efficient usage, recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale; determining whether materials will be sorted on-site or mixed; and identifying diversion facilities where the materials collected will be taken. The code also specifies that the amount of materials diverted should be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both (California Building Standards Commission 2019). In addition, the 2019 CALGreen Code requires that 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing be reused or recycled. In addition, the City requires contractors to comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling and Diversion Ordinance (Title 13, Chapter

13.40 of the City of Woodland Municipal Code) by reducing project waste entering landfill facilities by 65 percent as recycling 100 percent of excavated soil and land-clearing debris. Contractors are required to prepare a waste management plan that must be submitted to and approved by City’s Community Development Department before issuance of a building permit and waste management logs must be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department before final inspections (see Section 3.14.2, “Regulatory Framework,” above). It is estimated the total population and employees resulting from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would generate 13.1 tpd and 32.25 tpd of solid waste, respectively. 5,6 These totals do not account for recycling programs required by AB 1826 or other City recycling programs. Therefore, the actual amount of solid waste generated by the proposed WRTP Specific Plan would be less than this estimate. Solid waste collected from the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be hauled to the Yolo County Central Landfill. The Yolo County Central Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 1,800 tpd, a remaining capacity of approximately 35 million cubic yards, and an expected closure date of 2081 (CalRecycle 2019a). The estimated

45.4 tpd of solid waste generated by the proposed project would be approximately two percent of the maximum tpd that could be received at the landfill. Therefore, sufficient landfill capacity would be available to accommodate solid-waste disposal needs for the WRTP Specific Plan. Development of the WRTP Specific

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-42 City of Woodland
Plan would result in increased long-term generation of solid waste during operation. The City provides recycling programs, such as curbside recycling of paper, plastics, bottles, and organics, to reduce the volume of solid waste transported to landfills. In addition, the Recyclable Materials Ordinance (City Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter 13.36) reduces wastes further by requiring businesses and multi-family residential uses to provide integrated collection areas with recycling components. Furthermore, AB 1826 requires businesses to recycle organic wastes. Future projects developed under the WRTP Specific Plan will be required to comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Compliance with the CalGreen Code, the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling and Diversion Ordinance, AB 1826, the City’s Recyclable Materials Ordinance, and other City recycling programs would ensure that sufficient landfill capacity would be available to accommodate solid-waste disposal needs for future development. The anticipated increase in solid waste generation of time is based on an increase in population in the county. Per resident and per employee generation rates in the WRTP Specific Plan Area are likely to be less than existing rates as the City continues to implement waste diversion programs to comply with State regulations (AB 341 and AB 1826) and support State goals.

Development assumptions and related population growth within the WRTP Specific Plan Area are within the envelope assumed in the 2035 General Plan. Therefore, impacts from WRTP Specific Plan and related infrastructure improvements related to increased generation of solid waste and compliance with solid waste regulations were addressed for the proposed WRTP Specific Plan as part of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and are substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards in the form of 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR policies and implementation programs, or in the form of existing City standards or code requirements. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact was less than significant. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan Area that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), and no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-14 through 3.14-16.)

2. FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING

MITIGATION
The City Council agrees with the characterization in the Draft EIR of all project impacts identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are either less than significant or have no impact, as described in the Draft EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. However, the impacts where the project would result in either no impact or a less-than-significant impact, and which require no mitigation, are detailed below. The lessthan-significant conclusions and findings for these impacts are consistent with the findings of the EIR. Please refer to the Draft EIR and the Final EIR for more detail.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
► Impact 3.2-2. Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-19.) Explanation: The WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvement areas are zoned by Yolo County as Agricultural Intensive (AN). The A-N zoning designation is intended to promote intensive agricultural uses while preventing the encroachment of nonagricultural uses. The Yolo County Zoning Regulations (Chapter 2

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-43 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
of Title 8 of the Yolo County Code) state that privately-owned ponds for agricultural-related use are an allowable use in the A-N zoning designation (Yolo County 2020). Development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area will require annexation into the City and pre-zoning prior to development. The WRTP Specific Plan will also require amending the City’s Zoning Ordinance to reference the WRTP Specific Plan for allowable land use, development standards, performance standards, and design guidelines. With approval of the WRTP Specific Plan, annexation of the WRTP Specific Plan Area into the City of Woodland, and associated zoning changes, development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use.

Land for the proposed South Regional Pond would not be annexed to the City and would remain within Yolo County jurisdiction in land designated as A-N. The balance of the parcel on which the South Regional Pond would be located is in agricultural use and the WRTP Specific Plan would not propose to change that. While this proposed land use could conflict with existing zoning, any potential adverse physical impacts associated with construction and operation of the South Regional Pond, such as loss of farmland, changes to the visual character, and other potential physical impacts, have been comprehensively analyzed throughout the EIR.

Potential impacts associated with development of the South Regional Pond would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measures presented in the EIR and through uniformly applied City administered development standards. There is no impact beyond those comprehensively considered throughout the other sections of the EIR. This impact is considered less than significant.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
► Impact 3.4-6. Impacts on Migratory Corridors and Nursery Sites: Interference with Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-37)
Explanation: The city of Woodland is located within the Pacific flyway, which is a major north-south route for migratory birds along western North America. Large numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds may move through the area seasonally and may congregate and forage in wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural fields during winter or use them as resting grounds during longer migrations from the Arctic to Central or South America. Land use changes would allow development to occur in the agricultural habitats within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas within the Pacific flyway, but this development would not create a barrier to movement of migratory species or alter the character of existing habitat available to migrating birds such that it would no longer function as a migratory corridor because there still would be abundant agricultural habitat of equal or better value to migrating birds surrounding the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas and this agricultural habitat, along with Cache Creek, Willow Slough, and the Yolo Bypass would continue to support the needs of migratory birds and provide wildlife movement opportunities for other native resident or migratory wildlife species in the area. Development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas would not cause any areas of natural habitat to become isolated. Waterways consist of agricultural and roadside ditches that do not support riparian vegetation that would provide cover for wildlife movement. The WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas do not currently provide an important connection between any areas of natural habitat that would otherwise be isolated, and the WRTP Specific Plan Area and offsite improvement areas are not located within any of the ecological corridors identified in the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) as important to maintaining connectivity between communities, habitat patches, species populations, or the Yolo HCP/NCCP proposed reserve system. No native wildlife nursery sites have been identified in the WRTP Specific Plan Area or offPage 1070 AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-44 City of Woodland
site improvement areas. Therefore, implementing the WRTP Specific Plan would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The impact is less than significant. ► Impact 3.4-7. Consistency with Local Policies and Ordinances: Conflict with Local Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-37.) Explanation: Although a tree inventory has not been completed for the WRTP Specific Plan Area, the reconnaissance surveys confirmed several trees are present in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas. Implementing the proposed WRTP Specific Plan would allow development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas, and several of these trees could be potential, heritage trees or other trees protected under the City of Woodland Tree Ordinance (Woodland Municipal Code Chapter

12.48). However, the City will require compliance with the Tree Ordinance as a part of WRTP Specific Plan implementation. The impact is less than significant.
► Impact 3.4-8. Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan: Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-38.) Explanation: The avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures included in the EIR are consistent with the Yolo HCP/NCCP (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). In addition, the WRTP Specific Plan would comply with the 2035 General Plan policies and implementation programs, and these maintain consistency with the Yolo HCP/NCCP. The proposed WRTP Specific Plan and 2035 General Plan were designed for consistency with the Yolo HCP/NCCP. Goal 7.B of the 2035 General Plan is to maintain and protect natural habitats throughout the Planning Area, especially types that are considered sensitive by the Yolo HCP/NCCP, and Policy 7.B.1 of the 2035 General Plan requires full implementation of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, once adopted, to mitigate the impacts of growth projected under the General Plan on plant and wildlife habitats in the Woodland area (City of Woodland 2017). There are no sensitive habitats or other lands in the WRTP Specific Plan Area or off-site improvement areas that are identified in the Yolo HCP/NCCP as a part of the future reserves system. Therefore, implementing the WRTP Specific Plan would not reduce the effectiveness of the Yolo HCP/NCCP conservation strategy and would not interfere with attaining the overall biological goals and objectives of the Yolo HCP/NCCP. The City of Woodland is a permittee and participant of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, and will avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on covered species and habitats consistent with the Yolo HCP/NCCP conservation strategy, as described above. The impact is less than significant.

CLIMATE CHANGE, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY
► Impact 3.5-1. Result in Potentially Significant Environmental Impact Due to Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources during Project Construction or Operations.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-26 through 2.5-31.)

