Woodland City Council
September 5, 2023

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-80 City of Woodland
sized underground drainage pipelines would be installed throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area to convey stormwater flows to the on-site and off-site basins. Flows from the proposed on-site basin in the southeast corner and proposed South Regional Pond would be conveyed eastward along County Road 25A to the existing South Canal, where flows are conveyed northward to the City’s storm drainage pumping facility at the intersection of County Road 103 and East Main Street. From the East Regional Pond (which would accept stormwater from the northern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area as described above), stormwater is conveyed from the pond to the Gibson Canal, then to the South Canal northward to the City’s storm drainage pumping facility. From the pumping facility, all City flows are conveyed eastward to an outfall channel that discharges directly into the Yolo Bypass, approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the WRTP Specific Plan Area (City of Woodland 2006a: Map 14).

The City of Woodland Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area (City of Woodland 2018) estimates that 30 cubic feet per second of pumping and construction of the North Regional Pond will accommodate the buildout of the Spring Lake Specific Plan plus approximately 80 additional acres of currently unbuilt residential development, flowing to the existing Farmers Central Channel. It is assumed that non-residential development could alternatively be accommodated, as long as the development acreage is hydrologically equivalent to 80 acres of residential use. Based on the modeling conducted for the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan South Urban Growth Area, development of more than the equivalent of 80 acres within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would trigger further improvements to the new pump station constructed near the site of the existing South Canal Pump Station, the East Main Channel, and the Yolo Bypass Outfall. However, in support of the more recent ongoing update of the City’s Citywide Storm Drainage Facility Master Plan, Wood Rodgers provided preliminary findings to the City for revised baseline conditions from the overall City modeling being performed for the City’s North Area. The findings of this recent downstream analysis indicate that the amount of developable acreage is likely higher without implementation of these downstream improvements. With the full combination of the North and South Areas of the City and the incorporation of the 2009 Yolo County rainfall, the South Area conditions have changed along the High Line Ditch. In the revised simulation, the volume of water spilling over the High Line Ditch under baseline is greater than previously estimated. With the recently installed infrastructure and a higher allowable spill over the High Line Ditch, it is anticipated that more than 80 acres of development in the South Area can occur before triggering new improvements (Nick Ponticello, personal communication, February 22, 2021). To extend development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area beyond the 80-acre residential equivalent, additional study will be necessary, if downstream improvements are not yet operational.

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), as well as the Caltrans NPDES permit issued by SWRCB (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000003). Although only a small amount of additional impervious surfaces would be created by the proposed interchange improvements, the stormwater runoff from these improvements would flow onto the surrounding areas including the WRTP Specific Plan Area, and therefore must be included in stormwater planning for the WRTP Specific Plan.

Operational water quality treatment design for the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be addressed by implementing a combination of LID measures, standard treatment control BMPs, and ‘end-of-pipe’ temporary water quality storage within existing and proposed detention basins (Cunningham Engineering 2020). The NPDES General Permit also contains requirements related to hydromodification, including matching the post-project 2-year/24-hour peak flows to pre-project levels. The hydromodification requirements would be accomplished via a combination of

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-81 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
upland LID-style runoff reduction measures and end-of-pipe detention storage within existing and/or proposed detention basins. As noted by Cunningham Engineering (2020) these measures could include the following:
► Small-scale distributed drainage management features such as shallow, decentralized surface detention areas and/or infiltration areas that are included in streetscapes and individual site landscapes as a design element (in addition to a functional requirement) throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area; ► Reducing new impervious surfaces, which could be accomplished by using compact building footprints, alternative driveway layouts and/or materials, narrower roadway cross-sections (as appropriate), pervious pavement, and efficient parking to minimize the overall area of the lot on a per-parking-space basis; ► Disconnection of new impervious areas by placing pervious areas (e.g., landscaping and/or pervious pavement) downstream of a site’s impervious surfaces (e.g., roofs and conventional pavement), with site grading/landscaping designs that provide for sheet flow from those impervious surfaces onto the pervious surface areas;
► Treatment control BMPs, which could include vegetated swales, stormwater planters, rain gardens, pervious pavement, and inclusion of a water quality treatment component as part of the detention basins.

In accordance with General Plan Policies 5.I.3 and 5.I.7, the Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (City of Woodland 2006b), and the Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a), project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan are required to design site-specific on-site stormwater systems and submit the proposed designs to the City for approval prior to the start of any construction activities. The WRTP Specific Plan identifies BMPs, LID, and hydromodification management techniques that will be incorporated into the site-specific stormwater system designs and operation as required by the City's Post Construction Standard Plan (2015) to reduce post-construction runoff and control urban runoff pollution in compliance with of the City's Phase II MS4 permit.

The proposed development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, primarily as a result of new impervious surfaces. Because detailed drainage and stormwater flooding calculations and designs for the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A interchange improvements have not yet been performed, stormwater generated from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site interchange improvements could result in on- or off-site flooding, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and/or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-1a: Prepare Additional Storm Drainage Analysis for determining Amount of New Development Acreage Beyond the Previously Identified 80 Residential Acres Allowable in the South Urban Growth Area and Submit to the City for Review and Approval.

The WRTP shall be required to fund an additional stormwater drainage analysis that utilizes the revised baseline conditions modeling and includes detailed information defining the operational capacity of the newly-installed infrastructure. A model will then be created that incorporates the pump station, detention, and conveyance improvements that have already been constructed, and then incorporates the full buildout of the Spring Lake Specific Plan Development. At that point, the fully developed acreage of the WRTP Specific Plan will be added to determine the new developable acreage (in terms of stormwater drainage)

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-82 City of Woodland
that can be accommodated with current infrastructure. This additional drainage analysis will also be required to determine what additional storm drainage infrastructure is needed to support full buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan. Building permits for development beyond the identified currently developable acreage will only be approved with confirmation that the required storm drainage and water quality treatment infrastructure is in place.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would reduce the WRTP Specific Plan’s impacts from increased stormwater runoff resulting in an increased need for stormwater conveyance, stormwater-related flooding, and stormwater pollutants to a less-than-significant level because appropriately sized pipelines and detention basins, along with the appropriate LID features and water quality BMPs, that are specifically engineered to ensure that WRTP Specific Plan Area flows are conveyed such that flooding does not occur and to provide appropriate water quality treatment, would be integrated as part of the design and implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan Area.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.13-1. Conflict with A Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System, including Transit, Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-16 through 3.13-20.) Explanation: The WRTP Specific Plan does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for bicycle, transit, or pedestrian facilities, nor would it adversely affect performance or safety of such facilities. The WRTP Specific Plan contains provisions that will enhance these modes to encourage greater use of transit and more walking and bicycling in the future. All new facilities, as proposed in Chapter 4 of the WRTP Specific Plan, “Circulation and Mobility,” would be constructed to applicable design standards that have been created to minimize the potential for conflicts or collisions. The impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.13-1a: The Draft WRTP Specific Plan Finance Plan shall incorporate a Transit Contribution.

While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under CEQA, the following would be required for planning purposes to ensure transit equipment, infrastructure, and service is adequately funded to provide necessary service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area:

The project applicant shall contribute its fair-share of the cost associated with providing transit service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area. It is anticipated that new transit vehicles may be required to provide additional service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area. However, the final determination of additional capital equipment or other costs shall be determined by the City of Woodland in coordination with YCTD and as identified in the Master TDM/VMT Program. The fair-share cost or a plan for providing the fair-share cost over time shall demonstrate funding is adequate to provide the necessary transit service or range of services required to meet the demand in the WRTP Specific Plan Area, as determined through the WRTP Specific Plan’s required coordination with YCTD and UC Davis. The funding mechanism(s) for transit and other TDM measures shall be outlined in the WRTP Specific Plan Finance Plan, and development projects shall be required to commit to contributing fair-share costs prior to the issuance of respective building permits by the City of Woodland.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-83 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1b: On-site Transit Stops.

While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under CEQA, the following would be required for planning purposes to ensure proposed transit infrastructure provides for adequate service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area:

The WRTP Specific Plan calls for development of a shared mobility hub in the Village Center. The project applicant shall develop detailed plans, to be reviewed and approved by the City of Woodland and YCTD and construct the shared mobility hub improvements in the Village Center and identify the specific locations of sheltered transit stops with bus turnouts at other locations. It is anticipated that other stops would be located near the business park uses north and west of the Village Center. The City of Woodland and YCTD shall approve the location, design, and implementation timing of the sheltered transit stops and bus turnouts prior to the approval of the first final map or as otherwise required by the City. If transit stops are located on-street for segments of roadways that do not have designated curbside on-street parking that can be designated for a bus stop (i.e., only travel lanes, bike lanes), the street cross-sections shall be modified to provide for a curbside bus stop, or multiple stops if needed for bus operations.

Significance after Mitigation: The WRTP Specific Plan does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for bicycle, transit or pedestrian facilities, nor would it adversely affect performance or safety of such facilities.

This impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measures 3.13-1a and 3.13-1b are not required to address a significant impact under CEQA, but serve as conditions of approval for planning purposes to ensure that adequate funding is contributed by future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, as well as provides for a transit infrastructure plan for the WRTP Specific Plan Area.

Impact 3.13-2. Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-20 through 3.13-21.) Explanation: Construction vehicles and equipment associated with development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas would result in utilize local roadways, which could cause disruptions to the transportation network and degradation to the roadways. Also, the use of large trucks to transport equipment and materials to and from the worksite could also affect roadway conditions on the access routes by increasing the rate of roadway wear. The degree to which this impact would occur would depend on the design (pavement type and thickness) and the existing condition of the roadway. Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan will modify the existing transportation network to accommodate existing and future users that could change existing travel patterns or traveler expectations. This impact is considered potentially significant.

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 vehicles and equipment associated with development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas would maneuver among the general-purpose vehicles on local roads, which could cause safety hazards. The presence of haul trucks and other on-road construction vehicles could increase hazard risks on existing roadways. Construction activities could result in disruptions to the transportation network near project sites, including the possibility of temporary lane closures, street closures, sidewalk closures, and bikeway closures. Also, the use of large trucks to transport equipment and materials to and from the worksite could also affect roadway conditions on the access routes by increasing the rate of roadway wear. The degree to which this impact would occur would depend on the

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-84 City of Woodland
design (pavement type and thickness) and the existing condition of the roadway. This impact is considered potentially significant. The WRTP Specific Plan would not increase hazards due to design features of transportation facilities. Implementation of the Specific Plan will adhere to applicable design standards. All existing facility modifications and new facilities resulting from the circulation diagram proposed improvements would be constructed to the City of Woodland Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (2016), which have been developed to minimize the potential for conflicts or collisions. In addition, the Caltrans off-site improvements would be regulated by Caltrans, and would be designed and constructed in accordance with Caltrans standards and guidelines developed to promote safety. This anticipated increase in traffic during operations and expansion of the transportation network with implementation of the Specific Plan has no potential to substantially increase traffic safety hazards on area roadways, and no impact would result from operations under the WRTP Specific Plan.

Mitigation Measure 3.13-2: Implement a Construction Traffic Control Plan Prior to any construction activities for the WRTP Specific Plan, the applicant shall prepare a detailed Construction Traffic Control Plan and submit it for review and approval by the City Department of Public Works. The applicant and the City shall consult with Caltrans, Yolobus, and local emergency service providers for their input prior to approving the Plan. The plan shall ensure that acceptable operating conditions on local roadways and freeway facilities are maintained during construction. A copy of the construction traffic control plan shall be submitted to local emergency response agencies and these agencies shall be notified at least 14 days before the commencement of construction that would partially or fully obstruct roadways. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
• The number of truck trips, time, and day of street closures • Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks
• Limitations on the size and type of trucks, provision of a staging area with a limitation on the number of trucks that can be waiting
• Provision of a truck circulation pattern
• Provision of a driveway access plan so that safe vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movements are maintained (e.g., steel plates, minimum distances of open trenches, and private vehicle pick up and drop off areas)
• Maintain safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles • Maintain safe and efficient access routes for farming equipment and vehicles • Manual traffic control when necessary
• Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street closures • Provisions for pedestrian safety

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-85 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measures 3.13-2 would reduce the construction-related impacts to the transportation network and roadways to a less-than-significant level because the plan shall ensure that acceptable operating conditions on local roadways facilities are maintained during construction.

UTILITIES
Impact 3.14-1. Increased Demand for Water Supply Conveyance Facilities.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-16 through 3.14-17.) Explanation: Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would require construction of on-site water supply conveyance facilities. Water transmission pipelines to distribute the water to individual residences would be constructed and would be required to be sufficiently sized to provide fire flows. The preliminary network leading from these connections was designed in accordance with the City of Woodland Engineering Standards.

Reclaimed water would be conveyed to the WRTP Specific Plan Area via a pressure system and routed to serve areas with irrigation demands. The reclaimed water network within the WRTP Specific Plan Area is designed to provide service to typical areas with commercial and public irrigation demands such as medians, parks, and greenways. The public reclaimed water supply pipelines would be within the right-of-way of public streets and greenways.

Physical impacts associated with construction and operation of utilities is evaluated throughout the EIR, such as Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which specifically analyze the potential for project construction and implementation. Impacts of the WRTP Specific Plan 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.

However, the City requires project applicants to demonstrate necessary public facilities are available or adequately financed before approval of proposed development (General Plan Policy 5.F.1). The City will only approve new development that connects to the City’s public water supply system (General Plan Policy 5.G.3) and requires project applicants to demonstrate adequate water supply conveyance facilities are in place prior to occupancy and that an adequate funding source is in place to finance system development and maintenance (City General Plan Policy

5.G.6). The following mitigation measure is provided for planning purposes to ensure water supply infrastructure is designed and sized to provide adequate service to the WRTP Specific Plan.

Mitigation Measure 3.14-1: Prepare and Submit A Water Supply Conveyance Improvement Plan in Compliance with Applicable Standards and Construct Water Supply Conveyance Infrastructure Prior to Occupancy.

While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under CEQA, the following would be required for planning purposes to ensure the water supply infrastructure is designed and sized to provide adequate service to the WRTP Specific Plan:

Before approval of the final subdivision map and issuance of building permits, project applicants for projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan shall prepare a detailed water conveyance infrastructure improvement plan that depicts the locations and appropriate sizes of all required conveyance infrastructure,

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-86 City of Woodland
in conjunction with other site-specific improvement plans. Proposed on-site water facilities shall be designed and sized to provide adequate service to the project site for the amount of development identified in the tentative subdivision map, based on City of Woodland Engineering Standards. A final water conveyance infrastructure improvement plan shall be approved by the City of Woodland Engineering Division before approval of the final subdivision map by the City of Woodland Planning Division and issuance of building permits from the City of Woodland Building Division. All required infrastructure shall be in place prior to occupancy of development anticipated under the proposed project.

Significance after Mitigation: This impact is less than significant. There are no additional significant impacts beyond those comprehensively considered throughout the other sections of the EIR. Mitigation Measure 3.14-1 would ensure adequate water supply conveyance facilities would be documented before approval of the final subdivision map and issuance of building permits.

Impact 3.14-2. Increased Demand for Wastewater Collection and Conveyance Facilities.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-17 through 3.14-19.) Explanation: There are currently no wastewater mains or services located within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. A combination of on-site gravity and pressure sewers would be required to convey new wastewater flows from the WRTP Specific Plan Area to the SLSP Pump Station located at Farmers Central Road and Miekle Avenue. A 7.5- acre area within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would require a lift station to convey wastewater runoff to the existing gravity main in SLSP.

Physical impacts associated with construction and operation of utilities is evaluated throughout other sections of the EIR, such as Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which specifically analyze the potential for project construction and implementation. Impacts of the WRTP Specific Plan would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measures presented in the EIR and through uniformly applied Cityadministered development standards. There is no impact beyond those comprehensively considered throughout the other sections of this EIR. The impact is considered less than significant.