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-45 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Explanation: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.5-43 to 4.5-63) discusses potential impacts related to the consumption of energy from implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP. The EIR estimated the maximum annual energy demand in the form of natural gas, electricity, and fuel associated with future operations within the City’s Planning Area with implementation of the 2035 General Plan. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR also discussed the anticipated construction-related energy demand associated with development with implementation of the General Plan. With regard to construction-related energy consumption, the 2035 General Plan and CAP determined that the Planning Area and anticipated development do not have any unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the City. With regard to operational transportation and building energy consumption, the General Plan contains several policies that promote mixed-use and infill development and site residents, jobs, and retail amenities in proximity of each other to reduce the need for motor vehicle travel. Many policies through various mechanisms also support development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and encourage alternative transportation and transit that would promote non-vehicular modes of travel. General Plan policies also encourage minimizing energy and water demand and wastewater generation and encourage methods to minimize solid waste generation and increase waste diversion systems. Policy 2.C.2 also requires new development to be consistent with the objectives and targets of the City’s CAP, which specifically provides objectives, strategies, and implementation measures to reduce energy demand associated with the City’s Planning Area. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan, for either alternative, would improve overall energy efficiency on a per-service population bases compared to existing conditions. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant.

Energy would be consumed through all phases of project construction and operations. Energy-requiring activities range from equipment operation during construction, to building operations, to transportation during all phases of the WRTP Specific Plan implementation. Table 3.5-5 summarizes total energy requirements for development under the WRTP Specific Plan. For comparison purposes, Table 3.5-5 shows conversion of all energy requirements to a common energy unit of British thermal units (Btu) per year. Operational transportation would be the greatest energy consuming factor associated with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan.

The WRTP Specific Plan provides for employment-generating land uses as well as a range of housing options, and implements land use and transportation planning strategies that would reduce the demand for motor vehicle travel, and thereby minimize overall transportation energy (fuel) demands. Building operations would account for approximately 30 percent of the energy consumption for the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the proposed facilities would be more energy efficient than existing, average, similar-use buildings, as energy efficiency requirements have become more stringent over time. In addition, the implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s 2035 General Plan and, as described above in Table 3.5-1 and further detailed in Section 3.10, “Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing,” of the EIR. As detailed in the Design Standards and Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan, building design and construction of development under the WRTP Specific Plan will incorporate features that achieve energy and resource efficiencies. Considering this information, the WRTP Specific Plan would not be expected to cause inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy and this impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. Energy efficiency is a possible indicator of environmental impacts. The actual adverse physical environmental effects associated with energy use and the efficiency of energy use are detailed throughout the EIR in the environmental topic–specific sections. For example, the use of energy for transportation leads to air pollutant emissions, the impacts of which are addressed

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-46 City of Woodland
in Section 3.3 of the EIR. There is no physical environmental effect associated with energy use that is not addressed in the environmental topic–specific sections of the EIR. ► Impact 3.5-2. Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-32.) Explanation: As described above in the discussion of Impact 3.5-1, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would result in the development of new land uses that would induce new demand for electricity and natural gas, as well as induce additional VMT that would result in the consumption of fossil fuels. However, design and construction of buildings would comply with the most recently adopted California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code and California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), and the City’s CAP. This would ensure that future development would consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of such features as efficient water heating systems, high performance attics and walls, and high efficacy lighting. The Design Standards and Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan also promote energy efficient design standards and transportation systems, promote energy efficiency in new construction that meet or exceed State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, promote energy efficiency and conservation programs associated with utilities, and require compliance with federal, State, and local energy-related regulations. Therefore, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact is less than significant.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
► Impact 3.8-3. Result in a Safety Hazard for People Residing or Working in a Project Area Located in the Vicinity of a Private Airstrip.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-22 through 3.8-23.) Explanation: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.8-29) (City of Woodland 2016b) stated that since there are no private airstrips within the General Plan Planning Area, implementation of 2035 General Plan land use changes and policies would have no impact related to the safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip, and this impact was not addressed further in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Medlock Field is a privately owned and operated airport located approximately 1.3 miles south of the WRTP Specific Plan Area on CR 101. The north end of the runway is approximately 1.4 miles south of the WRTP Specific Plan and the proposed off-site South Regional Pond. Approximately 15 single-engine airplanes are based at the airport, which includes an administration building, aircraft hangers, maintenance sheds, a fueling station, and parking areas (AirNav 2020). As discussed above in the “Regulatory Framework,” the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics applies the FAA Part 77 height regulations and notice requirements to private use airports. However, the height of buildings within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would have to exceed a slope of 25:1 at the imaginary surface extending outward and upward from the airport runway to the WRTP Specific Plan Area. As detailed in Section 3.4, “Site Development Standards,” of the WRTP Specific Plan, buildings constructed within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would not exceed a height of 70 feet, and land within the WRTP Specific Plan Area is flat. Therefore, construction of buildings within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would not result in a height above the ground surface that would be tall enough to result in a flight hazard at Medlock Field (i.e., would not exceed the 25:1 slope limitation). The WRTP Specific Plan Area would include an approximately 4-acre water quality/hydromodifcation basin the southeastern corner. However, this

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-47 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
basin would be used only for detention of stormwater flows, which would be released over a 48-hour period.

Therefore, this proposed on-site basin would not result in a large open area of water that would be retained for long periods of time that could attract waterfowl and thereby result in wildlife strike hazards. Proposed land uses in the WRTP Specific Plan Area include Village Center (retail or mixed use); Commercial–Business Park, Office, Research, High-Tech, or Light Industrial Flex; and Commercial–Highway. These facilities may handle hazardous substances, although they would not be expected to handle large quantities of acutely hazardous substances since the WRTP Specific Plan Area does not include zoning for heavy industrial land uses.

Therefore, the potential for explosion hazard is minimal. As discussed in detail in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of the EIR, the WRTP Specific Plan would not be implemented in a “dark sky” area; rather, existing nighttime lighting is already generated by the Woodland Sports Park west of SR 113, from street lighting along the east and west sides of SR 113 on the west side of the project site, and from street and residential lighting in the adjacent Spring Lake development to the east. General Plan Policies 2.F.4 and 2.F.5 require that artificial lighting be controlled to avoid spill-over lighting, preserve the night sky, and prevent glare. The proposed land uses in the WRTP Specific Plan Area would not include high mast, high foot-candle-power lighting towers such as those used at the Woodland Sports Park. Rather, standard City street lights would be constructed along the arterial, collector, and residential streets at heights of 31, 28, and 25 feet, respectively, as required by Section 9 of the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a). The Engineering Standards also direct the maximum allowable amount of footcandle illumination that may be used for arterial, collector, and residential streets (200, 100, and 70 watts, respectively). Furthermore, the WRTP Specific Plan Performance Standards and Design Standards and Design Guidelines, contained in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.5.2, respectively, of the WRTP Specific Plan also state that proposed land uses may not create new sources of glare, and that sign illumination must be confined to the area of the sign and may not cast a glare that is visible from any street or adjacent lot. The off-site South Regional Pond would not require nighttime lighting. The existing SR 113/CR 25A interchange is lighted with high-mast light standards that are shielded and direct the lighting downward; the proposed interchange improvements would include the continued use of shielded, directional high-mast light standards, but would not substantially change the amount of skyglow that is already emitted as compared to the existing interchange. Therefore, the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site improvements would not include lighting that could be mistaken for airport lighting and/or cause glare in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using Medlock Field. For the reasons stated above, and consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact would be less than significant.

LAND USE PLANNING, POPULATION, AND HOUSING
► Impact 3.10-1 Conflict with the Woodland 2035 General Plan and Municipal Code.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.10-17 through 3.10-33.) Explanation: Specific plans, under State law, are required to be consistent with the relevant jurisdiction’s general plan. The environmental topic-specific sections of the EIR include a discussion of relevant General Plan policies and implementation programs, which are used to frame mitigation measures presented throughout the EIR. The WRTP Specific Plan is one of three subareas designated by the City of Woodland General Plan 2035 within the Specific Plan 1 (SP-1) new growth area. Referred to as “SP-1A” in the General Plan, the City “envisions the Specific Plan to develop as a mixed-use neighborhood anchored by a research and technology

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-48 City of Woodland
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 General Plan, for 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 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.

The WRTP Specific Plan Area is identified “New Growth (Planned Development)” and designated as SP-1A in the General Plan, but does not currently have specific City land use zoning designations. Because the WRTP Specific Plan Area is outside of the current City limits, development of the WRTP Specific Plan will require annexation into the City and pre-zoning prior to development. The WRTP Specific Plan will also require amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Table 3.10-4 provides a discussion of the WRTP Specific Plan’s consistency with the General Plan. Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 in Section 3.5, “Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas and Energy,” of the EIR, lists the 2035 General Plan policies relevant to greenhouse gas emissions and the relevant policies of the City’s Climate Action Plan, respectively, and briefly explains the WRTP Specific Plan consistency with these policies. As shown in Table 3.10-1, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would be consistent with the 2035 General Plan policies. As noted in Section 3.10.2 and shown in Table 3.10-3 of the EIR, the current Housing Element and Land Use Plan was developed with consideration for the City of Woodland’s RHNA for the planning period of 2013 through 2021 (as shown in Table 3.10-3), which projected a need for the construction of an additional 1,877 housing units, allocated as follows: 195 extremely low income units, 195 very low income units, 274 low income units, 349 moderate income units, and 864 above moderate income units. The City met the rezoning requirement for the 2013-2021 planning period in May 2018 through the adoption of the Interim Zoning Ordinance. SACOG’s RHNA for the planning years 2021 through 2029 projected a need for the City of Woodland for the construction of an additional 3,087 housing units, allocated as follows: very low income (663 units), low income (399 units), moderate income (601 units), and above moderate income (1,424 units) (Table 3.10-2). The WRTP Specific Plan, once fully developed, could provide opportunities for approximately 1,673 new dwelling units, helping the City meet the RHNA. The WRTP Specific Plan includes a Housing Mix land use policy (Section 2.2 of the WRTP Specific Plan) to provide a mix of housing types at a range of densities and affordability levels that accommodate residents at all states of life. With densities ranging from less than 8 units per acre to 40 units per acre, a variety of housing types, sizes, and densities are planned, including conventional and small-lot single family homes, accessory dwellings (or secondary units), townhomes, multi-story apartments and condominiums, and livework units. WRTP Specific Plan consistency related to environmental topics is addressed in each technical section of the EIR, as appropriate. These technical sections provide a detailed analysis of other relevant physical environmental effects that could result from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and identify mitigation measures, as necessary, to reduce impacts. Implementation of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan would not conflict with

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-49 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
adopted City General Plan policies, land use designations, or zoning in a way that would generate any adverse physical impacts beyond those addressed in detail in the environmental sections of the EIR (air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, etc.). Therefore, and consistent with the finding in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered less than significant. ► Impact 3.10-2 Potential conflicts with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.10-33 through 3.10-34.) Explanation: The SACOG MTP/SCS showed the WRTP Specific Plan Area as a Developing Community.

According to the MTP/SCS, this community type is “typically, though not always, situated on vacant land at the edge of existing urban or suburban development; they are the next increment of urban expansion. Areas are identified in local plans as special plan areas, specific plans, or master plans and may be residential-only, employment-only, or a mix of residential and employment uses.” Although the WRTP Specific Plan Area was identified as a new growth area, only a portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area is assumed for development within the MTP/SCS horizon of the year 2040. However, the methodology and purpose of the City’s estimate of development capacity under the 2035 General Plan is different from the methodology and purpose of SACOG’s forecast for the purposes of the MTP/SCS. The SACOG projections are market-based growth estimates that project the amount and location of likely growth in the region based on a variety of socioeconomic factors that are updated every four years. The City’s general plan and this WRTP Specific Plan serve as long range planning tools that seek to create opportunities for growth and provides a range of land use options to encourage economic investment and promote other City policy objectives. In addition, the MTP/SCS is updated every four years, and new growth areas, as well as other regulatory and market factors not previously considered, can be considered when creating the land use forecasts for the ensuing MTP/SCS. Given these different purposes, it is reasonable to expect variations in the growth forecasts between the two. Finally, the EIR analyzes full development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and all direct and reasonably foreseeable effects of implementing the WRTP Specific Plan including impacts related to transportation and greenhouse gas emissions and other topics that are the focus of the MTP/SCS. There is no impact related to plan consistency that is not addressed in the environmental topic-specific sections of the EIR (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.). This impact is considered less than significant. ► Impact 3.10-3 Potential conflicts with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Policies, Standards, and Procedures Guidelines.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.10-33 through 3.10-34.) Explanation: LAFCo is charged with applying the policies and provisions of the Cortese-Knox Act (California Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) to its decisions regarding incorporations, reorganizations, and other changes in government organization. This act establishes the process through which a local agency boundary change is made, and associated planning authority is transferred from one local agency to another. Generally, LAFCo is responsible for determining whether any incorporations are consistent with the LAFCo objectives and policies of ensuring that services would be available to new development; avoiding premature conversion of farmland; and ensuring planned, logical, and orderly patterns of urban growth. California Government Code Section 56668 sets forth criteria for evaluation of annexation projects. This statute establishes factors that

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-50 City of Woodland
LAFCo agencies must use in reviewing annexation proposals. Any future urban development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would require annexation by the City of Woodland and would be subject to this statute. A Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Amendment was conducted for Woodland in 2018. This Municipal Service Review covered the portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area south of CR 25A and east of SR 113 (Yolo LAFCo 2019). The City created a framework of controlled growth by adopting its voterapproved Urban Limit Line. The General Plan 2035 included policies to ensure that the development of finite land resources will be carefully planned and managed. The WRTP Specific Plan provides controlled, yet flexible, land use planning for development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, identified as SP-1A in the 2035 General Plan. The WRTP Specific Plan includes non-residential uses that 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. The WRTP Specific Plan, once fully developed, could provide opportunities for 1,600 new dwelling units at a range of densities and affordability levels that accommodate residents at all states of life, helping the City meet the RHNA. The WRTP Specific Plan also provides for adequate public facilities and services, and would not exceed the capacity of existing water support or other public resources. There are planned land uses within this portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area that would create the need for an expanded service area and would result in the loss of prime agricultural land or open space. However, the City’s Urban Limit Line preempts any uncontrolled sprawl. Section 3.2, “Agricultural and Forestry Resources,” of the EIR discusses this loss and explains that development under the WRTP Specific Plan shall comply with applicable City and County regulations, including mitigation requirements to address the conversion of farmland to urban uses. The WRTP Specific Plan also includes policy (Section 2.2) requiring a 150- foot buffer from adjacent agricultural land at the Urban Limit Line, where feasible. Detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measures associated with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan that would require expansion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area are evaluated throughout other sections of the EIR, including Agricultural Resources; Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality; Public Services and Recreation; and Utilities. As described above implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan, is consistent with LAFCo policies. Thus, this impact is considered less than significant.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
► Impact 3.13-3. Result in Inadequate Emergency Access.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.13-22.) Explanation: The WRTP Specific Plan will modify the existing transportation network generally to expand existing facilities or to construct new facilities to accommodate planned population and employment growth.

Construction of the WTP Specific Plan Area would not require temporary lane or street closures or detours, therefore, would not affect emergency access. In addition, there are no pedestrian and bicycle facilities currently around the site. Construction-related vehicular movements may not need to be restricted or redirected to accommodate material hauling, construction, staging, and modifications to existing infrastructure. This impact would be less than significant. The plan for operations under the WRTP Specific Plan must meet City’s standards for turning radii, drive aisle width, and other road geometry and must comply with City landscaping standards requiring that vegetation be set back to maintain the line of sight. Maintaining adequate safety and operation at internal intersections and drive aisles and trimming the shrubbery and landscaping near the internal intersections and site access points would ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-51 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC

3. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subdivision (a), this section provides a specific finding for each potentially significant environmental impact and its associated mitigation measures.

The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings of Fact that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a lessthan-significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less-than-significant level are summarized below and herein incorporated by reference. Please refer to the Draft EIR and the Final EIR for more detail.

AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-3. Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-31 through 3.3-43.) Explanation: Construction activities and the operational phase of the WRTP Specific Plan could involve activities that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The WRTP Specific Plan Area is bordered by the Spring Lake Specific Plan development area to the north and east, which includes residential development and open space immediately adjacent to the WRTP Specific Plan Area. To the west is SR 113, with open space and agricultural land uses to the south and opposite SR 113. As the WRTP Specific Plan buildout occurs, sensitive land uses would be developed within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, including residential uses and parks and recreational facilities. These land uses could be built within proximity to other future construction sites, as well as operations of emissions generating activities from surrounding existing and future land uses.

Emissions and ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) have decreased substantially throughout California in the past three decades. The national statewide CO standard is attained statewide in California, and an exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS in the region was last recorded in 1993. This is primarily attributable to requirements for cleaner vehicle emissions. The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program has mandated increasingly lower emission levels for vehicles manufactured since 1973. Between 2000 and 2019, national average CO concentrations, as well as regional average CO concentrations in the California and Nevada region, have decreased by approximately 65 percent.