The City will only approve new development that connects to the City’s sewer system (General Plan Policy 5.H.6) In addition, the City requires project applicants demonstrate necessary public facilities are available or adequately financed to serve new development (General Plan Policy 5.F.1). The following mitigation measure is provided for planning purposes to ensure wastewater conveyance infrastructure is designed and sized to provide adequate service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area.

Mitigation Measure 3.14-2: Prepare Additional Analysis to Verify the Spring Lake Specific Plan Pump Station Capacity Prior to Development Beyond 87 Percent of the WRTP Specific Plan Area.

While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under CEQA, the following would be required for planning purposes to ensure the existing wastewater conveyance infrastructure has the capacity to provide adequate service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area:

Prior to any development beyond 87 percent of the WRTP Specific Plan, the WRTP shall fund additional analysis to verify that the Spring Lake Specific Plan Pump Station has adequate capacity to provide for sewer flows from full buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan. If additional capacity is required, it may be

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-87 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
provided by upsizing the pumps as part of the City’s regular maintenance work of replacing the pumps. If the increased capacity is not provided by the City’s maintenance work, then the WRTP Specific Plan will be responsible for funding improvements at the pump station to provide the additional required capacity.

Significance after Mitigation: This impact is less than significant. There are no additional significant impacts beyond those comprehensively considered throughout the other sections of this EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.14-2 requires evaluation of the Spring Lake Specific Plan Pump Station Capacity prior to development and prior to development beyond 87 percent of the WRTP Specific Plan, and specific improvements or funding of improvements to address any capacity shortfall.

4. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE FULLY

MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The following significant environmental impacts of the proposed project are significant and unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would substantially lessen the environmental impact despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and in these Findings. The City Council finds that the project’s environmental, economic, social, and other benefits outweigh and override the significant adverse impact related to change in the environment.” (see Section VII, “Statement of Overriding Considerations”)

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.1-1. Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of Public Views of the Site and its Surroundings.

Finding: Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site South Regional Pond would substantially change the existing visual character from agricultural cropland to a mix of urban land uses and supporting infrastructure. The proposed WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvement areas would be visually incompatible with surrounding agricultural land to the west, south, and southeast. Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant.

All feasible mitigation in the form of policies and programs in the 2035 General Plan, as well as the WRTP Specific Plan (Chapter 2, “Specific Plan Concepts” and Chapter 3, “Land Use, Development Standards, and Design Guidelines”), are presented herein. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that would avoid this impact without fundamentally changing the purpose of the WRTP Specific Plan. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-13 through 3.1-16.)
Impact 3.1-2: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area.

Finding: The WRTP Specific Plan would require nighttime lighting of new streets and buildings for security purposes near existing and proposed sensitive receptors, which could cause increased light and glare that could

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-88 City of Woodland
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area effects. Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact would be significant.

As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.1-4 (pages 4.1-32 through 4.1-33) (City of Woodland 2016b), development in new growth areas would produce light and glare in areas that currently do not experience these effects. Parking lots, commercial buildings, and signs often emit light 24 hours per day. In contrast, most residential buildings produce limited light during the night. In addition, new buildings with reflective surfaces, such as office buildings with glazed windows, may add daytime glare in new development areas. General Plan Policy

3.E.7 requires that adequate pedestrian-scale lighting be provided near sidewalks, trails, and parking lots to improve visibility of pedestrians and provide a safe walking environment. General Plan Policy 2.B.1 requires that new Specific Plans must examine impacts on the completion of infrastructure and amenities within existing Specific Plan Areas that are still developing. Policy 2.E.2 encourages high-quality new development that enhances and blends with the established fabric of the natural, social, and built environment, while allowing for innovative architectural styles. However, since new development would add to the overall amount of lighting and glare in the City, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts from new sources of light and glare would be significant. Mitigation measures recommending new General Plan Policies 2.F.4 and 2.F.5 (requiring that artificial lighting be controlled to avoid spill-over lighting, preserve the night sky, and prevent glare) were adopted as part of the 2035 General Plan. Because additional nighttime lighting would still occur and no other feasible mitigation measures were available, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts from new sources of light and glare would be significant and unavoidable.

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 (see Viewpoint 3, above), from street lighting along the east and west sides of SR 113 on the west side of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, and from street and residential lighting in the adjacent Spring Lake development to the east. Additional nighttime lighting will be present in the future in the planned Spring Lake development to the north and east. Because the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be developed with a mix of urban uses, this would create new sources of additional nighttime lighting that would be visible to adjacent residents in the Spring Lake development, as well as motorists traveling on SR 113 and County Roads 25A and 101. WRTP Specific Plan implementation could also create new sources of daytime glare from new buildings. As discussed above, 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 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, state that lighting would include of a variety of types and styles designed to illuminate the intended surfaces or spaces, avoid light spillover and glare into surrounding areas, reduce night sky pollution, and contribute to the City’s Climate Action Plan objectives for reducing energy use. A common overall theme, material, and color palette would be considered for the entire WRTP Specific Plan Area, except that the Research and Technology Park may have different but complementary lighting and street furnishings, to create a unified identity throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area.

Pedestrian-scaled pathway lighting would be provided in both residential and non-residential zoning districts.

Exterior lighting on individual lots, particularly with the Research and Technology Park campus, would emphasize lighting entries, walkways, parking and loading, and service areas. Lighting on buildings would be designed to reinforce the architectural design of the building, including lighting of building entries, landscape elements, and major architectural features, and would contribute to enhancing the safety and security within the Research and Technology Park, as well as the remainder of the community. A comprehensive signage plan would be implemented

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-89 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
for the entire Research and Technology Park that governs the location, size, height, color, lighting, orientation, and type of signs to be permitted. Energy-efficient exterior lighting fixtures, such as LED or other energy-efficient lighting technologies, would be used throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Furthermore, the Design Standards and Design Guidelines provided in Section 3.5.2 of the WRTP Specific Plan also state that proposed land uses may not create new sources of glare, and that signs shall be spot illuminated from the front or consist of letters, numbers, or graphics that are halo backlit and may not cast a glare that is visible from any street or adjacent lot. (The potential for nighttime lighting within the WRTP Specific Plan Area to result in airport safety hazards is discussed in Section

3.8, “Hazardous Materials and Toxics,” of the EIR).

The proposed off-site South Regional Pond would not require nighttime lighting and would not represent a new source of daytime or nighttime glare. The existing SR 113/CR 25A interchange is currently 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. Where direction is not otherwise provided in the WRTP Specific Plan, development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area must be designed in accordance with City of Woodland regulations and requirements, including the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a). Section 9 of the Engineering Standards describes typical design practices for new or modified street lighting systems within the City. The Engineering Standards include requirements for lighting values for each type of street; street light locations, types, and spacing; poles; mast arm lengths; service connections; pull boxes; and conductors. The Engineering Standards require that all street lights be equipped with light-emitting diode (LED) lights. Furthermore, the developer must prepare and submit improvement plans to the City for review that show existing and proposed street lighting locations, along with the following details:
► existing City-owned electrical facilities and electrical conduits; ► proposed street light types, locations, conduit sizes and locations, service locations, pull boxes, mast arm lengths, and light pattern to be installed;
► rights-of-way and easements;
► subdivision and lot details; and
► amount and type of luminaires on each new or existing service, the service location and voltage, the number of lights removed or added from an existing service, and any other pertinent information affecting the service load.

Finally, the Engineering Standards require that master planning be employed in the determination of street light locations so that an overall uniform street light system meeting minimum City requirements is achieved. If an elementary school were to be developed in the WRTP Specific Plan Area, it would not include nighttime outdoor sports events and therefore would not include lighted outdoor sports fields. Minor nighttime security lighting for school buildings and parking lots would be provided. This lighting would be shielded and directed downward to avoid light spillover and nighttime glare effects, as required by CDE school facility design standards and the Division of the State Architect. Therefore, as discussed above, the WRTP Specific Plan would employ all feasible measures to avoid light spillover and glare into surrounding areas, and reduce night sky pollution. However, WRTP Specific Plan implementation would still add to the overall amount of lighting and glare in the City; therefore, this impact is considered significant.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-90 City of Woodland
All feasible mitigation in the form of policies and programs in the 2035 General Plan and the WRTP Specific Plan Design Standards, are presented herein. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that would avoid this impact without fundamentally changing the purpose of the WRTP Specific Plan. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-16 through 3.1-18.)

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-1. Loss of Important Farmland and Conversion of Agricultural Land to Nonagricultural Urban Uses.

Finding: Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvements would result in the permanent conversion agricultural land, including Important Farmland, to urban uses. Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant.

As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.2-1 (pages 4.2-28 through 4.1-36) (City of Woodland 2016), development in new growth areas would convert farmland, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, to urban land uses. General Plan Policy 2.A.1 establishes an ULL that permanently circumscribes urban development and complies with provisions for protection of agricultural lands.

The WRTP Specific Plan Area is located in an area planned for development that is inside the ULL. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that, despite proposed policies, implementation of the 2035 General Plan would still accommodate development in new growth areas that would convert farmland, including Important Farmland, defined as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance, to urban uses. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 recommending new General Plan Policy 2.A.3 (requiring for every acre of farmland that is converted, an acre of that same type (or better) of farmland will be conserved) was adopted as part of the 2035 General Plan. However, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that there is no additional feasible mitigation available that would mitigate the loss of Important Farmland and conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural urban uses, and the impact was significant and unavoidable. Yolo LAFCo prepared a municipal service review and sphere of influence study for the City of Woodland (Yolo LAFCo 2019b). The Yolo LAFCo determined that:
“Development of the proposed SOI would result in the loss of prime agricultural land. However, most of Yolo County is fertile agricultural soils and it is difficult to expand the City’s footprint without impacting agricultural land and the City’s Urban Limit Line preempts any uncontrolled sprawl. The City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report mitigates for this loss consistent with LAFCo policies and concludes that this loss is significant and unavoidable.”
Chapter 15.33 of the City of Woodland Municipal Code implements Policy 2.A.3 of the 2035 General Plan. As described above, the Chapter 15.33 requires that for every acre converted to urban development, one acre of mitigation will be required (1:1 ratio); agricultural mitigation land must be of same quality of land or higher than the land being converted; and specified agricultural mitigation lands must be located wholly within Yolo County. 3 General Plan Policy 2.A.1 establishes the ULL that permanently circumscribes urban development and complies with provisions for protection of agricultural lands. The WRTP Specific Plan Area is located in an area planned for development that is inside the ULL. The 2035 General Plan included site-specific conversion of this farmland to

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-91 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
urban land uses asshown in Figure 2-5, “Land Use Diagram” (page LU 2-33 of the 2035 General Plan). As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the City promotes development of SP-1A [the WRTP Specific Plan Area] 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 (page LU 2-77 of the 2035 General Plan). The proposed South Regional Pond would be adjacent to, but south of, the Specific Plan Area, and existing agricultural lands in this off-site improvement area were not considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Agricultural uses within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be converted to urban land uses from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and the proposed 4-acre South Regional Pond. Based on analysis of the Yolo County Important Farmland map (DOC 2016), approximately 346 acres of Prime Farmland and 3 acres of Farmland of Local Potential within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be directly and permanently converted to urban uses. 4 Off-site improvements, specifically the proposed South Regional Pond, would directly and permanently convert approximately 4 acres of Prime Farmland to a detention pond for stormwater management. There is no Farmland of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland identified within the WRTP Specific Plan Area or off-site improvement areas. In 2016, approximately 250,588 acres of Prime Farmland existed in Yolo County, of which 1,545 acres were located in the City’s Planning Area (Tables 3.2-1 and

3.2-2). A conversion of approximately 350 acres of Prime Farmland would account for less than one percent of the total Prime Farmland in Yolo County as a whole, but approximately 23 percent of total Prime Farmland in the City’s Planning Area. Project applicants for future projects proposed within the WRTP Specific Plan Area are required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 15.33, which requires replacement of Prime Farmland at a 1:1 ratio. In addition, the South Regional Pond development area would not be annexed to the City. Therefore, this use would require compliance with the County’s agricultural conservation ordinance (Section 8-2.404 and Section 8.2-405 of the Yolo County Code), which requires replacement of Prime Farmland at a ratio of three acres of conserved farmland to one acre of converted land and replacement of other types of farmland at a ratio of two acres to one; small projects of less than 20 acres may pay an in-lieu fee rather than conserve farmland directly. While the WRTP Specific Plan would comply with City and County municipal code requirements for the loss of farmland that require permanent protection of agricultural land proportional to that proposed for conversion to urban use, 1:1 for the City and 3:1 for the County, as detailed, above, no new farmland would be made available, and a net loss of Important Farmland would occur as a result of development under the WRTP Specific Plan. This impact is considered significant.

All feasible mitigation in the form of policies in the 2035 General Plan, as well as the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.33 and Yolo County Code Section 8-2.404 and 8-2.405, are presented herein. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that would avoid this impact without fundamentally changing the purpose of the WRTP Specific Plan. Therefore, and consistent with the findings in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, impacts related to the conversion of Important Farmland to urban uses would be significant and unavoidable.

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-16 through 3.2-18.)
Impact 3.2-3. Conflict with Existing On-Site and Off-Site Agricultural Operations.

Finding: Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would locate residential land uses adjacent to existing on-site and off-site agricultural lands, resulting in potential conflicts with adjacent agricultural operations. Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-92 City of Woodland
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.2-1 (pages 4.2-38 through 4.2-41) (City of Woodland 2016), urban development can result in direct and indirect impacts on agricultural. Urban development has the potential to divide large tracts of agricultural land leaving smaller, less viable tracts of land for farming. Urban development can result in conflicts at the urban edge with adjacent agricultural practices, and lead to restrictions on the use of agricultural chemicals, complaints regarding noise, dust and odors, trespassing, and vandalism. The Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner requires a buffer between pesticide application and environmentally sensitive areas, including residential developments, as explained in the Regulatory Framework. Unless otherwise provided, the farmer has responsibility for providing this buffer, and therefore the buffer potentially limits the amount of land that can be used for agriculture. These conflicts may increase costs of agricultural operations and, together with other factors, encourage the conversion of additional farmland to urban uses. In addition, urban growth may increasingly compete with agriculture for the use of water resources and may conflict with farm-to-market use and/or operational use of area roadways.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to conflicts with existing agricultural operations and urban land uses would be significant. The 2035 General Plan includes policies to support agriculture in Woodland and minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural uses. 2035 General Plan Policy 7.C.4 requires the City to ensure that urban development within the ULL does not affect the economic viability of adjacent farms outside of the ULL. 2035 General Plan Policies 4.G.2 and 4.C.9 help strengthen specific segments of the agricultural industry and explicitly supports the continuation and development of the agricultural industry in Woodland, and Policy 8.G.10 requires the City’s support for both the City’s and the County’s right to farm ordinances. Policy 7.C.2 helps protect existing agriculture within the ULL. Although proposed policies will reduce the impact that development and other changes to the existing environment would have on existing agricultural uses and support the continued viability of the agricultural industry in Woodland, it cannot be guaranteed that farmland would not be indirectly impacted by development envisioned in the 2035 General Plan. Mitigation Measure 4.2-3 recommending new General Plan Policy 7.C.5 (requiring new development that occurs at the edge of the ULL to be set back a minimum of 150 feet from adjacent agricultural land where possible) was adopted as part of the 2035 General Plan. However, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that there is no additional feasible mitigation available that would mitigate the potential conflicts of future development with existing agricultural uses, and the impact was significant and unavoidable. The WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with 2035 General Plan Policies 7.C.2, 7.C.4, 4.C.9 and 4.G.2, which support existing agricultural uses and the development of agriculturalrelated industries.

As noted in Impact 3.2-1, development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area is envisioned as part of the 2035 General Plan and would occur in phases; Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan states that “existing agricultural uses may be permitted to continue until the area is required for the development of infrastructure or other allowed uses.