While ambient CO concentrations in the region have not exceeded NAAQS or CAAQS in many years, localized CO concentrations could still occur, particularly at intersections of high-volume roadways. Relevant screening metrics that serve as indicators of potential CO hotspots include whether a project would contribute to substantial traffic delays at or along high-volume intersections and roadways or contribute additional traffic to a unique setting in which mixing of air, and therefore pollutant dispersion, would be substantially limited, such as within a tunnel, underpass, urban street canyon, below-grade roadway, or other similar setting. Several air districts, including the surrounding Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, and Placer County Air Pollution Control District provide recommended screening methodologies as a conservative indication of whether implementation of a proposed project would result in localized CO emissions that would generate a hotspot and potentially significant impact. Traffic volumes at roads and streets affected by Specific Plan

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-52 City of Woodland
traffic would be substantially less than the historical Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Distict (SMAQMD) second-tier screening criterion of 31,600 vehicles per hour, as well as the above noted BAAQMD screening criterion of 44,000 vehicles per hour. In addition, the future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would not contribute to a tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, urban street canyon, below-grade roadway, or other locations where horizontal or vertical mixing of air would be substantially limited, and the mix of vehicle types at the intersections is not anticipated to be substantially different from the County average. Therefore, emissions of CO from local mobile sources generated by operations with future development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area would not result in, or substantially contribute to, emissions concentrations that exceed the ambient air quality standards for CO. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact from potential CO hotspots would be less than significant.

Heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, on-site generators, and construction worker vehicles associated with construction could generate diesel PM (DPM), which the CARB has identified as a TAC. Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvement areas would result in the construction of new buildings, structures, paved areas, roadways, utilities, and other improvements. Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area (e.g., at the project site) for a short period of time, but could also include linear infrastructure projects to support new land uses. Concentrations of mobile-source DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at a distance of approximately 500 feet. Therefore, even in intensive phases of construction, any potential substantial DPM concentrations would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the construction site.

For buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas, construction activities and related emissions would vary depending on the phase of construction (e.g., grading, building construction), and therefore, the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed would also vary throughout the construction period. Existing off-site residents and other sensitive receptors would only be within close proximity to construction activities associated with development near the perimeter of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Potential future on-site receptors are unknown at this time, but it is reasonable to assume future sensitive receptors may at some time be located in close proximity to future construction activities associated with buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Therefore, it is conservatively assumed that certain construction activities would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. This impact from construction-related TACs is considered potentially significant.

Certain land uses are more likely than others to generate substantial TAC emissions due to allowable activities within those land use designations. Residential land uses do not typically generate substantial TAC emissions.

Commercial land uses may potentially include stationary sources of TACs, such as dry-cleaning establishments and diesel-fueled back-up generators. Land uses that are more likely to generate substantial TAC emissions include industrial land uses that involve stationary sources and manufacturing processes. In addition, heavily trafficked roadways can serve as a TAC source due to the vehicle emissions, particularly DPM.

Future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area is anticipated to include mixed-use, residential, retail, commercial and industrial uses, as well as parks and open space. Commercial land uses may potentially include stationary sources of TACs, such as dry-cleaning establishments and diesel-fueled back-up generators. Land uses that are more likely to generate substantial TAC emissions include industrial land uses that involve stationary sources and manufacturing processes. Existing sources of DPM emissions within the WRTP Specific Plan Area include diesel-fueled agricultural vehicles and equipment and backup generators that serve agricultural wells. While these vehicles and equipment may continue as part of existing and ongoing agricultural operations until the land is

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-53 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
developed, these sources are limited and would, at the most, generate intermittent emissions proximate to future development. These uses are not considered a substantial TAC emissions source.

Mobile sources of TACs from future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area could include operational activities associated with planned land uses could require the use of diesel-fueled vehicles for extended periods, such as commercial trucking facilities or delivery/distribution areas, and thereby generate emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to DPM emissions. The DPM emissions generated by these uses could be produced primarily at single locations on a regular basis (e.g., loading dock areas). Occupants of nearby existing and proposed residences or other sensitive land uses could be exposed to DPM emissions on a recurring basis. Although commercial and industrial uses that would be developed under the WRTP Specific Plan have not been specifically identified, it is possible that uses developed under the WRTP Specific Plan could have tenants that would emit TACs during operations, such as through the operations of gasoline-dispensing facilities or diesel-fueled backup generators.

Exposure of existing or future sensitive receptors to operational TACs could occur due to proximity to operational sources of TACs associated with specific future land uses. Although land use designations within the WRTP Specific Plan Area are defined in Chapter 2 of the WRTP Specific Plan, specific proposed uses have not been determined at the time of this analysis. The Land Use Plan Layout for the WRTP Specific Plan generally separates incompatible land uses and applies permitting conditions to those that could have external effects. In addition, as detailed in Table 3.1 of the WRTP Specific Plan, specific land uses have been identified as permitted, subject to conditions, allowed as ancillary use, and not allowed within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Adherence to these allowed uses during siting and permitting of future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would reduce potential impacts to sensitive receptors that could otherwise reside or spend other time in proximity to operational sources of TACs. In addition, Section 3.3.2 of the WRTP Specific Plan contains performance standards, including Performance Standard D, with regard to odor, particulate matter, and air contaminants. This performance standard restricts the emissions of dust and particulate matter to the property lines from which it is generated, and requires that exhaust air ducts be located or directed away from abutting residentially-zoned properties. In addition, as described in Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan, large canopy shade trees will be provided along all major arterial and collector streets, to shade road surfaces and reduce the urban heat island effect. The design and location of trees and landscaping for homes shall consider opportunities for solar access and solar panels, as well as address shading and ventilation needs during hot summer months. Adjacent to SR-113, a landscaped buffer (20-foot when adjacent to commercial zones and 30-foot when adjacent to residential zones) shall be maintained, consisting of a mix of trees, low groundcover and vine training on all sound walls or highway adjacent perimeter fencing, further reducing the potential for exposure by sensitive land uses to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Due to uncertainty associated with specific development within each land use type identified within the WRTP Specific Plan, it is possible that development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area could general substantial TAC emissions as a result of long-term operations. It is possible that sensitive receptors could be located at distances from stationary sources that would expose them to substantial TAC concentrations. This TAC impact is considered potentially significant.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-54 City of Woodland
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3a: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b - Construction-Related Mobile Emissions Reductions for NOX and PM10 emissions.

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 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 California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) guidance concerning land use compatibility with regard to sources of TAC emissions, or CARB guidance as it may be updated in the future.

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 Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (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 transport refrigeration units (TRUs) continuing to operate at loading docks during loading and unloading operations;

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-55 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
• requiring the TAC-generating activity (e.g., loading docks) be located away from sensitive receptors; • 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 gasoline-dispensing facilities; • utilize vegetated buffers between substantial TAC-generating source locations and sensitive receptors.

If analysis demonstrates that construction activities associated with development of on-site 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 particulate matter (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 off-road diesel equipment operators shut down their engines rather than idle for more than five minutes; • documenting that all off-road equipment is compliant with the CARB in-use off-road diesel vehicle regulation;

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-56 City of Woodland
• 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.

Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measures 3.3-3a and 3.3-3b would reduce impacts associated with construction-related mobile emissions from construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks, and operational TAC sources, respectively. The WRTP Specific Plan would be compliant with General Plan Policy 7.F.3 that would discourage development in locations that would conflict with the buffer recommendations in the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. The buffer distances incorporated into Mitigation Measure 3.3-3b are consistent with guidance from CARB.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3c would ensure that future development that could generate TAC emissions during operations would evaluate and mitigate TAC emissions to ensure that sensitive receptors are not exposed to substantial TAC concentrations. This evaluation and mitigation design is only possible once projectspecific details for the TAC-generating use and the sensitive receptors are known. With the feasible actions outlined that have been demonstrated to substantially reduce exposure to TAC emissions and the clear performance standards included in this mitigation, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-43.) Impact 3.3-4. Generation of Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odors) Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-43 through 3.3-45.) Explanation: Future development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area could result in short-term odorous emissions from diesel exhaust generated by on-site construction equipment or from asphalt paving and architectural coating activities; this would be temporary and intermittent in nature and dissipate rapidly from the source. Operational activities of future land uses within the WRTP Specific Plan Area could involve odor sources. The WRTP Specific Plan would implement measures that would avoid exposure of a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. This impact is considered potentially significant.

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:

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-57 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
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 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District (SMAQMD) 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 and 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.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 would reduce impacts related to other emissions, such as those leading to odors, because siting measures imposed would avoid conflicts between odor emissions and sensitive receptors. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact would be less than significant.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1. Swainson’s Hawk, White-tailed Kite, and Burrowing Owl.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-24 through 3.4-26.) Explanation: WRTP Specific Plan implementation would result in loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and burrowing owl. Construction could disturb active nests on or near the construction area, potentially resulting in nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs. This impact is considered potentially significant.