Agricultural operations shall comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations.” As discussed in Chapter 2 of the EIR, the City anticipates that agricultural-related research will be a major focus at the WRTP Specific Plan. In addition, one of the WRTP Specific Plan’s Guiding Principles would be to take positive advantage of the existing and thriving seed, food, and agricultural-based industries currently located and doing business in and around Woodland. Chapter 9.52, “Right to Farm,” of the Woodland Municipal Code protects the rights of agricultural property owners and farmers to continue agricultural operations on their land, even if it is adjacent to other land uses. The ordinance requires a right-to-farm deed restriction on any transfer of property within 500 feet of agricultural land or agricultural operations. The deed restriction notifies prospective purchasers and users of property near or adjacent to agricultural operations of the sounds, odors, dust and chemicals that may accompany agricultural operations. The Right to Farm ordinance also establishes a procedure for settling disputes regarding

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-93 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
agricultural operations. Residential land uses would be developed in phases on the WRTP Specific Plan Area and agricultural production could potentially continue within the WRTP Specific Plan Area until these lands are ready to be developed, resulting in potential conflicts when the development edge is adjacent to ongoing agricultural operations on undeveloped portions of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. No buffers or other features are proposed, other than those encouraged by the WRTP Specific Plan, that would separate urban land uses from ongoing agricultural operations on undeveloped portions of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, resulting in potential agriculturalurban interface conflicts. However, these conflicts would be resolved as the WRTP Specific Plan Area is developed to urban uses. In addition, land use conflicts could occur where the development edge within the WRTP Specific Plan Area is adjacent to off-site agricultural operations south of the WRTP Specific Plan Area along the ULL.

In order to be consistent with 2035 General Plan Policy 7.C.5, which implements the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-3, the WRTP Specific Plan policy encourages a minimum 150-foot buffer, where feasible, along the southern edge of the Plan Area, adjacent to agricultural lands along the ULL, as stated in the WRTP Specific Plan Policies in section 2.2.3 of the WRTP Specific Plan as well as in the Site Development Standards detailed in Section 3.4 of the WRTP Specific Plan. Buffers may include parking, streets, bike/pedestrian multi-use trails, shipping/receiving yards, stormwater management uses/facilities, or uses. Additionally, uses consistent and compatible with agricultural uses, such as agricultural field research or similar (i.e. greenhouses, field research offices, community gardens or agricultural uses/structures), are permitted within the agricultural buffer. Areas identified for medium density residential development in the southeastern corner of the WRTP Specific Plan Area along the border of the ULL would be buffered from on-going agricultural operations by an onsite detention pond and the 4-acre South Regional Pond south of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. These buffers would reduce the conflicts associated with on-going offsite agricultural operations within the ULL. Prospective residents within 500 feet of agricultural uses would be notified of potential land use conflicts associated with agricultural activities as required by the Chapter 9.52, “Right to Farm,” of the Woodland Municipal Code and a buffer zone would be established between the edge of development and adjacent off-site agricultural land. Conflicts could still occur between agricultural and urban land uses, particularly in areas where the development edge is adjacent to ongoing agricultural operations on undeveloped portions of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. This impact is considered significant.

All feasible mitigation in the form of policies and programs in the 2035 General Plan are presented herein. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that would avoid this impact without fundamentally changing the purpose of the WRTP Specific Plan. Therefore, and consistent with the findings in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-19 through 3.2-21.)

AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1. Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan.

Finding: YSAQMD and other air districts in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) developed air quality plans to enable the region to achieve attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for ozone and PM. These air quality plans are based on an inventory of

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-94 City of Woodland
existing emission sources, as well as projections about the future level of land use development in the SVAB.

Because the levels of growth associated with the construction and operation of future land uses anticipated under the WRTP Specific Plan were not accounted for in these projections of emissions-generating activity, and emissions could exceed the YSAQMD quantitative thresholds for short-term and long-term emissions, the WRTP Specific Plan could conflict with or obstruct the applicable air quality plan. Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the impact is considered significant.

A project is non-conforming with an air quality plan if it conflicts with or delays implementation of any applicable attainment or maintenance plan. YSAQMD recommends that an evaluation for consistency with AQAP and SIP consider consistency with the AQAP and SIP population and vehicle use projections and AQAP and SIP transportation control measures, as well as a consideration of buffer zones around sources of odors and toxics (YSAQMD 2007). The most current update for YSAQMD AQAP to address the regional nonattainment status for CAAQS was adopted in July 2016. The most current plan for the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area, within which the WRTP Specific Plan Area is located and YSAQMD is included, is the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan updated in 2017. The AQAP specifically addresses the area’s nonattainment status for ozone and, to a lesser extent, CO and PM10. The AQAP stresses attainment of ozone standards and focuses on strategies to reduce emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX). The AQAP promotes active public involvement, enforcement of compliance with district rules and regulations, and public education in both the public and private sectors. It also urges development and promotion of transportation and land use programs designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled within the region and implementation of stationary- and mobile-source control measures. Emissions inventory forecasts for both the YSAQMD AQAP and the Sacramento Regional 8- Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan incorporate population and VMT projections, in part, based on data from the SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for the region. SACOG developed population and employment projections that inform transportation planning throughout the region and that are based, in part, on land use information from General Plans. According to the projections available to inform development of the most recently adopted air quality plans, the city’s population was expected to increase to 66,041 people in 2035, the number of housing units to increase to 24,452, and employment in the city to increase to 33,368 jobs (City of Woodland 2013). As indicated in Table 4.10-4 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the population, housing, and employment projections under the 2035 General Plan are higher than the SACOG projections for 2035. Although the WRTP Specific Plan Area was identified as a new growth area, SACOG growth projections at the time of development of the relevant air quality plans did not assume full development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area within the MTP planning horizon. 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 socio-economic 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 provide a range of land use options to encourage economic investment and promote other City policy objectives. Given these different purposes, it is expected that there would be variations in the growth forecasts between the two.

Future development and operations under the WRTP Specific Plan would be required to comply with all applicable rules and regulations, including YSAMD Rules and Regulations and permitting requirements for any stationary sources, adopted for the purposes of reducing air pollutant emissions and supporting regional attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS pursuant to the AQAP and SIP. As detailed in Section 6.2.3 of the WRTP Specific Plan, a Comprehensive Transportation Demand Management strategy, in conjunction with key stakeholders that identifies

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-95 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
check-in points to demonstrate consistency, as well as a Mobility Hub Master Plan, shall be prepared no later than prior to the approval of the first development application or tentative map or as otherwise required by the City’s Community Development Director. Similarly, coordination with the Yolo County Transportation District, Yolobus, and University of California, Davis, on policies of the WRTP Specific Plan will be required to ensure timely provision of transit service and appropriate funding mechanisms in place. As shown in Exhibit 4-2 of the WRTP Specific Plan, a network of bike/pedestrian trails connecting from a linear open space system throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area provides access to planned businesses, commercial centers, and residential areas, as well as to the adjoining Spring Lake residential community. The detailed planning and policies of the WRTP Specific Plan are consistent with the intent of the transportation control measures of the AQAP and SIP to reduce regional mobilesource emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. Adopted YSAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the YSAQMD-recommended thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment, or work toward attainment, of the NAAQS and CAAQS, consistent with the air quality plans.

By exceeding the YSAQMD’s mass emission thresholds, a project may be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the YSAQMD air quality planning efforts. As detailed in Impact 3.3-2 below, construction and operation of future development under the WRTP Specific Plan could exceed the YSAQMD mass emissions thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors.

Although the WRTP Specific Plan is designed and includes polices to minimize air pollutant emissions, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would result in population growth beyond that contemplated under the current AQAP and SIP planning efforts, and short-term and long-term emissions generated by future development under the WRTP Specific Plan could exceed YSAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan is considered to potentially conflict with the applicable air quality plans and, consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant.

Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a – Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a through 3.3-2d Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a would reduce emissions of fugitive dust PM and exhaust emissions that would be generated during construction of future development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b, would require the use of heavy-duty equipment powered with engines that meet CARB Tier 4 emissions standards, and thereby further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions, particularly NOX. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2c would require the use of ultralow volatile organic compound (VOC) architectural coatings in all possible applications during construction, thereby further reducing reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from this construction-related source. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2d would reduce operational emissions of ROG and PM associated with wood burning stoves and fireplaces.

However, emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could still exceed significance thresholds. In addition, although the regional planning efforts and relevant air quality plans are updated on a regular basis and it is, therefore, reasonable to assume that future air quality plans will account for development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, growth projections used for the purposes of the relevant air quality plans do not currently account for development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. As such, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to address this impact. This impact is significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-18 through 3.2-20.)

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-96 City of Woodland
The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Impact 3.3-2. Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions.

Finding (Construction): The WRTP Specific Plan Area was assumed as part of the land use development anticipated under the 2035 General Plan. However, the General Plan EIR assessed emissions for all proposed development within the City’s Planning Area and not individually for the specific proposed land uses and implementation timeline of the WRTP Specific Plan. Due to the size of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and variability of land uses, as well as the uncertainty of the construction timing, it was assumed that different types of construction activities (i.e. site grading, trenching, asphalt paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings) could occur simultaneously at various locations within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Modeling of construction emissions was conducted for the year 2021, as this is assumed to be the earliest year during which construction would occur for the future development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. For purposes of modeling emissions associated with construction of future development of the WRTP Specific Plan, it is conservatively assumed that up to 25 percent of all land uses within the WRTP Specific Plan Area could be developed within the earliest possible construction year (2021).

Based on the conservative assumptions made for the purpose of this analysis, emissions associated with construction for implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site South Regional Pond could exceed YSAQMD thresholds of significance. The Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area is not anticipated to be constructed in the first year of construction, but was conservatively modeled using emissions factor for this earliest year. While it would not on its own exceed the YSAQMD thresholds of significance, in conjunction with other development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, it could result in an exceedance of YSAQMD PM10 threshold. IThus, construction of future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas could exceed or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation due to incremental contribution to PM and ozone precursor emissions. The YSAQMD thresholds of significance are considered the allowable amount of emissions each project can generate without resulting in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions. Consequently, because implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan, including the construction of off-site improvement areas, could generate construction-related emissions that exceed the YSAQMD thresholds, this impact is considered significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-20 through 3.2-31.) Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a – Implement Construction Best Management Practices.

New development shall incorporate the following construction best management practices, those included in an updated set of mitigation recommendations prepared by the YSAQMD, or those determined by the City to be as effective:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. b. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials. d. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut-and-fill operations and hydroseed area.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-97 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
e. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days). f. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. g. Cover inactive storage piles.
h. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. i. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6-inch layer of gravel. j. Limit all idling of vehicles and equipment that use gasoline or diesel fuel to five minutes maximum. k. Use alternative power source, such as electricity, for construction equipment or use reformulated and emulsified fuels, incorporate catalyst and filtration technologies, and generally modernize the equipment fleet with cleaner and newer engines.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: Construction-Related Mobile Emissions Reductions for NOX and PM10 Emissions (as revised in Chapter 3, “Errata,” of the Final EIR).
a. Construction contractors shall adhere to the following requirements: a. Maintain all construction equipment properly according to manufacturer’s specifications. b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road).
c. For all off-road heavy-duty equipment greater than 50 horsepower, utilize equipment that meet or exceed CARB’s Tier 4 Final standards for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. d. Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier 4 Final engines, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any grounddisturbing 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.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-98 City of Woodland
j. Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
k. Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
l. Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-2c: Require the Use of Ultra-Low VOC (10 grams per liter [g/L] or less) Architectural Coatings for Construction-related Application
Construction contractors shall be required to use architectural coatings that are ultra-low VOC (10 g/L or less) in all possible applications. These products are identified by manufacturers as “super-compliant.” For construction-related applications, the product manufacturer, product name, product code, and intended use shall be identified on the construction design drawings for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Significance after Mitigation (Construction): As proposed within the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a is consistent with General Plan Policy 7.F.2 and would reduce potentially significant impacts related to fugitive dust PM and exhaust emissions that would be generated during construction of future development in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a will reduce construction-related emissions impacts. These dust control BMPs are identified by YSAQMD and the effectiveness of such practices is estimated to range from 4 up to 99 percent effective, depending on the details of the site and project at hand (YSAQMD 2007). When multiple measures are applied to the same source of particulates, the effectiveness of a second measure would be based on the amount of dust that remains after implementing the first measure. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b, would require the use of heavy-duty equipment powered with engines that meet CARB Tier 4 emissions standards, and thereby further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions generated from use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2c would require the use of ultra-low VOC architectural coatings in all possible applications during construction, thereby further reducing ROG emissions from this construction-related source. All construction contractors would comply with the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Sections 2449(d) and 2485, which would limit heavy-duty construction truck and equipment idling time to five minutes or less. In addition, according to the YSAQMD Air Quality Handbook, all incremental emission sources must be mitigated to the greatest extent possible in order to achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measures

3.3-2a, 3.3-2b and 3.3-2c would substantially reduce PM and ozone precursor emissions. Annual emissions of ROG and NOX are anticipated to be less than YSAQMD thresholds of significance, which is a result of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b (use of Tier 4 equipment) and Mitigation Measure 3.3-2c (use of ultra-low VOC architectural coatings). However, PM10 emissions would still exceed YSAQMD thresholds. In addition, although ROG emissions would be reduced substantially as a result of implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2c to use ultra-low VOC architectural coatings wherever possible, there may be instances in which the necessary application is not available as an ultra-low VOC product, and emissions could be higher than modeled. However, even without the use of ultralow VOC architectural coatings, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-2 a and 3.3-2b, alone, reduces emissions to just over 10 tons per year, so use of ultra-low VOC architectural coatings for the majority of

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-99 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
applications, with some required use of higher VOC architectural coatings, would still substantially reduce ROG emissions from construction to below the YSAQMD annual threshold for ROG. Because the assumptions used to estimate potential construction-related emissions are conservative, it is possible that construction related to implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would not exceed YSAQMD thresholds of significance. However, since the timing and level of construction activities each year is unknown, it is not possible to refine these assumptions and determine the extent to which additional reduction strategies are feasible or would result in emission reductions.

Therefore, it is conservatively assumed that construction-related emissions could exceed significance thresholds and, consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Finding (Operation): Development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area was assumed as part of the development anticipated under the 2035 General Plan. However, the General Plan EIR assessed emissions for all proposed development within the City’s Planning Area and not individually for the anticipated land uses and implementation timeline of the WRTP Specific Plan. Buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan is anticipated to occur in phases over approximately two decades. For purposes of modeling emissions associated with operation of future development of the WRTP Specific Plan, full operations are modeled for the year 2035, consistent with the City’s planning horizon of the 2035 General Plan; this is considered a conservative assumption, as it is unlikely that the entire Specific Plan will be built out in 2035 and emissions from building operations and mobile sources would likely be reduced in future years due to increasingly stringent regulatory requirements and technological advances to reduce emissions.

Operations of proposed development under the WRTP Specific Plan would generate long-term emissions that would exceed YSAQMD thresholds of significance. Area emissions and related threshold exceedances of ROG and PM10 are primarily driven by the assumed use of wood burning fireplaces in new residential developments. The NOX threshold exceedance is driven by mobile source emissions. As detailed in Section 3.5.4 of the Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy section of the EIR, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would achieve a 10 percent reduction in VMT; this would be achieved through a Comprehensive Transportation Demand Management/Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program (TDM/VMT Program) to be prepared prior to approval of the first development application of tentative map. As the TDM/VMT Program may include a range of transportation strategies, programs, facilities, or services for the purpose of VMT reduction, it is speculative at this time to attempt to quantify the reduction in criteria air pollutant emissions that would be achieved.

The YSAQMD thresholds of significance are considered the allowable amount of emissions each project can generate without resulting in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions. Consequently, because operational activities associated with buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan could generate emissions that exceed the YSAQMD thresholds, this impact is considered significant.

In addition to the emissions from mobile, energy, and area sources, it is possible that operational activities within the WRTP Specific Plan Area could include new stationary sources, which also generate long-term operational emissions. For example, agricultural processing and manufacturing uses, which are a conditionally allowed use, could potentially include stationary emissions sources. Any such stationary sources would be required to obtain permits from YSAQMD, which are issued with the intent of reducing air pollution and attaining (or maintaining) the ambient air quality standards. Permitted stationary-source facilities are required to implement BACT, which

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-100 City of Woodland
may include the installation of emissions control equipment or implementation of administrative practices to reduce emissions. Stationary-source facilities may also be required to offset their emissions of criteria air pollutants in order to be permitted. Information on operations of stationary sources within the WRTP Specific Plan Area is not available at this time and associated emissions have not been estimated.

While compliance with YSAQMD and WRTP Specific Plan policies and implementation of land use planning strategies to reduce VMT would reduce overall operational emissions, emissions associated with operations of future development of the WRTP Specific Plan could exceed or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. This impact is considered significant.

Health effects associated with ozone include respiratory symptoms, worsening of lung disease, and damage to lung tissue. In 2020, SMAQMD published Guidance to Address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District, which provides a screening level analysis estimating the health effects of criteria ai pollutants and their precursors, as well as provides guidance for conducting a health effects analysis of a project that satisfies the requirements of the Friant Ranch court decision. Modeling results using this guidance support a conclusion that the WRTP Specific Plan does not, on its own, lead to sizeable regional health effects from the emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. However, as the ROG emissions are well above the screening tool maximum limits, and emissions overall exceed the YSAQMD thresholds of significance set with consideration of attaining the CAAQS and NAAQS for the region, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of emissions of criteria air pollutants for the region and this impact is considered potentially significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-20 through 3.2-31.) Mitigation Measure 3.3-2d: Ban Wood-burning Stoves and Fireplaces in New Development Wood burning or pellet stoves and fireplaces shall not be permitted. Natural gas or propane fired fireplaces shall be clearly delineated on plans submitted to obtain building permits.

Significance after Mitigation (Operation): Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2d would reduce area source emission, particularly ROG and PM. Mitigated emissions are substantially reduced compared to unmitigated.

The mobile source emissions estimates would likely be lower than as estimated due to the WRTP Specific Plan’s TDM/VMT Program. However, because the specific development projects within the WRTP Specific Plan Area cannot be defined at the time of this analysis, precise effectiveness and feasibility of these measures cannot be determined for individual future projects, and operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could still exceed significance thresholds. As such, operational emissions could exceed or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and thereby could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to address this impact.

Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Criteria air pollutantant emissions would be substantially reduced as a result of implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a through 3.3-2d. In particular, long-term maximum daily ROG emissions would be reduced to 202 pounds per day, NOX to 383 pounds per day, and PM2.5 to 126 pounds per day. These emissions would fall within the SMAQMD Strategic Area Project Health Screening Tool limits. When applying these maximum daily emissions

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-101 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
estimates for the strategic growth area location of Woodland, the screening tool estimates that an increase of 0.65 premature deaths per year or a 0.0015-percent increase from background health incidences across the five-areadistrict region due to the increase in PM concentrations, and 0.082 premature deaths per year or a 0.00027-percent increase from background health incidences across the five-area-district region due an increase in ozone. Criteria air pollutants generated as a result of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.6-1. Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Archaeological Resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Finding: The WRTP Specific Plan plans for the construction of new buildings and structures. Although there are no previously recorded archaeological resources within the WRTP Specific Plan Area or off-site improvement areas, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan has the potential to damage or destroy subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as archaeological resources under CEQA. The significance of such resources could be materially impaired because their ability to convey significance could be destroyed or diminished. Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.6-21 to 4.6-23) discusses potential impacts related to the discovery of archaeological resources 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, 7.E.2, and 7.E.3 that would reduce impacts to unanticipated finds. However, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources could be significant and, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan, inclusive of off-site improvement areas, could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources through either direct physical impacts or by changes to the setting. Direct physical impacts would result from activity such as excavation, demolition, grading, or ground compaction required for construction of new land uses. For resources that qualify as archaeological resources, such damage would be significant if it diminished the qualities that contribute to the significance of these resources. Changes to the setting would occur where new land uses and built environment features are placed on rural, undeveloped land. Changes to the setting could result in significant impacts where the natural or undeveloped setting forms part of the significance or integrity of a resource. Though record searches did not identify known archaeological resources in the WRTP Specific Plan Area or off-site improvement areas, the broader area does have an elevated sensitivity for archaeological resources, due to the longstanding Native American inhabitation and past historical agricultural and settlement uses. It is reasonable to assume that the area may contain resources not yet identified but that would qualify as archaeological resources under CEQA. Ground-disturbing construction would result from buildout in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas. These areas have historically been used for, and are currently utilized primarily for, agricultural purposes consisting of relatively large, rural, open, and minimally developed parcels and agricultural fields. In these areas, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would involve development of a mix of uses, including research and technology facilities, light industrial, commercial, retail and residential uses, public facilities (e.g., schools and parks), supporting infrastructure (e.g. roadways, utilities), and preserved open space that may also include some habitat restoration activities. Off-site improvements include the proposed South Regional Pond (a stormwater detention pond) within an agricultural field adjacent to, but south of, the WRTP Specific Plan Area, which was not

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-102 City of Woodland
considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and the Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area. There is a moderate to low likelihood that archaeological resources may be present in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and South Regional Pond off-site area and implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan has the potential to affect such unidentified archaeological resources through ground-disturbing activities. The Caltrans Intersection Off-site Improvement Area is assumed to be imported fill with no archaeological sensitivity. With implementation of policies in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, combined with current laws, regulations, and policies, including Public Resources Code 5097, the impact on cultural resources would be reduced. However, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would involve grading, trenching, excavation, soil stockpiling, and other earthmoving activities that could impact previously unknown archaeological resources. Potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Treatment of Unanticipated Archaeological Discoveries Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would be required to implement the following procedures during and ground-disturbing activities:
a. Prior to ground-disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects, contractors shall receive cultural resource sensitivity training to identify potential archaeological resources and that all work should cease within 150 feet of prehistoric cultural resources that may be discovered during project implementation.
b. During ground-disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects, if any prehistoric or historic subsurface resources are discovered, all work within 150 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted within 24 hours to assess the significance of the find, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and implement, as applicable, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(d), (e), and (f). c. If any find is determined to be a unique archaeological resource according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, representatives from the City and the archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Cultural resources shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms, and all significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist and in consultation with the local Native American community if the discovery is prehistoric in age, subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and documentation according to professional standards. If it is determined that the proposed development or infrastructure project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, with a preference for preservation in place. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. Preservation in place may be accomplished by planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
d. If avoidance is not feasible, the qualified archaeologist shall develop and oversee the execution of a treatment plan. The treatment plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, data recovery procedures

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-103 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
based on location and type of archaeological resources discovered and a preparation and submittal of report of findings to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. Data recovery shall be designed to recover the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain, based on the scientific/historical research questions that are applicable to the resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable resource questions. Data recovery, in general, should be limited to the portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by project proponents’ actions. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 provides for the identification and evaluation in the case that a potential archaeological resource is discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with construction of future projects under the WRTP Specific Plan, as well as for the assessment of potential impacts to such resources and the development of mitigation strategies.

Although Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 will help to avoid impacts to archaeological resources and minimize the severity of potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan, impacts may occur that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation. Beyond existing regulations that protect cultural resources and the proposed mitigation, no further mitigation is available. Consistent with findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-11 through 3.6-14.)
The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
Impact 3.11-1. Generation of a Substantial Temporary (Construction-related) Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies.

Finding: Future development and implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would result in exposure of existing and anticipated noise sensitive land uses (if occupied during construction of the remaining properties within the WRTP Specific Plan Area) to noticeable increases from construction activities. Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.11-47 to 4.11-51) discusses construction noise impacts resulting from construction activities that occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), and when the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time, and when construction noise occurs in new growth areas, including the City’s Specific Plan Areas. The EIR noted that, while most portions of the WRTP Specific Plan Areas are not directly adjacent to existing noise-sensitive uses, they have the ability to accommodate planned noisesensitive uses, and depending on the timing and location of development, the Specific Plans, including SP-1, could have construction noise occurring near locations that have been developed with noise-sensitive land uses. As

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-104 City of Woodland
discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, without noise control, typical noise levels generated by large pieces of earth-moving equipment, such as graders, excavators, and dozers, range from approximately 80 dB Leq to 90 dB Leq, measured at a distance of 50 feet, as shown in Table 3.11-6 (assuming no pile driving is required, which would be atypical) (EPA 1971); should the installation of piles for foundations be required, this type of construction activity could produce noise levels of approximately 105 dB Leq at 50 feet. Noise from localized point sources (such as construction sites) typically decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dB with each doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor. Intervening structures would provide shielding from the noise source, resulting in lower noise levels; however, these reductions would vary and are not quantifiable at the plan level.

Therefore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that construction within the City’s Planning Area could result in the temporary exposure of sensitive receptors to noise levels that would exceed the City’s then-existing standards of 45 dB Leq nighttime, 50 dB Leq daytime, 65 dB Lmax nighttime, 70 dB Lmax daytime (as shown in Table 3.11-5, the 2035 General Plan increased daytime standards to 60dB Leq and 75 dB Lmax). Even with implementation of noisemitigating practices incorporated into construction of future development within the City’s Planning Area (now Implementation Program 8.13 of the 2035 General Plan), the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that that there could still be a noticeable temporary increase in noise levels for noise-sensitive uses that are adjacent to construction sites, and the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Construction activities anticipated within the WRTP Specific Plan Area are consistent with those analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, but also took into consideration construction of the off-site improvements and sensitive land uses that have been constructed or are planned for construction within the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area. With respect to increase above existing ambient noise levels, as shown in Table 3.11-2 measurement LT-01 represents the WRTP Specific Plan Area south of CR 25A, and Measurement LT-02 represents the WRTP Specific Plan Area north of CR 25A. The measured daytime average ambient noise levels at LT-01 and LT-02 are 48 dB Leq (70 dB Lmax) and 55 dB Leq (93 dB Lmax), respectively. The measured nighttime average ambient noise levels at LT01 and LT-02 are 49 dB Leq (66 dB Lmax) and 54 dB Leq (71 dB Lmax), respectively. Construction activities associated with development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas would substantially increase noise-levels above existing ambient conditions. Construction activities within the WRTP Specific Plan Area are anticipated along the eastern and northern boundaries adjacent to existing and potential future residences associated with the Spring Lake development. In addition, as development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area proceeds, construction activities could take place in proximity to future sensitive land uses within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. With respect to the Caltrans Off-site Improvement Area, the nearest construction would occur within approximately 120 feet of the residence southwest of the SR 113/CR 25A interchange. At this distance, assuming an approximately 6dB decrease in noise from construction equipment with each doubling of distance, the estimated average 80 to 90 dB generated by potential construction equipment at 50 feet could still exceed 75 dB.

Therefore, construction activities within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas could result in exposure of existing and future noise-sensitive land uses to noticeable increases in noise levels. If construction activities were to occur during more noise-sensitive hours, construction source noise levels could also result in annoyance and/or sleep disruption to occupants of existing and proposed noise-sensitive land uses, and could create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Section 9.28.090 of the City’s Municipal Code limits noisy construction activities within or near residential areas to weekdays and Saturdays between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. and Sundays between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Land use and development under the WRTP Specific Plan will comply with all applicable regulations, including the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and implementation of the performance standards of the WRTP Specific Plan, which are consistent with the 2035 General Plan policies and Implementation Programs, would reduce the potential for significant noise exposure

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-105 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
impacts from the implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan. However, there could still be a noticeable temporary increase above ambient noise levels for noisesensitive uses that are adjacent to future construction sites. This impact is considered significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-1– Implement Construction Noise Reduction Strategies (as revised in Chapter 3, “Errata,” of the Final EIR)
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 400 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;

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-106 City of Woodland
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.

Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would reduce construction-related noise exposure.

However, since the timing and specific details with regard to equipment use and intensity of future construction activities is unknown, it is not possible to quantify the noise reductions achievable by implementation of this mitigation. Therefore, there could still be a substantial temporary increase in noise levels for existing and future noise-sensitive uses in proximity to construction activities within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas, which could lead to adverse noise-related impacts.

The City has accepted the potentially significant outcome of construction noise as a trade-off for promoting compact development. This is communicated in the 2035 General Plan, including Policy 2.C.1, that promotes compact development patterns, mixed land use, and higher-development intensities that conserve land resources, reduce vehicle trips, improve air quality, and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use, but may result in some less desirable impacts, such as increased traffic, greater noise, reduced private residential open space, and reduced privacy than in lower density areas. The City acknowledges that temporary construction noise is a necessary byproduct of meeting the City’s objectives for development, resource conservation, air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction, and related topics. General Plan Policy 8.G.11 considers construction noise to be an acceptable impact that is an expected byproduct of planned growth, so long as the land use is consistent with the General Plan, and noise levels are consistent with the General Plan and Construction Noise Ordinance. Where growth and increased density is allowed pursuant to the City’s General Plan, including the WRTP Specific Plan Area, these issues are acknowledged and accepted (please refer to Page 4.11-51 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for details). There are no additional policies that would reduce the potential environmental impact beyond the analysis presented above. There is no additional feasible mitigation. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-20 through 3.11-24.) The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Impact 3.11-2. Generation of a Substantial Permanent (Long-term Operations) Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies.

Finding: Land uses contemplated under the WRTP Specific Plan could potentially expose existing or anticipated noise-sensitive uses to noise levels that exceed standards. Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-107 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.11-51 to 4.11-60) analyzed long-term operational noise impacts resulting from the future development, with assumed development within the City’s new growth areas, including the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The analysis determined that future development of noise-sensitive uses within the WRTP Specific Plan Area could occur adjacent to areas that are exposed to noise from transportation sources and from non-transportation noise sources, as well as in areas that either are currently exposed to or would be exposed to ambient noise levels that exceed the existing ambient exterior noise levels at noise-sensitive uses. The analysis also determined that future development would include the creation of long-term sources of noise that could increase noise levels above existing ambient levels. Although the General Plan policies were designed to avoid substantial disturbances to noise-sensitive receptors, the City anticipated that, despite implementation of feasible noise reduction strategies, noise-sensitive uses could be exposed to noise in exceedance of the City’s standards, including noise generated by new development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, and concluded in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR that impacts related to the generation of a permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be significant and unavoidable. As a necessary outcome of development allowed under the WRTP Specific Plan, longterm sources of noise would be created. Also, future development of noise-sensitive uses would occur in areas that either are currently exposed to or would be exposed to ambient noise levels that exceed the existing ambient exterior noise levels at noisesensitive uses. Table 3.11-2 shows the long-term measured ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Sources of ambient noise in the vicinity of the WRTP Specific Plan Area are vehicular traffic noise, non-transportation noise sources, as well as noise generated by landscape and building maintenance activities, mechanical equipment, solid waste collection, parking lots, commercial, office, residential, school, and recreation activities and events. As noted, the WRTP Specific Plan Area was assumed as part of the development anticipated under the 2035 General Plan. Land use contemplated by the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with the vision of the General Plan for SP-1A and the 2035 General Plan Policy 2.L.2, which describes the intended land use concept for SP-1A. Although the off-site South Regional Pond was not specifically analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the operational noise associated with this land use is negligible as a passive open-space detention pond. Potential increases in noise levels associated with traffic at the SR 113/CR 25A interchange, with implementation of the proposed Caltrans interchange improvements, are detailed below as part of the discussion of “Transportation Noise.”
Transportation Noise: Development under the WRTP Specific Plan would generate and attract vehicular traffic, which would increase traffic noise levels along existing and future roadways. Analysis in support of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR evaluated future highway and roadway (arterials, collectors and local roadways) noise levels anticipated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan, which included assumed development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Future noise levels were modeled for buildout of the General Plan in the year 2035 and accounted for traffic volumes assuming full development of the City’s Planning Area, including all new growth areas. Based on noise modeling for these conditions, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified up to 14 roadway segments for which the change in noise levels due to traffic would be perceptible, and up to four roadway segments for which the change would be clearly noticeable (6 dB change or more) (Tables 4.11-11 and 4.11-12 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, City of Woodland 2017). The analysis also determined that noise-sensitive uses could be developed in areas where transportation-related noise could exceed City’s noise standards. One such location proximate to the WRTP Specific Plan Area is along SR 113, at which existing noise levels for modeled segments within the Planning Area were between 75 Ldn and 76 Ldn. The nearest modeled roadway segment to the WRTP Specific Plan Area was on SR 113 south of East Gibson Road; at this location, existing transportation-related noise was modeled to be 76 Ldn and the future condition with implementation of the General Plan, including development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, was modeled to be 77 Ldn. In order to more specifically evaluate

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-108 City of Woodland
the traffic noise associated with the proposed roadway network under the WRTP Specific Plan, traffic noise was modeled using traffic study conducted in support of the EIR (see Appendix E, Transportation Impact Study, Fehr & Peers 2020). As shown in Tables 3.11-8a,b, there are several roadway segments associated with the WRTP Specific Plan’s proposed circulation network for which the addition of vehicular trips would increase noise levels so that they would be perceptible (by at least 3 dB) and some roadways where the increase over existing conditions is anticipated to be clearly noticeable (by at least 5 dB). The predicted traffic noise levels shown in Tables 3.11- 8a,b represent conservative potential noise exposure associated with roadways within and at the perimeter of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. In reality, noise levels may vary from that represented, since the calculations do not assume natural or artificial shielding or reflection from existing or proposed structures or variations in attenuation rates resulting from changes in intervening surfaces. In addition, noise levels would vary from day to day depending on factors such as local traffic volumes, speed, and meteorological conditions. Tables 3.11-8a,b lists the predicted distances to the 60 dB, 65 dB, and 70 dB Ldn traffic noise contours, and compares projected future traffic noise levels at proposed and existing roadways within and adjacent to the WRTP Specific Plan Area under the buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan to those under existing conditions. These contour distances are used to identify portions of the WRTP Specific Plan Area that could be subject to noise impacts. Table 3.11-9 compares projected future traffic noise levels from approved projects and buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan with existing traffic noise levels.