Implementing the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvement areas would result in removal of up to approximately 310 acres of cultivated land under Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area Alternative 1 (i.e., 306 acres from the WRTP Specific Plan Area, plus up to 4.1 acres of impact related to the Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area Alternative 1), or up to 307 acres under Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area Alternative 2 (i.e., 306 acres from the WRTP Specific Plan Area, plus up to 1.1 acre of impact related to the Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area Alternative 2 ) that may provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and burrowing owl, which are covered under the Yolo HCP/NCCP. This habitat type is classified under the Cultivated Lands Seminatural Community under the Yolo HCP/NCCP, and includes lands that are cultivated for alfalfa, field crops, truck/berry crops, and grain/hay crops. Trees that provide potential nest sites for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and other raptors (discussed under Impact 3.4-2) would also be removed. All raptors and their nests are protected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Common raptors that could nest on or near

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-58 City of Woodland
the WRTP Specific Plan Area include red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, and barn owl. Impacts to and mitigation measures for common raptors are provided under Impact 3.4-2. No burrowing owl were observed during the reconnaissance visits; however, ground squirrel burrows were observed along the southern slope of the Farmers Central Ditch near the western boundary of the Caltrans off-site improvement area, and under valley oak trees in the traffic median immediately southeast of the CR 25A overpass. Burrowing owl could also use a debris pile observed in the vicinity of a warehouse within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, and a pile of broken concrete in the southwest traffic median in the Caltrans off-site improvement area, as nesting and cover habitat. Furthermore, small mammal burrows (gopher/vole sized) were found in friable soils along the slopes of a ditch immediately adjacent to, but outside of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, within the dry roadside ditches along CR 25A and along the interior slopes of the SR 113/CR 25A traffic medians that could be used by burrowing owls in the future. Burrowing owls need burrows at all times to survive, and displacing individuals from their burrows can result in indirect impacts such as predation, increased energetic costs, increased stress, and risks associated with having to find and compete for burrows, all of which can lead to take or reduced reproduction. Vegetation removal, grading, and other construction activities could result in mortality of burrowing owl individuals and nest abandonment. If trees are to be removed during the breeding season for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite, mortality of eggs and chicks could result if an active nest were present. In addition, project construction could disturb active nests near the construction area, potentially resulting in nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs.

Swainson’s hawks generally nest within two miles of suitable foraging habitat, which consists of alfalfa, disked fields, fallow fields, dry-land pasture, beets, tomatoes, irrigated pasture, grains, other row crops, and uncultivated grasslands (Estep 1989, Estep pers. comm. 2007, Estep 2009). The most important foraging habitat lies within a one-mile radius of each nest (City of Sacramento et. al 2003: Appendix H, page 5-29). However, Swainson’s hawks have been recorded foraging up to 18.6 miles from nest sites (Estep 1989) and foraging habitat within 10 miles of an active nest is generally considered to be important to supporting the reproductive success of that pair. According to the Yolo HCP/NCCP, the WRTP Specific Plan Area is within modeled agricultural foraging and nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk, and secondary foraging habitat for white-tailed kite (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). There are 17 nesting Swainson’s hawk records within 2 miles of the study area. There is one occurrence of an active nest (within the last 5 years) within 1 mile of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The loss of up to 307 to 310 acres (the greater of which is due to Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area Alternative 1 resulting in 4.1 acres of impact as opposed to Alternative 2 resulting in 1.1 acres of impact) of foraging habitat (i.e., cultivated fields) from the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas could affect nesting success, survival rates, and availability of prey for the local population, or result in displacement of nesting pairs of Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite.

Therefore, the loss of foraging habitat resulting from development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area is considered a potentially significant impact. Project construction could result in direct destruction of an active Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, or other raptor nest or disturb nesting raptors located on or near the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvement areas, resulting in nest abandonment by adult birds and abandonment of chicks and eggs, causing mortality. Direct and indirect impacts on active raptor nests or burrows are considered potentially significant. Mitigation for impacts to nesting common raptors is included under Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a (Avoid Direct Loss of Protected Bird Nests).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Swainson’s Hawk and WhiteTailed Kite
a. In accordance with AMM 16 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct species-specific 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

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-59 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
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. 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 constructionrelated 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 whitetailed 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.

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.

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 avoidance and minimization measures (AMM) 18 of the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct species-specific surveys and within

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-60 City of Woodland
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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (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 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
The Yolo HCP/NCCP generally defines low, medium, and high levels of disturbances of burrowing owls as follows.
• Low: Typically 71–80 decibels (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.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-61 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
In accordance with AMM 18 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 the 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 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 occupied3 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). 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 3 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.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-62 City of Woodland
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 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) 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.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementing Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a through 3.4-1c would reduce significant impacts on Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and burrowing owl to a less-than-significant level because it would ensure that these species are not disturbed during nesting so that project construction would not result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young and implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would not result in decreased reproductive success of Swainson’s hawks. These measures would also ensure that Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat would be preserved at the appropriate ratio of habitat value lost, consistent with the conservation strategy of the Yolo HCP/NCCP (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). The in-lieu fees paid by the City for loss of

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-63 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat would help achieve the Yolo HCP/NCCP Goal SH1 to provide for the conservation of Swainson’s hawk in the Plan Area. The WRTP Specific Plan will be implemented in accordance with the Yolo HCP/NCCP avoidance and minimization measures. Through payment of HCP/NCCP fees or equivalent mitigation, the WRTP Specific Plan will contribute to the HCP/NCCP’s conservation strategy, thereby benefiting the above-listed covered species. Therefore, with incorporation of HCP/NCCP fees or equivalent mitigation and adherence to other HCP/NCCP avoidance and minimization measures, the WRTP Specific Plan’s individual impacts and its contribution to cumulative impacts to covered species are less than significant.

Impact 3.4-2. Special-Status and Migratory Nesting Birds and Raptors.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-30 through 3.4-32.) Explanation: WRTP Specific Plan implementation would result in potential loss of wintering habitat for mountain plover and loss of potential foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird and loss of potential nesting and foraging habitat for common migratory birds and raptors. Construction could disturb active nests on or near the construction area, potentially resulting in nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs. This impact is considered potentially significant.

Mountain plover may winter in mowed ruderal areas (i.e., urban ruderal and semiagricultural/incidental to agriculture land cover types under the Yolo HCP/NCCP) and cultivated lands in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas. Tricolored blackbirds nest colonially in marshes, riparian scrub, and other areas that support cattails or dense thickets of shrubs or herbs, such as blackberry. Ideal breeding habitats consist of a suitable nesting substrate surrounded by foraging habitats in annual grasslands, shrublands, or agricultural fields that produce large numbers of grasshoppers, dragonflies, and other large insects, with a source of surface water nearby (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, Meese 2014, cited in Beedy and Meese 2015). Tricolored blackbirds are known to forage up to 3 miles from active breeding colonies (Beedy and Meese 2015). No suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird was observed within the study area or in a 1,300-foot buffer the study area during biological surveys. According to the Yolo HCP/NCCP tricolored blackbird modeled habitat, there is no nesting habitat within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, but suitable foraging habitat is present (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). The closest known active breeding colony is located approximately 2 miles east of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and was estimated to contain a breeding colony of 7,000 tricolored blackbirds in 2014 (CNDDB 2017). Implementing the WRTP Specific Plan would result in removal of up to approximately 310 acres of cultivated lands that may provide potential suitable foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird and wintering habitat for mountain plover. Loss of this cultivated land would not substantially affect nesting success or survival rates of tricolored blackbird and survival rates of mountain plover because approximately 5 miles south and at least 7 miles east and west of the WRTP Specific Plan Area consists of agricultural land that provides many times the acres of potential foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird and wintering habitat for mountain plover than that provided in the WRTP Specific Plan Area.

Therefore, the loss of foraging habitat resulting from development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area is considered a less-than-significant impact. All raptors and their nests are protected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Common raptors that could nest on or near the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas include red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, and barn owl. If trees are to be removed during the raptor breeding season (February – August), mortality of eggs and chicks of tree-nesting raptors could result if an active next were present. In addition, project construction could disturb active nests near the construction area, potentially resulting in nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs. Construction resulting from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan could disturb active bird nests in and near the construction area, potentially resulting in

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-64 City of Woodland
nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs. Tree and vegetation removal and structure removal could result in the direct destruction of active nests of birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Loss of common migratory birds and raptors (those not meeting the definition of special-status as provided above) would not be a significant impact under CEQA, but mitigation to avoid the loss of active nests of these species is required for compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code.

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 project-related 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.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b Significance after Mitigation: Implementing Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 would avoid disturbing birds during nesting so that project construction would not result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young and would ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Loss of common migratory birds and raptors (those not meeting the definition of special status as provided above) would not be a significant impact under CEQA, but mitigation would avoid the loss of active nests of these species, consistent with the requirements of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b would require developers for each individual project within the WRTP Specific Plan Area are responsible for applying for the HCP/NCCP coverage

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-65 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
and payment of development-based fees to fund mitigation that will offset losses of land cover types, covered species habitat, and other biological values.

These one-time fees pay for the full cost of mitigating project effects on the covered species and natural communities. Implementing Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b would reduce significant impacts on foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird and wintering habitat for mountain plover to a less-than-significant level because it would ensure that foraging habitat (i.e., 310 acres of cultivated lands) would be preserved at the appropriate ratio of habitat value lost, consistent with the conservation strategy of the Yolo HCP/NCCP.