This table provides an evaluation of the changes in traffic noise levels that would result from development of the WRTP Specific Plan and other approved projects. As shown in Tables 3.11-8a,b, traffic associated with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan is expected to increase noise levels by 3 to 10 dB from existing condition. The increase of 10 dB would only occur along CR 25A from SR 113 NB Ramps to the proposed Road A; the WRTP Specific Plan land use designations adjacent to this roadway segment are Highway Commercial and Research and Technology Park, in which permitted uses would primarily not accommodate noise sensitive uses, except Highway Commercial does allow for hotels and the Research and Technology Park could accommodate daycare facilities. Also, as shown, existing plus project condition traffic noise would range from 61 to 68 dB at 100 feet. Therefore, traffic noise levels would not exceed the City’s noise standards of 70 dB, as shown in Table 3.11- 5, for noise-sensitive uses. Although transportation-related noise would be less than the City’s standards at existing and planned roadways within and adjacent to the WRTP Specific Plan Area, future development of new noisesensitive land uses could occur under the WRTP Specific Plan within areas that are currently exposed to noise from transportation sources (e.g., west of SR 113). This impact is significant. Traffic noise due to improvement at the SR 113 and CR 25A interchange was not modeled\evaluated in this analysis. Traffic noise was not computed along SR 113 as the traffic study did not evaluate freeway volume increase along SR 113 due to the project and future conditions. However, Project-related traffic increase along SR 113 would not even cause doubling of the traffic volumes, in which case it would have only caused a 3 dB (barely perceptible) increase in traffic noise.

Improvements to the SR 113 and CR 25A interchange would slightly increase traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receiver located to the southwest of the interchange. However, the traffic noise along SR 113 would be the dominant noise source and would mask the slight noise increase due to the interchange movements. Therefore, implementation of the SR 113/CR 25A interchange improvements would result in noise related impacts that are less than significant.

Stationary and Area Source Noise: The WRTP Specific Plan would accommodate a variety of land uses, including residential, commercial, retail, light industrial, research facilities within office complexes, open space and recreation; and institutional and public facilities (e.g., electrical substations, wastewater conveyance facilities, and school facilities). The long-term operation of these uses could result in stationary and area source noise from, but not limited to:

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-109 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
► landscape and building maintenance activities (e.g., hand tools, power tools, lawn and garden equipment); ► whistles, amplified voices, and other sounds associated with sporting or other organized activities; ► amplified music;
► mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, generators heating, ventilation, and cooling systems); ► loading dock activities;
► parking lots;
► safety and warning devices;
► garbage collection; and
► other noise sources.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that the proposed intensification of land uses within the City’s Planning Area would result in somewhat greater ambient noise levels. The General Plan included noise performance standards and required feasible mitigation to reduce the potential for significant noise exposure impacts.

Performance Standard F of the WRTP Specific Plan (Section 3.3.2.) requires application of the noise-related provisions in Chapter 8 of the General Plan and applicable sections of the City of Woodland Municipal Code that relate to noise and nuisance considerations to all proposed projects within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The noise provisions in Chapter 8 of the General Plan are detailed in Section 3.11.3, “Regulatory Framework,” of the EIR, limiting the maximum noise levels at property lines to not exceed 70 dB Ldn. Similarly, Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan contains Design Standards and Design Guidelines for ensuring compatibility between adjacent uses with regard to noise and nuisance impacts. For example, Table 3.1 of the WRTP Specific Plan identifies permitted uses within each land use designation, with consideration for, among other factors, noise sources and revievers.

Specific commercial and retail uses within the medium-density and highdensity residential zones are permitted as part of a mixed-use project along the perimeter of a subdivision/development project, but may be subject to, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, conditions that limit noise, odor, or other potential impacts to adjoining residential uses and/or the Director may elevate review/approval to a Zoning Administrator Permit or Conditional Use Permit. Similarly, Design Guidelines and Special Character Guidelines throughout Chapter 3 provide for building orientation and separation guidelines, as well as consideration of placement and orientation of noise-generating equipment, such as vents/fans and regrigeration units, to minimize potential noise levels at futuer noise-sensitive recievers. Finally, the guidelines provide for set back distances, landscaping, and other noise attenuating recommendations, and standards with regard to solid masonry or block wall, should the be required as a last resort measure for noise attenuation to achieve noise standards; as noted Section 3.5, “Design Standards and Design Guidelines,” in the WRTP Specific Plan, sound walls are not expected to be required within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, except where necessary along SR 113 in locations where residential development is planned.

The policies referenced above would reduce long-term noise exposure impacts by establishing noise compatibility standards and requiring new development to include certain measures and strategies to achieve acceptable noise environments, wherever feasible. Although the policies are designed to avoid substantial disturbances to noisesensitive receptors, despite implementation of feasible noise reduction strategies contained in Chapter 8 of the

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-110 City of Woodland
General Plan and Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan, noise-sensitive uses could be exposed to noise generated by new development anticipated under the WRTP Specific Plan. This impact is significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-2– Reduce Noise Exposure from Transportation and Non-Transportation Sources Future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area shall be required to meet allowable outdoor and indoor noise exposure standards. Noise mitigation measures that may be approved to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct facades with sound insulation to achieve acceptable interior noise; • Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use setbacks and/or sound barriers where applicable, feasible, and reasonable; • Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends;
• Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions; and • Maximize site design so that buildings shelter outdoor areas Significance after Mitigation: Land use and development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area is subject to conformance with the permitted uses, the site development regulations, development standards, and design guidelines, as outlined in Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan and inclusive of the General Plan noise mitigating provisions and the City’s Municipal Code noise performance standards. Development of the land use plan for the WRTP Specific Plan Area took into consideration land use-noise compatibility, including the potential for noise source and noise sensitive land uses, of allowable land uses within each land use designation and zoning classification. The WRTP Specific Plan requires noise performance standards be met, as outlined in Section 3.3.2 of the WRTP Specific Plan. These standards are consistent with the 2035 General Plan policies described above, and would reduce the potential for significant noise exposure impacts from the implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan. Mitigation Measure 3.11-2 would further ensure implementation of all noise mitigation features and strategies with future development. Although the WRTP Specific Plan policies and Mitigation Measure 3.11-2 are designed to avoid substantial disturbances to noise-sensitive receptors, because the exact location and design of future noise generating sources and noise-sensitive uses is unknown at this time, it cannot be demonstrated at this time that policies in the WRTP Specific Plan and would reduce impacts of the WRTP Specific Plan related to exposure of noise-sensitive uses to transportation- and non-transportation noise sources to a less-than-significant level. There is no additional feasible mitigation available. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-24 through

3.11-28.)
The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-111 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Impact 3.11-3. Generation of Vibration.

Finding: Construction of projects under the WRTP Specific Plan could cause temporary, short-term disruptive vibration for locations near sensitive receptors within and adjacent to the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Under the WRTP Specific Plan, new vibration-sensitive uses could locate in areas exposed to vibration. Consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.11-60 to 4.11-63) discusses vibration impacts resulting from operation and construction activities that occur in areas immediately adjoining vibration-sensitive land uses, and when construction vibration occurs in new growth areas, including the WRTP Specific Plan Areas. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR anticipated that existing and future vibration-sensitive receptors could be located within close proximity to construction sites that could generate temporary, short-term vibration levels from construction sources that exceed FTA’s maximum-acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance) at vibration-sensitive land uses. Table 3.11-7 provides vibration levels for typical construction equipment. If construction activities were to occur during more noise-sensitive hours, vibration from construction sources could annoy and/or disrupt the sleep of occupants of existing and proposed residences and expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR also acknowledged that vibration levels from future vibration sources associated with planned development, including within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, could exceed FTA’s maximum-acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance) at vibration-sensitive land uses. Vibration from future sources could annoy and/or disrupt the sleep of occupants of existing and proposed residences and expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels if vibration-generating activities were to occur during more noise-sensitive hours. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that, even with implementation of mitigation that would reduce the level of impact associated with temporary construction-related vibration exposure for sensitive uses, and the potential for vibration levels in areas of new vibration-sensitive land uses, impacts may not be avoidable in all instances, and the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would include construction and operation of future land uses within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas. Construction activities associated with the off-site improvements would be consistent with other construction proposed throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area and anticipated under the 2035 General Plan. Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would result in no additional or different impact than disclosed in the analysis presented in the General Plan EIR, summarized below. Construction and demolition activities associated with the WRTP Specific Plan have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used, the location of construction activities relative to sensitive receptors, and operations/activities involved. The required construction equipment for future proposed projects under the WRTP Specific Plan is not known at this time, but could include maximum generation of vibration from pile drivers, trucks, and bulldozers. According to the FTA, vibration levels associated with the use of such equipment would be approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV and 87 VdB at 25 feet, as shown in Table 3.11-7. Using FTA’s recommended procedure for applying a propagation adjustment to these reference levels, predicted worst-case vibration levels with respected to construction related to improvements of SR 113 and Road 25A interchange, would be 67 VdB (0.008 in/sec PPV) at the nearest vibrationsensitive use which is located at approximately 120 feet to the southwest of the interchange. Also, the vibration levels would not exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV (Caltrans’s recommended standard with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings) within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, but would exceed 80 VdB (FTA’s maximum-acceptable vibration standard with respect to human annoyance for residential uses) within 60 feet of vibration-sensitive receptors. The WRTP Specific Plan provides for multi-story development integrated into the

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-112 City of Woodland
various land use designations, as detailed in Section 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan. Therefore, while unlikely, it is possible that pile-driving could occur at some development sites. This type of construction activity could produce very high vibration levels of approximately 112 VdB (1.518 PPV) at 25 feet, as shown in Table 3.11-7. These vibration levels drop off at a rate of about 9 VdB per doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor.

Vibration levels from construction sources could exceed FTA’s maximum-acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance) at vibration-sensitive land uses. More importantly, vibration from construction sources could annoy and/or disrupt the sleep of occupants of existing and proposed residences and expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels if vibration-generating activities were to occur during more noise-sensitive hours. Therefore, vibration levels would exceed the established standards. This impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-3a – Implement Vibration Reduction Measures a. New development that proposes the use of piles for foundations shall include all feasible measures necessary with the goal to ensure that vibration exposure for adjacent buildings is less than 0.5 peak particle velocity (PPV) and less than 80 vibration decibels (VdB) for adjacent vibration-sensitive uses and less than 0.2 PPV for adjacent historic buildings. These performance standards shall take into account the reduction in vibration exposure that would occur through coupling loss provided by each affected building structure. If it is determined necessary to avoid damage, the project applicant shall coordinate with the Chief Building Official to implement corrective actions, which may include, but is not limited to building protection or stabilization.
b. New developments that would generate substantial long-term vibration shall provide analysis and mitigation, as feasible, to achieve velocity levels, as experienced at habitable structures of vibrationsensitive land uses, of less than 80 vibration decibels.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-3b – Implement Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 3.11-3a requires use of project-specific vibration mitigation measures (preparation of vibration analysis and implementation of vibration abatement measures, as necessary and to the greatest extent feasible) and best practices during construction to mitigate vibration impacts to sensitive land uses. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 requires noise mitigation measures be implemented during construction, which, in many cases, would also reduce vibration-generation associated with construction activities. Implementation would reduce the potential for vibration levels in areas of new vibration-sensitive land uses and the level of impact associated with temporary construction-related vibration exposure for sensitive uses. However, since the timing and specific details with regard to equipment use and intensity of future construction activities is unknown, it is not possible to quantify the noise reductions achievable by implementation of this mitigation. Therefore, there could still be a substantial temporary increase in noise levels for existing and future noise-sensitive uses in proximity to construction activities within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas, which could lead to adverse noise-related impacts. There is no additional feasible mitigation.

Land use and development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area is subject to conformance with the permitted uses, the site development regulations, development standards and design guidelines, as outlined in Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan. The WRTP Specific Plan requires performance standards be met, as outlined in Section 3.3.2 of the WRTP Specific Plan. These standards are consistent with the 2035 General Plan policies described above,

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-113 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
and would reduce the potential vibration levels associated with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan.

However, because the exact location of future vibration generating sources and sensitive uses is unknown at this time, construction associated with future development of the WRTP Specific Plan could cause temporary, shortterm disruptive vibration for locations near sensitive receptors and planned vibration-sensitive uses could located in areas exposed to future vibration. There is no additional feasible mitigation. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11- 28 through 3.11-30.)
The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts. As described in Section VII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the proposed project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-114 City of Woodland
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when one of the following four conditions occurs:
(1) The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
(2) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
(3) The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, which means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
(4) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Section 15061(a)(1) states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to (1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (2) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; (3) substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or (4) eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. The EIR fully addresses any impacts that might relate to reduction of habitat and the effect on species. Impacts related to wildlife and plant species are addressed under Impacts 3.4-1, 3.4-2, 3.4-3, and 3.4-4, and as outlined above, impacts are less than significant with mitigation. Historic and prehistoric impacts are addressed under Impact 3.6-1, as outlined above, impacts are significant and unavoidable.

Section 15061(a)(2) states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Chapter 5 of the EIR includes a section on Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project. In addition, Section 5.4 of the EIR identifies all significant and unavoidable impacts that could occur and create a long-term impact on the environment.

Finally, Chapter 5 of the EIR also identifies any long-term environmental impacts caused by the proposed project.

Section 15061(a)(3) states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. This means that the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probably future projects.” Cumulative impacts are addressed for each of the environmental topics in the EIR and are discussed in each technical section of the EIR.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-115 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Section 15065(a)(4) requires a lead agency to find that a project will have a significant effect on the environment when there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. This factor relates to effects to the environment on human beings generally but not to effects on specific individuals. Any of the environmental effects analyzed in the EIR could cause adverse impacts to human beings, but all impacts that could directly affect human beings (such as aesthetics, air quality, hazardous materials, hydrology, flooding, and water quality, noise and vibration, and transportation) were examined in Chapter 3 of the EIR.

The City Council finds that the EIR for the proposed project analyzed and reported on all four mandatory findings of significance.

D. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), the City has included all feasible mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant and significant effects of the proposed project. These mitigation measures are fully enforceable by the City Council.

The MMRP includes Table 2-1, which is a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures, and is simultaneously being adopted by the City Council with its Resolution Certifying the EIR for the proposed project.

E. GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Chapter 5, “Other CEQA Considerations,” of the Draft EIR provides a discussion of the growth-inducing impacts of the 2035 General Plan pursuant to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. The WRTP Specific Plan Area is located outside the existing City limits; however, the WRTP Specific Plan Area would ultimately be annexed to the City and was considered as part of the City’s 2035 General Plan, adopted in 2017.

The development framework for the WRTP Specific Plan area was guided by Policy 2.L.2 of the 2035 General Plan, which describes the WRTP Specific Plan Area 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” and supports development that would “concentrate the highest intensity development within and in close proximity to the business park area, with lower density, largely residential uses to the north.” The 2035 General Plan designated three subareas within the City’s Planning Area for new growth (SP-1, 2, and 3); although specific land use designations were not identified for the WRTP Specific Plan Area, it is one of three subareas (SP-1A) within the designated SP-1 new growth area. As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the EIR, the WRTP Specific Plan Area could accommodate a broad range of uses that could generate approximately 5,000 jobs and 4,823 residents. This is consistent with the general growth anticipated for this WRTP Specific Plan Area in the 2035 General Plan. Because implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would not involve more employment 115enerateng land uses or residential development and population than anticipated under the City’s 2035 General Plan, the WRTP Specific Plan would not induce unplanned population growth.

Construction activities associated with future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas would generate temporary employment, but these construction jobs are anticipated to be filled from the existing local and regional employment pool. In addition, if some nonlocal construction workers were employed for the project, due to the temporary nature of the work, these workers would not typically change residences when assigned to a new construction site. Therefore, construction of future development within the

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-116 City of Woodland
WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas would not indirectly result in a population increase or induce growth by creating permanent new jobs. The additional population associated with the WRTP Specific Plan could spur an increase in demand for goods and services in the surrounding area, which could potentially result in additional development to satisfy this demand. In this respect, the WRTP Specific Plan would be growth inducing.

It would be speculative to attempt to predict where and when any such new services would be developed, and whether or not existing and future planned industrial and commercial development would satisfy additional demand for goods and services created by the project. The WRTP Specific Plan will provide roadway and other multi-modal connections to surrounding existing and planned neighborhoods within the City’s Planning Area, such as the Spring Lake Development to the north and east and future development within SP-1B west of State Route 113, which could be useful to future development, but these areas have been planned for eventual development as a part of the City’s 2035 General Plan. In addition, the General Plan anticipated the highest intensity of development for new growth to occur within the SP-1A and SP1B within the business park area, and the remainder of these sub-areas to be largely residential with some open space and recreation areas (City of Woodland 2017, pages LU 2-55 and 2-56).

The WRTP Specific Plan provides the additional job opportunities to support existing and future residential development within the City’s Planning Area. With regard to other infrastructure improvements, in anticipation of future development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, the backbone utility lines in the Spring Lake area were oversized and stubbed out at the border of the two planning areas, to ensure efficient service to the WRTP Specific Plan Area through extension of those backbone utility lines from Spring Lake. New stormwater facilities and onsite water and wastewater infrastructure required to serve the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be sized to accommodate WRTP Specific Plan Area -related demands. Although the 2035 General Plan anticipates additional development west of the WRTP Specific Plan Area in new growth areas identified as SP-1B and SP-1C, downstream stormwater infrastructure associated with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan will be designed to accept pre-development flows generated by these areas; it is assumed that development within these areas would include implementation of stormwater management features to reduce future post-development flows to their respective pre-development flows. Infrastructure improvements will be phased with development. Because the infrastructure that would be provided for the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be consistent with that anticipated under the 2035 General Plan, the WRTP Specific Plan would not result in indirect growth-inducing effects by increasing infrastructure capacity that could serve additional development in excess of that anticipated under the City’s 2035 General Plan.

In summary, the WRTP Specific Plan may indirectly induce population growth because the increased population and employment opportunities associated with the future development could increase demand for goods and services, thereby fostering population and economic growth in the City and surrounding unincorporated Yolo County and other nearby communities. It is possible that the WRTP Specific Plan could place pressure on adjacent areas to seek development entitlements or annexation applications. However, WRTP Specific Plan Area, along with other areas planned for development under the City’s General Plan, would provide sufficient acreage to accommodate population and employment growth in alignment with the purpose and intent of the 2035 General Plan. Therefore, the WRTP Specific Plan would not induce substantial unplanned growth in the City of Woodland.

F. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Chapter 5.0, “Other CEQA Considerations,” of the Draft EIR examines “significant irreversible environmental changes” pursuant to Section 15126.2© of the CEQA Guidelines. Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-117 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
the project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
► The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; ► The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; ► The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
► The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

Development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas would use both renewable and nonrenewable natural resources during both construction and operational phases—both within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and also to construct required off-site improvements. Nonrenewable fossil fuels would be used during construction and operation. Other nonrenewable and slowly-renewable resources consumed as a result of development under the WRTP Specific Plan would include, but not necessarily be limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, and water. Proposed development would consume energy for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, electronics, office equipment, and commercial machinery. Energy could also be consumed during each vehicle trip associated with these proposed uses. It is important to note that actual energy usage could vary substantially, depending upon factors such as the type of uses that would occupy the buildings, actual miles driven by future residents and employees, and the degree to which energy conservation measures are incorporated into the design of the various facilities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the City. Therefore, it is not expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would be more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.

In addition, the WRTP Specific Plan requires consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan and includes several policies, development standards, and design guidelines the require implementation of energy reducing and conserving measures in future development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, thereby promoting reduced operational demand for non-renewable and slowly-renewable resources compared to existing City operations and compared to new development that could occur elsewhere within the region.

Irreversible changes would likely occur as a result of future excavation, grading, and construction activities.

Proposed development would also generate additional transportation demand, construction, energy demand, and other activities that would increase emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, as well as generation of noise. Different air pollutants and different greenhouse gas emissions remain in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years.

Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvement areas would permanently convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. All agricultural uses within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be converted to urban uses at buildout of the proposed project. This change in land use would represent a long-term commitment to new land uses, since the potential for developed land to be reverted back to undeveloped land uses is highly unlikely.

Operation of projects in the vicinity could include the use of hazardous materials, which could increase the risk of an accidental spill or release. During construction, equipment would be using various types of fuel and material

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-118 City of Woodland
classified as hazardous. In California, the storage and use of hazardous substances are strictly regulated. The enforcement of these existing regulations would preclude credible significant impacts related to environmental accidents.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR addresses impacts of development of the City’s Planning Area, including the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Section 6.3 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR addressed significant irreversible environmental changes that could occur as a result of implementation of the 2035 General Plan. The City acknowledges that there could be significant irreversible environmental changes as a result of implementation of the 2035 General Plan, and similarly, there could be significant irreversible environmental changes as a result of implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan. Detailed assessments, including cumulative impacts, for each of the above-mentioned topics are provided throughout Chapter 3 of the EIR. However, and as explained below in Section VII of these Findings, the City Council finds that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant and unavoidable growth-inducing effects caused by the proposed project.

G. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

1. AESTHETICS
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-9 and 6-10) (City of Woodland 2016b) determined that new development throughout the region would result in substantial changes to the regional visual character, including views of agricultural land. As development occurs throughout the region, substantial changes in visual conditions would continue as open viewsheds are replaced by urban development, including both higher-density development and tall buildings that are visible from longer distances, as well as rural and lower-density development with oneand two-story buildings that are only visible from adjacent public viewing areas or transportation corridors. Many changes in the aesthetic environment are only experienced locally, and would not tend to combine with nearby development to create cumulative impacts that are more severe than the sum of individual plans and projects.

However, cumulative development within the region also adds additional lighting, which combines together to create skyglow effects that obscure views of the night sky. Future development in nearby cities and the surrounding unincorporated County land would lead to a more intense nighttime glow, which would be perceptible throughout the region. Therefore, the changes in scenic vistas, visual character, and nighttime skyglow from projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis would be substantial, and were considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR to have significant cumulative impacts in and of themselves.

Adverse Effects On Scenic Vistas: Because there are few scenic vistas in the City of Woodland, and it was determined that new views would compensate for—and be very similar to—any lost views, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that a lessthan-cumulatively considerable impact to scenic vistas from new development would occur. As described in this aesthetics analysis, the WRTP Specific Plan viewshed, including the off-site South Regional Pond proposed location and the SR 113/CR 25A intersection, is of moderate visual quality and does not contain any scenic vistas. Because the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are of moderate visual quality and do not represent scenic vistas, and because blockage of the limited background views of the Coast Ranges from the western edge of the Spring Lake development due to development of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan Area was planned for in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (and determined to represent a lessthansignificant impact), the impacts of development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvements

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-119 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
would not be cumulatively considerable, and would represent a less-than-cumulatively considerable impact.

Therefore, implementing the WRTP Specific Plan in conjunction with development of related projects would result in a less-than-cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to changes in scenic vistas.

Degradation of Visual Character: New development envisioned by the 2035 General Plan would allow for greater density and development intensity in certain areas. However, new buildings do not necessarily constitute an adverse visual impact, and policies in the 2035 General Plan establish high standards for design and compatibility with a project’s surroundings. In addition to adding uses and density, new investment in urban infill areas typically improves visual quality by developing vacant or underutilized properties and improving maintenance of existing structures and yards. However, implementing new development would change the visual character of the Planning Area, which would be perceived within the Planning Area, as well as from adjacent areas. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that even with implementation of all feasible measures in the form of policies and programs in the 2035 General Plan and the City’s Community Design Standards, new development would make a cumulatively significant and unavoidable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to degradation of visual character. The WRTP Specific Plan is designed in compliance with the 2035 General Plan, which includes numerous policies that promote high quality design to ensure that new urban development in the City is visually attractive and aesthetically pleasing (see Section 3.1.2, “Regulatory Framework,” above). The Spring Lake development, which is immediately adjacent to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan Area to the north and east, envisioned urban development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and planned for joint underground sewer, water, and storm drainage capacity for both specific plan areas. The WRTP Specific Plan Design Standards and Design Guidelines incorporate requirements similar to the Spring Lake Specific Plan Design Standards (City of Woodland 2003). The standards and guidelines for both Specific Plans promote attractive tree-lined streets with curbside planting strips, neighborhoods with homes facing the street, front-facing windows, and functioning porches.

Residential subdivisions would include internal trails (landscaped linear open space connections separate from sidewalks, paths, and landscaping in street right-of-way) that allow for pedestrian and bicycle circulation within and between subdivisions, and that provide greater connectivity to the planned off-street pedestrian/bicycle loop pathway system including connectivity with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan Area. The WRTP Specific Plan Area would be consistent with General Plan Policy 2.E.2, which encourages high-quality new development that enhances and blends with the established fabric of the natural, social, and built environment, while allowing for innovative architectural styles. The Design Standards and Design Guidelines, in addition to the Land Use Plan and Mobility and Circulation Network, detailed in the WRTP Specific Plan require that streets in the WRTP Specific Plan Area be designed to connect to the Spring Lake development and provide direct access to parks, transit facilities, and commercial uses for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed off-site SR 113/CR 25A interchange improvements would be designed in accordance with Caltrans standards, and at the conclusion of construction activities, would appear visually similar to the existing interchange. The off-site South Regional Pond would be designed in accordance with the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details, and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a) and standard engineering practices for design of detention basins, and at the conclusion of construction activities, would appear visually similar to other ponds and detention basins in the project region, and would not detract from the existing visual character. However, project implementation would still result in conversion of rural agricultural land to new urban development on approximately 350 acres, and the off-site South Regional Pond would convert 4 acres of orchard to a detention basin, which would inherently change the visual character in this portion of the City. Therefore, the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site South Regional Pond would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-120 City of Woodland
cumulatively significant impact. Because all feasible mitigation measures in the form of policies and programs in the 2035 General Plan and the WRTP Specific Plan Design Standards and Guidelines have already been incorporated, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan in conjunction with development of related projects would result in a cumulatively significant and unavoidable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to degradation of visual character.

Lighting and Glare Effects: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that new development envisioned under the General Plan would contribute nighttime light to the already increasing amount of light pollution in the region, and therefore would make a cumulatively significant and unavoidable contribution to this significant cumulative impact even after implementation of new General Plan Policies 2.F.4 and 2.F.5 (which were adopted as part of the 2035 General Plan). Because the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be developed with commercial, light industrial, and residential uses, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would create new sources of additional nighttime lighting that would be visible to adjacent residents in the Spring Lake development as well as motorists traveling on SR 113 and County Roads 25A and 101. As shown in Viewpoint 3, existing nighttime lighting for sporting events at the Woodland Sports Park is visible from the WRTP Specific Plan Area and from homes along the western edge of the Spring Lake development. Furthermore, existing nighttime lighting is already present adjacent to and west of the WRTP Specific Plan Area along SR 113, and adjacent to and east of the WRTP Specific Plan Area in the Spring Lake development. Street lighting in the WRTP Specific Plan Area must be designed in accordance with the lighting standards contained in Section 9 of the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a). The WRTP Specific Plan Design Guidelines state that development may not create new sources of glare, and include lighting design requirements that are designed to comply with 2035 General Plan Policies such as 2.F.4 and 2.F.5. Therefore, the WRTP Specific Plan would employ all feasible measures to avoid light spillover and glare into surrounding areas, and reduce night sky pollution. 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, and would not substantially change the amount of lighting that is already emitted as compared to the existing interchange. However, WRTP Specific Plan implementation would still add to the overall amount of nighttime lighting and potential night sky pollution effects in the City and the region. Therefore, the WRTP Specific Plan would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this significant cumulative impact. Because all feasible mitigation measures in the form of policies and programs in the 2035 General Plan and the WRTP Specific Plan Design Standards and Design Guidelines have already been incorporated, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan in conjunction with development of related projects would result in a cumulatively significant and unavoidable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to nighttime lighting and glare effects. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-18 through 3.1-21.)

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-13 and 6-14) (City of Woodland 2016) determined that new development throughout the region would convert agricultural land, including Important Farmland, to nonagricultural uses resulting in a significant cumulative impact. New development envisioned by the 2035 General Plan would convert all of the farmland in the Planning Area to non-agricultural uses (see Table 6-5 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR). The proposed South Regional Pond would be adjacent to, but south of, the WRTP Specific Plan Area, and was not considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Multiple policies are identified in the 2035 General Plan to manage agricultural land conversion, including an urban limit line that is designed to

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-121 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
protect agricultural land surrounding the city limits, which would reduce the potential impact associated with conversion of agricultural land. The 2035 General Plan also requires mitigation for lost farmland within the ULL at a rate of one acre of permanently conserved farmland for every acre converted to urban development or nonagricultural uses. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that even with implementation of all feasible measures in the form of policies and programs in the 2035 General Plan new development would make a cumulatively significant and unavoidable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to the loss of farmland, including Important Farmland. As described in Section 3.2.4 of the EIR, future development under the WRTP Specific Plan would result in conversion of approximately 346 acres of Prime Farmland to new urban development, the off-site South Regional Pond would convert 4 acres of Prime Farmland to a detention basin. The proposed WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A are within the City’s Planning Area and therefore were included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and there are no substantial changes to environmental conditions, regulatory updates, or the WRTP Specific Plan that require additional cumulative analysis or mitigation. Although the off-site South Regional Pond was not included within the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR analysis, 2035 General Plan policies would be applicable to the South Regional Pond, similar to the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Therefore, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvements, in conjunction with development of related projects, would result in a cumulatively considerable and unavoidable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to conversion of farmland, including Important Farmland, to nonagricultural uses. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-21 through 3.-22.)