Impact 3.4-3. Loss of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) Larvae and Habitat.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-32 through 3.4-34.) Explanation: WRTP Specific Plan implementation could result in the loss of elderberry found in the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The elderberry shrub is potential habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetle and removal of the shrub could result in direct loss of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) larvae and habitat. This impact is considered potentially significant.

A single elderberry shrub was identified along the western boundary of the WRTP Specific Plan Area during the 2017 reconnaissance survey that has the potential to support valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). Additional elderberry shrubs could become established in the WRTP Specific Plan Area by the time future construction projects are implemented. This species is entirely dependent on its host plant, the elderberry shrub (Sambucus spp.), during its life cycle. The majority of the species’ life is spent in larval form within the stem of an elderberry plant. If an elderberry shrub is removed as part of the WRTP Specific Plan implementation – either the existing shrub or one that becomes established in the future, loss of valley elderberry longhorn beetle larvae and loss of habitat could occur. Indirect impacts from ground-disturbing activities or use of herbicides could also result if the health of elderberry shrubs containing valley elderberry longhorn beetle larvae is adversely affected. This impact is considered potentially significant. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) (2017b), recommends conducting a habitat assessment and appropriate surveys to determine VELB occupancy of elderberry shrubs(s) in a project site. This includes assessing potential habitat within the range of VELB to determine if the habitat is riparian or non-riparian habitat and conducting exit hole surveys to further determine potential occupancy. The elderberry shrub in the WRTP Specific Plan Area is in non-riparian habitat. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 is consistent with the VELB AMM described in the Yolo HCP/NCCP (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

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. AMM 1 of the Yolo

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-66 City of Woodland
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.
• 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Transplantation procedure:
a. 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.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-67 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
b. 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).

Significance after Mitigation: Implementing Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts on VELB to a less-than-significant level because all elderberry shrubs would be mapped and impacts would be avoided and if impacts cannot be avoided, compensatory mitigation will be required. The WRTP Specific Plan will be implemented in accordance with the Yolo HCP/NCCP avoidance and minimization measures. Therefore, with incorporation of HCP/NCCP equivalent mitigation and adherence to other HCP/NCCP avoidance and minimization measures, WRTP Specific Plan’s individual impacts and its contribution to cumulative impacts to covered species would be less than significant.

Impact 3.4-4. Loss of Bat Roosts, and Special-status Bats.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.34 through 3.4-35.) Explanation: WRTP Specific Plan implementation would allow development that could result in the removal of human-made structures and trees that may support bat roosts. If these structures or trees are used by bats as a day roost, hibernation roost, or maternity colony roost, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan could result in loss of a roost, or injury and mortality of pallid bat or western red bat. This impact is considered potentially significant.

The almond orchard (i.e., the deciduous fruits/nuts land cover type under the Yolo HCP/NCCP) and other trees in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas could provide day, hibernation, or maternity roosting habitat for western red bat and other common foliage roosting bat species. Several structures in the WRTP Specific Plan Area, including an old barn and trailer, could also provide day, hibernation, or maternity roosting habitat for pallid bat or other common bat species. Both the western red bat and pallid bat are CDFW species of special concern.

Direct adverse effects on these special-status bat species may occur during construction, when tree removal and road improvements occur. The bat maternity season is from May 1 to August 31 and the overwintering season from November 1 to March 15. Loss of a maternity roost, regardless of species, could adversely affect a regional population of a species that reproduces very slowly. This impact is considered potentially significant.

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

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-68 City of Woodland
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.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementing Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts on bat roosts and special-status bat species, including pallid bat and western red bat, to a less-than-significant level because appropriate avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented.

Impact 3.4-5. Loss and Degradation of State or Federally Protected Wetlands.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, PP. 3.4-35 through 3.4-37.) Explanation: Implementing the WRTP Specific Plan could result in conversion of land that currently supports waterways to developed land. These waters may be subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and/or may be considered waters of the state by the Central Valley RWQCB.

This impact is considered potentially significant.

Implementing the WRTP Specific Plan would allow development in areas that currently support agricultural and roadside ditches. Impacts on waters could occur through habitat conversion, encroachment, routine maintenance, or other activities in the immediate vicinity of waterways. Land conversion could result in direct fill of waters.

Indirect impacts could result from adjacent development that leads to habitat modifications, such as changes in hydrology and reduction in water quality caused by urban runoff, erosion, and siltation. It is possible that some waterways in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas would qualify as waters of the United States due to hydrological connectivity to navigable waters (e.g., the Sacramento River via Willow Slough) or adjacency to other waters of the United States; however, some waters may be disclaimed by the USACE as isolated waters or may be excluded from regulation under the Clean Water Act. Ditches, including agricultural ditches that were not constructed in streams, are not modified streams, do not drain wetlands, and have only ephemeral or intermittent flows are generally excluded from the Clean Water Act according to the Clean Water Rule issued July 13, 2015 (80 Federal Register [FR] 37053). The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (2020 Final Rule) (85 Federal Register [FR] 22250) outlines four clear jurisdictional categories of waters considered “waters of the United States.” These four categories are defined as follows:
• Territorial Seas and Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs)—all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, or waters that are presently used, have been used in the past, or may be used in the future to transport interstate or foreign commerce, and all waters that are navigable in fact under federal law for any purpose; • Tributaries— rivers, streams, or similar naturally occurring surface water channels that contribute surface water flow in a typical year either directly or indirectly through another water, including an impoundment or adjacent wetlands, to a TNW, interstate waters or wetlands, or a territorial sea. A tributary must be perennial or intermittent in a typical year;
• Lakes and Ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters - standing bodies of open water that contribute surface water flow in a typical year either directly or indirectly through another water to a TNW, interstate waters or wetlands, or a territorial sea.
• Adjacent Wetlands—waters bordering, contiguous with, or neighboring jurisdictional waters, including waters separated by natural river berms, banks, dunes or similar natural feature, or constructed dikes or

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-69 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
barriers or the like, so long as that structure allows for a direct hydrologic surface connection between the wetlands and the waters in a typical year, such as through a culvert, flood or tide gate, pump, or similar artificial feature. An adjacent wetland is jurisdictional in its entirety when a road or similar artificial structure divides the wetland, as long as the structure allows for a direct hydrologic surface connection through or over that structure in a typical year.

Any waters disclaimed by the USACE would still be subject to regulation by Central Valley RWQCB as waters of the state, and impacts to waters of the state would require mitigation. For work in the Caltrans right-of-way at the Caltrans off-site improvement area, standard BMPs will be implemented as required under the Construction General Permit and Caltrans MS4 Permit. Compliance with the requirements of these permits and adherence to the conditions would reduce or avoid potentially significant construction-related impacts in this off-site improvement area (Caltrans 2013). For other portions of the study area where implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan could result in development of land that currently supports waterways the impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Avoid Loss of and Degradation of Federally Protected Waters • 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.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementing Mitigation Measure 3.4-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts on potentially jurisdictional water features, to a less-than-significant level because implementation of the Best Management Practices (BMPs), and permit conditions, and mitigation requirements will avoid, minimize and mitigate for impacts on jurisdictional waters.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.6-2. Disturb Human Remains, including those Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-14 through 3.6-15.) Explanation: The WRTP Specific Plan would result in development and infrastructure improvement projects throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas that would involve earthmoving activities

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-70 City of Woodland
that could impact human remains. There is the potential for discovery of human remains during construction. This impact is considered potentially significant.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.6-29 to 4.6-32) discusses potential impacts related to the disturbance of human remains from implementation of the General Plan. The 2035 General Plan EIR identifies existing regulations and includes 2035 General Plan Goal 7.E and Policies 7.E.1 and 7.E.2 that would reduce impacts.

However, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that potential impacts related to the discovery of human remains during implementation of the General Plan, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-2, would be significant and unavoidable. The WRTP Specific Plan plans for development and infrastructure improvement projects throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas that would involve grading, trenching, excavation, soil stockpiling, and other earthmoving activities that could impact human remains. Although there is presently no indication that any particular area in the WRTP Specific Plan Area or off-site improvement areas has been used for human burial purposes outside of designated cemeteries in the recent or distant past, there is nonetheless the potential for discovery during construction of development and infrastructure under the WRTP Specific Plan. As described, these existing regulations will reduce potential impacts associated with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan by requiring a stop to potentially damaging excavation. However, human remains can occur below ground with little or no surface manifestation. Therefore, the potential for the WRTP Specific Plan to result in the disturbance of human remains is considered potentially significant.

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

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-71 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
(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.

Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 would reduce the potential impacts in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains. In addition, records searches, Native American consultation, and intensive pedestrian field survey did not indicate that the WRTP Specific Plan Area or off-site improvement areas are sensitive for buried human remains. Therefore, although human remains can occur below ground with little or no surface manifestation, encountering such during buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan is considered unlikely. If buried human remains are encountered during construction without prior discovery, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 and compliance with regulatory requirements reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level

GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERALS RESOURCES, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 3.7-1. Possible Damage to or Destruction of Unique Paleontological Resources.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-13 through 3.7-15.) Explanation: Most of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and all of the proposed SR 113/County Road 25A interchange area are underlain by Holocene-age rock formations, which are not paleontologically sensitive. However, the southern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the proposed South Regional Pond would be constructed in paleontologically sensitive rock formations. This impact is considered potentially significant.

Most of the WRTP Specific Plan Area is underlain by Holocene-age Levee, Channel, and Basin Deposits.

Furthermore, the geotechnical report prepared by Crawford & Associates (2020) demonstrated, based on the results of site-specific soil borings, that only Holocene-age deposits are present at the proposed SR 113/County Road 25A interchange improvements. As a common industry threshold, a fossil is typically considered a unique paleontological resource if it is more than 11,700 years old (i.e., the generally accepted end of the last glacial period of the Pleistocene Epoch). Holocene deposits contain only the remains of extant, modern taxa (if any resources are present), which are not considered “unique” paleontological resources. Therefore, earth-moving activities in the Levee, Channel, and Basin Deposits throughout most of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, and the entirety of the proposed Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area, would have no impact on unique paleontological resources.

However, a mixture of the Riverbank and Modesto Formations is present in the southern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and at the proposed South Regional Pond. As presented above in Table 3.7-1 and discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.7-4 (pages 4.7-33 and 4.7-34) (City of Woodland 2016b), due to the

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-72 City of Woodland
large number of vertebrate fossils recovered from these formations throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, including the vicinity of Woodland, these formations are considered paleontologically sensitive. General Plan Policies 7.E.1 and 7.E.2 are designed to help avoid impacts to paleontological resources. Earth-moving activities in the Riverbank and Modesto formations have the potential to accidentally damage or destroy unique paleontological resources, and the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact was significant. For the same reasons discussed herein, WRTP Specific Plan and proposed South Regional Pond impacts to unique paleontological resources from earth-moving activities in the Riverbank and Modesto Formations are considered potentially significant.

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 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.

Significance after Mitigation: This mitigation measure is consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 (pages 4.7-34 and 4.7-35). Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 would reduce the impacts of WRTP Specific Plan and associated offsite infrastructure implementation on unique paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level because construction workers would be alerted to the possibility of encountering paleontological resources and, in the event that resources were discovered, fossil specimens would be recovered and recorded and would undergo appropriate curation.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-73 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC

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.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-16 through 3.8-20.) Explanation: The WRTP Specific Plan Area includes above-ground storage tanks containing fuels and chemicals; several small sheds; a large building where equipment is stored and maintained; water wells and associated equipment; residual pesticides from agricultural activities in soils; and a residence with an on-site septic system and the potential for asbestos and lead-based paint. Construction of the off-site improvements could result in exposure to lead-based paint, aerially-deposited lead in soils, chemically-treated wood residue, and residual pesticides from agricultural activities in soils. Therefore, workers and members of the public could be exposed to hazards during construction activities from accidental releases of hazardous materials. This impact is considered potentially significant.

Federal, State, and local regulations and City of Woodland General Plan Policies 3.I.1, 3.I.2, 8.E.1, 8.E.2, 8.E.3, and 8.E.4 (many of which are described in detail in Section 3.8.3, “Regulatory Framework” of the EIR) are designed to reduce the potential for adverse impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials, including risks associated with future operation of the various types of land uses that are proposed as part of the WRTP Specific Plan. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this impact was less than significant. As described in detail in the “Environmental Setting” above, a search of State and federal hazardous materials databases indicated there are no known hazardous materials sites within 0.5 mile of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, proposed off-site South Regional Pond, or the proposed off-site SR 113/CR 25A interchange improvements (DTSC 2020, SWRCB 2020, EPA 2020).

Caltrans has entered into an agreement with DTSC to ensure the safe reuse of soils contaminated with aeriallydeposited lead during construction of highway projects. The agreement requires Caltrans to sample and test soils for lead content, place a certain volume of cover material on top of the soils when the lead content is above specified levels, place the soils only in areas that are at least 5 feet above the maximum water table elevation, cover leadcontaining soil stockpiles with plastic until the soil is reused, and properly dispose of excavated soils that are not reused (DTSC 2016a). Because Caltrans is required to implement the conditions of the Soil Management Agreement for Aerially Deposited Lead-Contaminated Soils (DTSC 2016b) per California Health and Safety Code 25187(b)(5), impacts from human health and environmental exposure to aerially-deposited lead at the off-site Caltrans SR 113/CR 25A interchange are considered less than significant. Geocon (2020) noted that concrete, asphalt, and expansion joint fill material at the Caltrans SR 113/CR 25A interchange bridge structure may contain asbestos; asbestos-containing pipe may be also present within the bridge structure; roadway traffic striping at the interchange may contain lead and chromium; and treated-wood guardrail posts are present at the interchange.

Asbestos, lead in traffic striping, and treated-wood waste require proper handling and disposal in accordance with State and federal regulatory requirements. Design and construction of the off-site SR 113/CR 25A intersection improvements are regulated by Caltrans, and would comply with requirements related to the proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials contained in the Standard Plans and Specifications (Caltrans 2018). Therefore, impacts from human health and environmental exposure to asbestos, lead-based paint, and treated wood at the offsite Caltrans SR 113/CR 25A interchange are considered less than significant. As described in detail in the “Environmental Setting” above, based on the results of a site-specific Phase I ESA (Geocon 2018:12–13), the WRTP Specific Plan Area includes several above-ground storage tanks containing fuels and fertilizers; a large building where equipment is stored and maintained; several small sheds; numerous agricultural water wells and

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-74 City of Woodland
associated equipment; an older existing residence and barn (with a domestic water well); and a former residence that has been demolished. Although the current property owner indicated that the large storage building is not used to store agricultural chemicals, Geocon was not provided with access to the interior of the 1,500-square-foot storage building or any of the smaller storage sheds. Since the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site South Regional Pond site, as well as the areas that would be acquired for improvements adjacent to the existing SR 113/CR25A interchange, have been in agricultural use for decades, the potential exists for elevated levels of residual agricultural chemicals to be present in the soil. This is particularly true for the southern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site South Regional Pond site, which consist of an almond orchard. Orchards and orchard-cultivated soils generally require the repeated application of higher levels of agricultural chemicals to fruit or nut trees. Geocon conducted a limited Phase II screening-level pesticide assessment for soils in the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Geocon obtained 20 soils samples from locations throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area, including two soil samples from the southeastern parcel where the almond orchard is located. The results indicated that trace amounts of 4,4´-DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), 4,4´-DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene), and dieldrin were present in WRTP Specific Plan Area soils. Because the proposed South Regional Pond and the areas that would be acquired for improvements adjacent to the existing SR 113/CR 25A interchange have also been in agricultural use for decades, it is likely that similar residual pesticides are present in those locations as well. DDT was used as an insecticide prior to 1972, when it was banned by EPA. DDE is a byproduct of the breakdown of DDT. Dieldrin was used as an insecticide on crops until 1974, when it was also banned by EPA. The amounts of DDT, DDE, and dieldrin detected at the WRTP Specific Plan Area do not exceed EPA screening levels for residential land uses, and the same is likely the case for the adjacent South Regional Pond site. The Phase II pesticide assessment also found arsenic in all of the 20 WRTP Specific Plan Area soil samples at concentrations that exceed DTSC’s Health and Ecological Risk screening level. However, because arsenic is widely found in soil as a result of the natural geologic weathering cycle, arsenic levels are generally compared to standardized “background” concentration levels as part of a risk assessment. The amount of arsenic in the soil in the WRTP Specific Plan Area does not exceed DTSC’s arsenic background screening levels, and the same is likely the case for the off-site improvement areas. Therefore, Geocon determined there is no evidence that a hazard exists to human health or the environment from on-site agricultural chemicals, and further testing in the WRTP Specific Plan Area is not necessary (Geocon 2018:13–15).