3. AIR QUALITY
The geographic scope for air quality consists of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-14 through 6-18) (City of Woodland 2016) analyzed cumulative impacts to air quality. The proposed WRTP Specific Plan Area was included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in Chapter 6 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Generation of Short-Term Construction and Long-Term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors, or Conflict with or Obstruct an Air Quality Plan: By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The implementation of plans and projects within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin would contribute to this impact on a cumulative basis. The emissions of an individual project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development projects. All new development that would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions would contribute to cumulative construction air quality impacts. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the air basin, and this regional impact is a significant cumulative impact. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that short-term construction and long-term operational criteria pollutant and precursor emissions from implementation of the General Plan (under either alternative) would exceed YSAQMD’s thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, and PM10, and that the cumulative scenario of additional development within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin would also generate additional construction-related criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emissions. This was considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As shown in Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-4 above, construction-related criteria pollutant and precursor emissions from development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas would exceed YSAQMD’s thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, and PM10 without mitigation and for PM10 with mitigation. In addition, as shown in Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-5 above, long-term operational emissions associated with future land uses in the WRTP Specific Plan Area would exceed YSAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, and PM10. Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b would reduce PM and ozone precursor emissions from

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-122 City of Woodland
construction-related activities. However, PM10 emissions from construction activities would still exceed YSAQMD thresholds. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2c would reduce operational emissions of ROG and PM. In addition, WRTP Specific Plan Policy 2.2.3, Sustainability, in Chapter 2 of the WRTP Specific Plan requires new development be consistent with the objectives and targets of the City’s Climate Action Plan (consistent with the 2035 General Plan Policies 2.C.2 and 2.L.2); this policy, along with compliance with YSAQMD Rules and Regulations and State regulations, will help to reduce short-term and long-term emissions, but it is not possible to determine at this time whether mitigation, WRTP Specific Plan policies, and compliance with local rules and regulations would reduce emissions to a less-thansignificant level. As described in Impact 3.3-2 above, the nature of criteria pollutants is such that the emissions from an individual project cannot be directly identified as responsible for health impacts within any specific geographic location. As a result, attributing health risks at any specific geographic location to a single proposed project is not feasible. Nonetheless, the results of the Strategic Area Project Health Screening Tool have been presented for informational purposes and the modeling results support a conclusion that the proposed WRTP Specific Plan does not, on its own, lead to sizeable regional health effects from the emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. However, YSAQMD considers that if a project’s impacts would be significant at the project-level, it could also be considered significant on a cumulative level. Even with all feasible mitigation, construction-related and operational emissions could still result in a net increase of ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions. The implementation of regional and local development within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin would generate increased short-term construction and long-term operational emissions that may cumulatively exceed regional thresholds and conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Even if emissions associated with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvement areas are reduced to levels that are below YSAQMD thresholds, the WRTP Specific Plan would still contribute to increased overall emissions throughout the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. There is no additional feasible mitigation available that would avoid these impacts. The WRTP Specific Plan could make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations: Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, such as TACs and CO generally occurs on a localized rather than regional basis. As discussed in Impact 3.3-3 above, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of CO. Because site-specific details of development are not known at the present time and construction at the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas could occur in phases adjacent to existing and future sensitive receptors, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3a, 3.3-3b and 3.3- 3c are necessary to ensure impacts would be less than significant. Since there are no other known projects among those considered as part of this cumulative analysis that are both large enough and would involve construction in close enough proximity to these rural residences to result in TAC impacts, the cumulative contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Other Emissions Such as Those Leading to Odors: Odor impacts are generally localized and do not combine with odor impacts in nearby jurisdictions to increase the severity of impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure

3.3-4 would avoid conflicts between potential land use-generated odor emissions and sensitive receptors. Therefore, the impact of exposing populations to substantial other emissions, such as those leading to odors, is less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-45 through 3.3-47.)

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-123 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As demonstrated in Chapter 2 of the EIR, “Project Description,” the entire WRTP Specific Plan boundary falls within the area analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and land uses proposed in the WRTP Specific Plan are consistent with the development assumptions of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The proposed South Regional Pond would be adjacent to, but south of, the WRTP Specific Plan Area, and was not considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The proposed South Regional Pond area does not provide habitat for specialstatus plant species, 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, nor provide habitat for burrowing owl. As detailed in the above analysis, development of the South Regional Pond would not result in any significant impacts not already addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR with regard to development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area, or otherwise mitigable. The majority of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the proposed off-site improvement areas consist of agricultural land that provides limited habitat values to most species; however, certain agricultural crops found in the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas provide important habitat for the State-listed Swainson’s hawk, as well as other special-status wildlife species. Swainson’s hawk, the most vulnerable species that occurs in the WRTP Specific Plan Area, may be adversely affected by cumulative impacts through permanent loss of agricultural land that serves as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and could reduce reproductive success. As discussed on pages 6-18 through 6-24 of the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this is a significant cumulative impact. However, successful implementation of mitigation, as described in the above impact analyses, and compliance with existing State and federal regulations, would ensure implementation of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan and offsite improvements would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact on Swainson’s hawk because these policies, mitigation, and regulations require that unavoidable loss of habitat for this species be fully compensated. Therefore, impacts associated with the loss of Swainson’s hawk and their habitats are less than cumulatively considerable. This analysis is consistent with the cumulative effect discussion (pages 6-23 to 6-24) of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-39.)

5. CLIMATE CHANGE, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS & ENERGY
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: GHG emissions typically persist in the atmosphere for extensive periods time—long enough to be dispersed globally and result in long-term global climate change and related impacts. As such, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan will not, by itself, contribute significantly to climate change; however, cumulative emissions from many projects and plans all contribute to global GHG concentrations and the climate system. As such, impacts associated with GHG emissions are inherently cumulative; the discussion of the potential for implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan to generate GHG emissions is discussed above under “Impacts not Discussed Further,” finding that the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s 2035 CAP, which was found under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR to result in less than cumulatively considerable generation of GHG emissions. This analysis considers the cumulative contribution of implementation of the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP, inclusive of development under the WRTP Specific Plan, to the significant cumulative impact of climate change, and concludes that impacts are less than cumulatively considerable.

Energy As discussed in the cumulative analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-26 to 6-28), Increased demand for electrical and natural gas supplies and infrastructure is a byproduct of all future land uses and development in the City of Woodland, Yolo County, and the region. Energy is consumed for heating, cooling, and electricity in homes and businesses; for public infrastructure and service operations; and for agriculture,

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-124 City of Woodland
industry, and commercial uses. Each service provider is responsible for ensuring adequate provision of these utilities within their jurisdictional boundaries and would be responsible for upgrading their existing electrical and natural gas distribution systems or constructing new distribution systems to meet the demands of individual projects. Yolo County and the cities within the county implement general plans that include goals and policies to reduce energy demands through the use of design features, building materials, and building practices; encourage the use of renewable energy sources; promote land uses and patterns that would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy; and ensure adequate electricity and natural gas and related distribution systems are available to meet energy demands. In addition, service providers encourage energy conservation through programs, such as offering rebates for installation of energy efficient appliances and lighting fixtures. The California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission have roles in regulating energy supply and ensuring reliable and sufficient supplies as the state grows. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that overall energy efficiency (energy demand per unit of development) would improve and cumulative development would not be expected to cause the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and found this impact to be less than cumulatively considerable. As noted above, transportation is, by far, the largest energy consuming sector in California, accounting for approximately 40 percent of all energy use in the state (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2020). Since transportation accounts for more energy consumption than heating, cooling, and powering of buildings, powering industry, or any other use, the overall efficiency of energy use in the region will depend importantly on the ability of local lead agencies to plan in a way that reduces travel demand.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR noted that SACOG’s 2016 MTP/SCS demonstrates an increase in energy efficiency through 2035 in relation to transportation energy use – household generated VMT per capita is forecast to decrease by more than 8 percent and that SACOG also estimates that total VMT will decrease by almost 7 percent during the 2016 MTP/SCS planning period (SACOG 2016, Chapter 5B, page 91). Since regional transportation and building energy use will become more efficient over the SACOG MTP/SCS planning and City’s planning horizon, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined there to be no significant cumulative impact. The WRTP Specific Plan Area was considered as part of the anticipated development under the 2035 General Plan Update. In addition, the off-site improvement areas, while not a part of the original WRTP Specific Plan Area, would consume energy during construction that is consistent with typical construction projects in the region, and would require minimal energy associated with maintenance and operations over time. The energy efficiency of the built environment and transportation has continued to increase since the adoption of the 2035 General Plan. As discussed above, the WRTP Specific Plan would comply with relevant State and local statutes and regulations related to energy efficiency, including the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20, Building Energy Regulations, and Title 24, Energy Conservation Standards, as well as WRTP Specific Plan Design Standards and Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 of the WRTP Specific Plan developed to reduce energy demand of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and provide consistency with the General Plan and City’s CAP. The California Green Building Standards Code is updated over time and in each instance, the energy efficiency standards are increased. Similar to the SACOG 2016 MTP/SCS, the 2020 MTP/SCS, lower VMT per capita is anticipated for the region, with a secondary result of reduced percapita use of energy and fuel. Because regional transportation and building energy use will become more efficient between present and the SACOG MTP/SCS planning horizon, the regional planning efforts would result in a lessthan-cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR planning assumptions and cumulative scenario, and cumulative effects from implementing the WRTP Specific Plan in conjunction with development of related projects, with regard to the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy and conflict with or obstruction of plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, would be less-thancumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-32 through 3.5-33.)

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-125 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC

6. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Per the 2035 General Plan, no prehistoric resources have been formally recorded in Woodland, and evidence of early native peoples who occupied the area is scarce, therefore any artifacts or information is valuable. Cultural resources in the larger region generally consist of prehistoric sites, historical archaeological sites, historic-age buildings and structures, and isolated artifacts. During the 19th and 20th centuries, localized urbanization and intensive agricultural use in the region caused the destruction or disturbance of numerous prehistoric sites, while many structures now considered to be historic were erected. From the latter half of the 20th century to the present, prehistoric archaeological sites and historic structures have been disturbed and destroyed. During this period, the creation and enforcement of various regulations protecting cultural resources have substantially reduced the rate and intensity of these impacts. However, even with these regulations, cultural resources are still degraded or destroyed as cumulative development in the region proceeds. As detailed in Section 3.6.4 of the EIR with regard to the project-level analysis of implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvement areas, while mitigation has been imposed that would reduce impacts, there is still the potential to adversely affect unknown archaeological resource and human remains. As described in Section 6.1.3.6 of the General Plan and CAP EIR, these cultural resources impacts were considered significant and unavoidable. The proposed WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A are within the City’s Planning Area and therefore were included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and there are no substantial changes to environmental conditions, regulatory updates, or the WRTP Specific Plan that require additional cumulative analysis or mitigation. Although the off-site South Regional Pond was not included within the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR analysis, 2035 General Plan policies would be applicable to the South Regional Pond, similar to the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The policies of the 2035 General Plan and mitigation proposed in Section 4.6 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, “Cultural Resources,” are relevant to the implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and off-site improvements. These policies and mitigation, when coupled with cultural resources mitigation measures, will minimize the severity of significant impacts that may result from the discovery of undocumented subsurface cultural resources or unmarked historic-era or prehistoric Native American human burials; however, these impacts would not be entirely unavoidable, but could be mitigated to less than significant.

Therefore, implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and off-site improvements, in conjunction with development of related projects, would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to archaeological resources and human remains. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-16.)

7. GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERALS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Seismic and Geologic Hazards: As discussed in the cumulative analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 6-30) (City of Woodland 2016b), construction of buildings associated with the projects considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Cumulative Scenario would result in more construction with more potential exposure to geologic hazards such as seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and construction in unstable soils.

However, all development projects are required by law to comply with the CBC, which includes engineering practices that require special design and construction methods to reduce or eliminate hazards from geologic hazards including seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and construction in unstable and expansive soils. Construction projects entitled by the City are subject to compliance with General Plan Policies, such as 8.A.1, 8.A.2, and 8.A.3, which are designed to reduce geologic hazards from construction. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that cumulative effects related to seismic ground shaking; liquefaction; and geologic hazards related to unstable soils and expansive soils would be less-than-cumulatively considerable. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan are required by law to comply with the design and construction

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-126 City of Woodland
requirements of the CBC, which includes engineering practices that require special design and construction methods to reduce or eliminate hazards from geologic hazards including seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and construction in unstable and expansive soils. Project applicants for the off-site South Regional Pond are required to comply with the Yolo County permit and ordinance requirements, including Title 7, Building Regulations, of the Yolo County Code. The 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 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). The proposed WRTP Specific Plan and the SR 113/County Road 25A interchange improvements are within the City’s Planning Area and therefore were included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and there are no substantial changes to environmental conditions, regulatory updates, or the WRTP Specific Plan that require additional cumulative analysis or mitigation. Although the off-site South Regional Pond is not within the City’s Planning Area and therefore was not included within the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, design and construction of the South Regional Pond is regulated by the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a). Therefore, and consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, cumulative effects related to seismic ground shaking; liquefaction; and geologic hazards related to unstable soils and expansive soils from the WRTP Specific Plan and the associated offsite improvements, in conjunction with development of related projects, would be lessthan-cumulatively considerable.

Soil Erosion: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Cumulative Scenario (page 6-30) (City of Woodland 2016b) concluded that increased construction associated with the projects considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Cumulative Scenario would result in an increased potential for soil erosion along with an increased potential for siltation of local drainages from sediment transport. All applicable projects are required to comply with the City of Woodland Stormwater Management Program and NPDES regulations, including construction site SWPPPs and BMPs designed to control soil erosion at each construction site. Projects must also comply with Chapter 15.12 of the City of Woodland Municipal Code (the City’s Grading Ordinance), which requires a grading permit, 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. Projects must also comply with Chapter 8.08 of the City’s Municipal Code, which regulates discharges into the municipal storm drain system, including compliance with applicable provisions of construction NPDES permit requirements. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that effects from constructionrelated soil erosion would be less-than-cumulatively considerable. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan and supportive off-site infrastructure improvements are required to comply with CVRWQCB NPDES permit requirements and City General Plan policies. The proposed WRTP Specific Plan and the SR 113/County Road 25A interchange improvements are within the City’s Planning Area and therefore were included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and there are no substantial changes to environmental conditions, regulatory updates, or the WRTP Specific Plan that require additional cumulative analysis or mitigation. Although the off-site South Regional Pond is not within the City Planning Area and therefore was not included within the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, design and construction of the South Regional Pond is regulated by the CVRWQCB NPDES permit requirements. Therefore, and consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, cumulative soil erosion effects from construction of the WRTP Specific Plan and the associated off-site improvements, in conjunction with development of related projects, would be lessthan-cumulatively considerable.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-127 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Paleontological Resources: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Cumulative Scenario (page 6-31) (City of Woodland 2016b) concluded that increased construction could result in an increased potential for accidental damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources. Since these resources are buried under the ground surface, it is difficult to predict the location of resources in the context of site planning, and therefore difficult to avoid in project designs. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that this would be a significant cumulative impact.