Based on the similar nature of crops and the time period of agricultural use at the off-site improvement areas, residual metal and pesticide levels are likely similar to those found in the WRTP Specific Plan Area, and thus residual metal (arsenic) and agricultural pesticides in the off-site improvement areas would not represent a human health or environmental hazard. Geocon noted that any unused agricultural and domestic wells, along with septic systems in the WRTP Specific Plan Area should be properly abandoned per Yolo County permit requirements, which are designed to reduce adverse impacts to the environment such as leaks and spills of hazardous materials during the decommissioning process. Due to the age of the on-site residence and barn, asbestos and lead-based paint could be encountered during demolition activities. Therefore, Geocon recommended that an asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint survey be completed prior to demolition. Finally, Geocon determined that one REC is present at the project site: the diesel above-ground storage tank associated with the agricultural well on the East Central Parcel in the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Geocon recommended that this tank be removed, replaced with a double-walled tank, or placed within secondary containment to prevent further releases. Because soil staining was observed, soils around the tank should be tested, and if the soil has been contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, it should be removed and properly disposed of (Geocon 2018:15). Furthermore, the on-site agricultural residence may have septic system which, if not cleaned and closed properly, could result in exposure of construction workers and future residents to hazardous materials. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this impact is considered potentially significant.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-75 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
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 offsite South Regional Pond shall be required to comply with the remedial action plan and all applicable federal, State, and local laws. 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 Environmental Management Department (EMD), Central Valley RWQCB, Department of Toxic Substances Control (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 California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (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

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-76 City of Woodland
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 Environmental Protection Agency (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.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementing Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 would reduce the potentially significant impact from accidental release of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level, consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, because potentially hazardous materials would be identified; a site management plan that specifies remediation activities and procedures to appropriately identify, stockpile, handle, reuse, and/or remove and dispose of hazardous materials would be prepared and implemented; and hazardous materials that are encountered would be removed and properly disposed of or otherwise remediated by licensed contractors in accordance with federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

Impact 3.8-2. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-20 through 3.8-22.) Explanation: Existing schools are located approximately 300 feet and 0.3 mile from the WRTP Specific Plan boundary. The WRTP Specific Plan accommodates up to 10 acres for a future school in the medium density residential zone at the southwestern corner of Parkland Avenue and Harry Lorenzo Avenue. The WRTP Specific Plan also includes retail, commercial, and light industrial land uses that may use and store hazardous materials.

Because the exact types of businesses and the exact types and quantities of hazardous materials that may be used by these businesses in the future cannot be known at this time, this impact is considered potentially significant.

The privately owned and operated Woodland Christian School (grades K–12), located at 1787 Matmor Road, is approximately 300 feet northwest of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, on the west side of SR 113. Pioneer High School (part of the Woodland Joint Unified Public School District), located at 1400 Pioneer Avenue, is approximately 0.3- mile northeast of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The WRTP Specific Plan accommodates up to 10 acres for a future school in the medium density residential zone at the southwestern corner of Parkland Avenue and Harry Lorenzo Avenue. The relevant school district (or the private entity responsible for operating the school if it is privately owned) would be responsible for conducting the appropriate site-specific analysis required by the California Department of Education to determine the suitability of the potential school site, before moving forward with improvement plans. Under Public Resources Code Section 21151.4, unless certain conditions are first met, an EIR or mitigated negative declaration may not be certified or adopted for a project within one-quarter mile of a school if a project would involve constructing or altering facilities that meet any of the following criteria:
► might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions (i.e., toxic air contaminants);

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-77 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
► would handle an extremely hazardous substance or a mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the State threshold quantity specified in Section 25532(j) of the California Health and Safety Code; or
► may pose a health or safety hazard to persons who would attend or would be employed at the school.

For an EIR to be certified or mitigated negative declaration to be adopted for such a project, both of the following must have already occurred:

1. The lead agency preparing the EIR must have consulted with the school district with jurisdiction about the potential impact of the project on the school.

2. The school district must have been notified about the project in writing at least 30 days before the proposed certification of the EIR or adoption of the mitigated negative declaration.

Proposed land uses in the WRTP Specific Plan Area include Village Center (retail or mixed use); Commercial– Business Park, Office, Research, High-Tech, or Light Industrial Flex; and Commercial–Highway. These facilities may handle hazardous substances, although they would not be expected to handle large quantities of acutely hazardous substances since the WRTP Specific Plan Area does not include zoning for heavy industrial land uses.

However, because the exact businesses that would be operating in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the types and quantities of hazardous materials that may be used by those businesses cannot be known at this time, in order to be conservative, this impact is considered potentially significant.

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 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.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementing Mitigation Measure 3.8-2, along with compliance with other regulations, guidelines, and laws related to hazardous materials use, handling, transport, and disposal (discussed in the “Regulatory Framework” section above) would reduce the impact related to handling of hazardous materials

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-78 City of Woodland
within one-quarter mile of a school to a less-than-significant level, consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, because affected schools would be notified prior to the start of construction activities, and proper hazardous materials spill prevention techniques would be implemented during construction and operational activities. Furthermore, the relevant school district (or the private entity responsible for operating the school if it is privately owned) would be responsible for conducting the appropriate site-specific analysis required by the California Department of Education to determine the suitability of the potential school site, before moving forward with improvement plans.

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.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-18 through 3.9-22.) Explanation: Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site supporting infrastructure would increase the rate and amount of surface water runoff (primarily from construction of new impervious surfaces), which could exceed the capacity of stormwater conveyance systems, result in on-site or off-site flooding, and result in additional sources of polluted runoff. This impact is considered potentially significant.

As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-3 (pages 4.9-43 through 4.9-47) (City of Woodland 2016b), new urban development on currently undeveloped land would result in alteration of site-specific drainage patterns, which in turn could result in erosion, sedimentation, and on-site or downstream flooding. Increased peak flow rates may exceed drainage system capacities, exacerbate erosion in overland flow and drainage swales and creeks, and result in downstream sedimentation. Sedimentation, in turn, could increase the rate of deposition in natural receiving waters and reduce conveyance capacities, resulting in an increased risk of flooding. Erosion of upstream areas and related downstream sedimentation typically leads to adverse changes to water quality and hydrology.

The addition of impervious surfaces and drainage infrastructure from urbanization results in increased runoff volumes and dry weather flows, increased frequency and number of runoff events, and increased long-term cumulative duration of flows, as well as increased peak flows. However, 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 Drainage Master Plan was updated in 2017, and revised 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 2016a) 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

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-79 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
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 net-increase 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). Furthermore, a SWPPP would be required in compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit and would include BMPs to avoid construction-related erosion and sedimentation on- or off-site. Furthermore, implementation of General Plan Goal 5.I and Policies 5.I.1, 5.I.3, 5.I.4,

5.I.5, 5.I.7, and 7.A.4 are also designed to reduce on-site and downstream erosion and sedimentation and alteration of drainage patterns. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR included Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 (page 4.9-47), which recommended adoption of General Plan Policy 5.I.4 related to implementation of LID features to improve stormwater quality. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that after incorporation of General Plan Policy

5.I.4, the impact would be less than significant (City of Woodland 2001:Section 6).

The City has determined that a new off-site regional detention basin, called the South Regional Pond, is necessary to detain a portion of the stormwater flows from the WRTP Specific Plan Area as well as future planned growth.

The proposed South Regional Pond would detain stormwater flows from a portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area.

The South Regional Pond would be constructed to a size of approximately 4 acres, and would be located adjacent to and east of the southern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, south of County Road 25A (Cunningham Engineering 2020). Because the South Regional Pond is outside of (but adjacent to) the City’s Planning Area boundary, it was not included as part of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Construction of the proposed South Regional Pond would include clearing, excavating, and grading of the basin, and installing inflow and outflow structures. The City would perform periodic maintenance activities once the basin is operational. The potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating the South Regional Pond are evaluated in all of the topic area sections throughout the EIR. Preliminary stormwater engineering, in the form of a Stormwater Management Technical Memorandum, has been performed for the WRTP Specific Plan Area and surrounding areas that drain to the WRTP Specific Plan Area (Cunningham Engineering 2020). Stormwater in the northern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area drains to the east. As part of the Spring Lake Specific Plan, stormwater from the northerly portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area was planned for future drainage to and detention in the existing off-site East Regional Pond, which was sized at the time of construction to accommodate flows from this portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area with proposed development. The East Regional Pond functions as a water quality treatment basin and serves to attenuate postdevelopment peak flows for a 100-year storm/10-day event (as required by the City). Furthermore, underground drainage pipelines adjacent to the WRTP Specific Plan Area to the east, in the Spring Lake development, were sized to accommodate projected future stormwater drainage outflows from development in the northern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. A small portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area adjacent to SR 113 would be required to completely retain, detain, and treat all of the stormwater flows that are generated within this approximately 30- acre area using LID measures and distributed water quality BMPs (to allow the large central proposed park area to fully function as a park, rather than integrating a detention basin). An existing unlined, on-site drainage channel along the east side of SR 113 would be modified (to a wider and deeper trapezoidal channel) to carry a portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area’s stormwater flows southward to a new underground drainage pipe, that would cross underneath County Road 25A and discharge to the South Regional Pond. An approximately 4-acre on-site water quality and hydromodification basin would be constructed in the southeast corner of the WRTP Specific Plan Area; this basin would receive flows from the southeastern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. A new on-site underground drainage pipeline would be installed south of County Road 25A to convey flows in this area eastward to the proposed South Regional Pond. A network of appropriately