However, the City also determined that implementation of 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Mitigation Measure

4.7-4 would reduce this impact to a level that is less-than-cumulatively considerable through a new implementation program that would require projects that propose earth-moving activities in paleontologically sensitive rock formations to provide construction worker personnel training prior to the start of construction activities, halt of work in the vicinity of any fossil specimen(s) uncovered, and prepare a recovery plan for any uncovered specimen(s). Because the SR 113/County Road 25A interchange would be constructed in Holocene-age deposits, this off-site improvement would not contribute to this regionally significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measure

3.7-1 listed above, which would be implemented in the southern portion of the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the South Regional Pond (where paleontologically sensitive rock formations are located), incorporates guidance from General Plan and CAP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-4. This mitigation requires construction worker personnel training prior to the start of construction activities, halting of work in the vicinity of any fossil specimen(s) uncovered, and preparation of a recovery plan for any uncovered specimen(s). The proposed WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A are within the City’s Planning Area and therefore were included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and there are no substantial changes to environmental conditions, regulatory updates, or the WRTP Specific Plan that require additional cumulative analysis or mitigation. Although the off-site South Regional Pond is not within the City Planning Area and therefore was not included within the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 would reduce impacts to unique paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level at the South Regional Pond, similar to the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Therefore, and consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, impacts to unique paleontological resources from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and the associated off-site improvements, in conjunction with development of related projects, would be less-than-cumulatively considerable with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-15 through 3.7-17.)

8. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The proposed WRTP Specific Plan was included as part of the hazard materials and toxics cumulative analysis contained in Chapter 4.8 of 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The proposed South Regional Pond would be adjacent to, but south of, the Specific Plan Area, and was not considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. There are no substantial changes to environmental conditions, regulatory updates, or the WRTP Specific Plan that require additional cumulative analysis or mitigation. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-31 and 6-32) (City of Woodland 2016b) determined that for the topics evaluated in this hazardous materials and toxics analysis (routine transport use and disposal of hazardous materials, accidental spills of hazardous materials, construction on a site included on the Cortese List, handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school, airport safety hazards for public-use airports, emergency access, or wildland fire hazard), the related projects considered in the cumulative analysis are site-specific and therefore would not combine to create cumulatively significant impacts in and of themselves. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR further determined that although an increase in routine use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as handling of hazardous materials near existing or proposed schools, development of sites on the Cortese List, public airport hazards, and wildland fire hazards would occur, existing federal, State, and local regulations create and enforce standards for these activities regardless of the amount or scale of use and therefore no cumulative impact would occur. Implementation of the proposed off-site

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-128 City of Woodland
SR 113/CR 25A interchange improvements are regulated by Caltrans, which has formal procedures that are followed to reduce human health and ecological risks from the handling of disposal of hazardous materials and the reuse of soils contaminated with aerially-deposited lead (Caltrans 2018, DTSC 2016b). Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan could result in human health and ecological risks from exposure to known hazardous materials that are present in the WRTP Specific Plan Area during construction activities. Previously unknown hazardous materials, in the form of underground storage tanks, could be encountered at the off-site South Regional Pond during construction. Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan could also result in the handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school. However, implementing Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 would reduce the impacts of the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site South Regional Pond to a less-than-significant level.

Hazardous materials impacts would be site-specific. Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site improvements (with mitigation measures incorporated) in conjunction with development of related projects would not present a public health and safety hazard to people or the environment, and therefore the cumulative contribution of the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site improvements would be less-than-cumulatively considerable.

Implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site improvements would result in a less-than-significant impact related to airport hazards from development of buildings approximately 1.4 miles from the runway at the privately owned and operated Medlock Field airport. The WRTP Specific Plan would be constructed at the southwestern edge of the Woodland city limits. Other future development at the same distance from Medlock Field in the adjacent Spring Lake development would also result in a less-than-cumulatively considerable contribution to Medlock Field airport hazards for the same reasons as the WRTP Specific Plan (i.e., buildings would not exceed FAA height restrictions, large new bodies of water that would retain water for long periods of times that could attract wildlife would not be created, and new nighttime lighting would not be mistaken for airport lighting and/or cause glare in the eyes of airplane pilots). The other future cumulative projects would be located more than 2 miles from Medlock Field. Furthermore, the WRTP Specific Plan requires that street lighting conform to the City’s Engineering Standards and other types of lighting conform to the City’s Community Design Standards. In addition, Caltrans requires that high-mast light standards be shielded and direct the lighting downward. The WRTP Specific Plan does not allow building heights that could present a height hazard to Medlock Field. Therefore, impacts related to airport hazards from implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site improvements in conjunction with development of related projects would be less-than-cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-23 through

3.8-24.)

9. HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Standards, Erosion And Sedimentation, Operational Stormwater Runoff, Conveyance Capacity, Flooding, Pollutants, And Regional Basin Planning: As discussed in the cumulative analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 6-32) (City of Woodland 2016b), short-term construction and longterm operation of the urban development projects considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Cumulative Scenario have the potential to generate impacts related to violation of water quality standards, erosion and sedimentation, construction-related water quality impacts, and alteration of drainages resulting in on-site and/or offsite downstream flooding. The proposed South Regional Pond would be adjacent to, but south of, the Specific Plan Area, and was not considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. However, all development projects are required to comply with the SWRCB’s statewide NPDES stormwater permit for general construction activity, other necessary site-specific WDRs or waivers under the PorterCologne Act, the Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan Update and Preliminary Engineering (City of Woodland 2006a), the Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (City of Woodland 2006b), the Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a), and the Post-Construction Standards Plan (City

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-129 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
of Woodland 2015). The treatment component of the City’s Phase II MS4 NPDES permit requires that all of the runoff generated by the design storm event from impermeable surfaces be treated on site. All development projects are also required to comply with applicable General Policies such as Goal 5.I and Policies 5.I.1, 5.I.3, 5.I.4, 5.I.5,

5.I.7, and 7.A.4. All of these state and local regulatory controls are designed to improve short-term and long-term water quality, reduce on-site and downstream erosion and sedimentation, and reduce alteration of drainage patterns leading to localized flooding. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that cumulative effects related to water quality, erosion, and alteration of drainages would be less-than-cumulatively considerable. Project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site South Regional Pond, are required to comply with the State and local regulatory controls listed above, and Caltrans is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the SWRCB’s NPDES permit and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, all of which are designed to improve short-term and long-term water quality, and reduce on-site and downstream erosion and sedimentation to comply with regional planning in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWQCB 2018). Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would require preparation of additional storm drainage analysis to determine the new developable acreage (in terms of stormwater drainage) that can be mitigated with current infrastructure and to identify the required infrastructure improvements required to accommodate full development of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The storm drainage analysis would be reviewed and approved by the Cit. Building permits for development beyond the identified currently developable acreage will only be approved with confirmation that the required storm drainage and water quality treatment infrastructure is in place. 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), as well as the Caltrans NPDES permit issued by SWRCB (2015). The proposed WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A interchange improvements were included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and there are no substantial changes to environmental conditions, regulatory updates, or the WRTP Specific Plan that require additional cumulative analysis or mitigation. Therefore, cumulative effects from implementing the WRTP Specific Plan in conjunction with development of related projects related to water quality, erosion and sedimentation, and operational stormwater runoff, conveyance capacity, flooding, pollutants, and regional basin planning would be less-than-cumulatively considerable.

Groundwater Recharge, Groundwater Supplies, and Regional Sustainable Groundwater Management: As discussed in the cumulative analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 6-33) (City of Woodland 2016b), development throughout the region would add impervious areas, which, depending on the specific location of such development, could adversely affect groundwater recharge. Therefore, projects in the region that are developed in areas of substantial groundwater recharge could result in a cumulatively significant impact. However, the City does not contain any areas of substantial groundwater recharge, such as groundwater recharge banks or active stream channels. Furthermore, most of the soils in the City are loams and clays, which typically have low infiltration rates. Finally, the City's Phase II MS4 permit requirements, the Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (City of Woodland 2006b), the Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016a), the Post-Construction Standards Plan (City of Woodland 2015), and General Plan Policy 5.I.4 require that all new urban development incorporate 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 these requirements would result in a less-than-cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact from reduction in groundwater recharge. However, the 2035 General Plan and CAP

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-130 City of Woodland
EIR also found that, although the City of Woodland has supported efforts to reduce water demand through conservation and other measures and surface water supplied by the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency’s Regional Water Treatment Facility is the primary source of drinking water within the City’s Planning Area, groundwater would still be used to supplement surface water supplies and could account for up to 30 percent of total demand in dry years. Therefore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that future development in the City’s Planning Area could result in increased water demand that exceeds supply beyond the year 2035, due to lack of detailed planning beyond that time. Therefore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that future projects within the Planning Area would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the need for increased water supply, and that this impact was potentially significant and unavoidable. The WRTP Specific Plan Area does not contain any active stream channels and most of the WRTP Specific Plan Area soils are rated by NRCS (2020) as hydrologic Group C (slow infiltration rate). Furthermore, project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan and the off-site South Regional Pond are required to comply with the same regulatory controls listed above including development of LID stormwater features. Caltrans is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the SWRCB’s NPDES permit, and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, both of which include operational stormwater design. The Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency is in the process of preparing a GSP, which will be completed by January 1, 2022 as required by DWR (Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency 2020).

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. The GSP will incorporate regionally planned existing and future development throughout the Yolo Subbasin, including all of the projects considered in this cumulative analysis. The GSP is required by law to include projects that would be implemented on both a local and regional basis to improve groundwater sustainability, if the results of groundwater modeling performed for the GSP determine that future demand would exceed supply. The City of Woodland is a member of the GSA, and therefore is actively involved in groundwater sustainability planning. The proposed WRTP Specific Plan was included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and there are no substantial changes to environmental conditions, regulatory updates, or the WRTP Specific Plan that require additional cumulative analysis or mitigation. Therefore, cumulative effects from implementing the WRTP Specific Plan in conjunction with development of related projects related to substantial interference withgroundwater recharge, depletion of groundwater supplies, or interference with regional groundwater sustainability planning would be less-thancumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-23 through 3.9-25.)

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING, POPULATION AND HOUSING
Cumulative development within the region would result in a significant change in land use, and individual projects would need to be considered in context of their compliance with adopted land use plans. Plans with which compliance may be analyzed include general plans and regional transportation plans. For the WRTP Specific Plan, appropriate plans to consider include Yolo County’s General Plan, the Woodland General Plan, and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). The proposed WRTP Specific Plan is required to be consistent with the 2035 General Plan. The WRTP Specific Plan is one of three subareas designated by the City of Woodland General Plan 2035 within the Specific Plan 1 (SP1) new growth area. The MTP/SCS is a long-range transportation plan that also includes analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with passenger vehicle travel. The SACOG MTP/SCS identifies different community types, including “Developing Communities,” a designation that includes the WRTP Specific Plan Area. The EIR comprehensively addresses direct and indirect impacts associated with buildout of the WRTP Specific Plan, including various topics that are also addressed in planning documents. There are no additional

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-131 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
impacts related to population, employment, or housing not already fully addressed in a topic-specific section of the EIR. As is true for the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, for the WRTP Specific Plan, there is no significant cumulative impact. For the purposes of analysis, the EIR assumes the development of approximately 1,600 new dwelling units, 2.2 million square feet of non-residential building space, and 5,000 employees, along with 17.6 acres of parks and other types of open space. Implementation of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan would directly facilitate population growth in the area through the construction of homes and could indirectly facilitate population growth through the development of employment opportunities, which may lead to additional housing demand.

Population growth, by itself, is not an environmental impact. However, the direct and indirect effects, such as housing and infrastructure needs that are related to population growth, can lead to physical environmental effects, the impacts of which are considered throughout the topic-specific technical sections of the EIR. Population growth could result in significant cumulative impacts if population growth were to exceed estimates in the regional plans.

However, the development assumptions for the WRTP Specific Plan are within the envelope created by the General Plan, and there is no impact related to population growth that is not fully addressed throughout the EIR in other sections. There is no significant cumulative impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-35.)

11. NOISE AND VIBRATION
As discussed in the cumulative analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-37) (City of Woodland 2016) noise is generally a localized impact that does not have regional or cumulative considerations.

Noise sources associated with past, present, and future development in the region include construction equipment, landscape and building maintenance activities, agricultural equipment and activities, mechanical equipment, solid waste collection, parking lots, commercial, office, and industrial activities, and residential, school, and recreation activities and events. Noise sources that are adjacent to one another could combine to increase cumulative noise levels. However, consistent with the analysis provided in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, stationary noise sources within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would not generally combine with noise sources outside of the WRTP Specific Plan Area to create a cumulative increase in stationary noise. Although ambient noise is increasing in urbanized areas over time as a result of increased development, but there are no cumulative sources of stationary noise in proximity to the WRTP Specific Plan Area and, therefore, there is no significant cumulative impact with regard to stationary noise sources. However, as described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-37 through 6-43), regional development under the cumulative scenario would generate and attract vehicular travel along roadways located throughout the region, including within and near the City’s Planning Area, which would combine with traffic associated with development in the Planning Area to increase vehicular traffic noise in areas directly adjacent to travel ways. As described in Section 3.11.4 of the EIR, future development under the WRTP Specific Plan would result in traffic levels that would increase noise levels along existing and future roadways. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that, even with implementation of all feasible measures in the form of policies and Implementation Programs in the 2035 General Plan, new development would result in a cumulatively significant and unavoidable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to long-term transportation noise levels. The proposed WRTP Specific Plan Area is within the City’s Planning Area and was included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As shown in Table 3.11-9, traffic on future roadways within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and existing roadways adjacent to the WRTP Specific Plan Area is expected to increase with implementation of the WRTP Specific Plan and result in an increase in trafficrelated noise levels up to 6 dB compared to Existing plus Approved Projects conditions. The increases of 5 to 6 dB would only occur along CR 25A from East of SR 113 NB Ramps to East of SR 113 NB Ramps and from SR 113 NB Ramps to Road A. However, no existing noise sensitive uses would be located along this segment of CR 25 A under the buildout condition of the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Traffic noise increases of less than perceptible level

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-132 City of Woodland
of 3 dB would occur along the roadways planned within the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Also, as shown, traffic noise for the Existing plus Approved Projects Plus WRTP Specific Plan condition would range from 60 to 69 dB at 50 feet, which would not exceed the City’s noise standards of 70 dB, as shown in Table 3.11-6, for all noise sensitive uses. Therefore, this impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-33.)

12. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 6-39) (City of Woodland 2016) noted that public services are generally provided by local governments and/or special districts for areas within their jurisdiction and are not provided on a regional basis. For this reason, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined fire and police protection services have less than significant cumulative impacts. The City of Woodland Police Department expects to meet increased demand for services through increased staffing rather than new facilities. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined additional fire stations would be required to meet demand from future growth. Because the City maintains its own fire department facilities, the construction of additional facilities would not combine with effects in neighboring communities to create cumulative impacts. The 2035 General Plan includes policies to ensure that sufficient facilities and services are provided to serve additional growth. These policies and programs apply to any level of development, and therefore would mitigate potential impacts from development of new facilities and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. As described above, the project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would comply with 2035 General Plan policies that require review of project designs by the Woodland Fire Department and Woodland Police Department and implementation recommended conditions of approval, as well as provide funding to ensure fire and police protection personnel and equipment is provided to meet increased demand for fire and police protection services. In addition, individual development projects would incorporate California Fire Code and City standards into project designs to reduce the dependence on fire department equipment and personnel by reducing fire hazards.

The WRTP Specific Plan’s contribution to impacts related to increased fire and police protection services and facilities would be less than cumulatively considerable. Thus, no additional CEQA review is required.

PUBLIC EDUCATION SERVICES The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 6-39) (City of Woodland 2016) noted that public schools are provided by school districts to areas within their jurisdictions. While districts may have cross-jurisdictional boundaries, school services are still provided at the local, rather than regional, level. For this reason school services have lessthan-significant cumulative impacts. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that future growth would increase the student population, creating additional need for public schools.

However, implementation of General Plan polices would reduce the impacts related to school services by encouraging coordination with WJUSD and other educational institutions regarding future school sites. The WJUSD operates within the City of Woodland and serves all development in the City, so the construction of additional facilities would not combine with effects in neighboring communities to create cumulative impacts in the region. Therefore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that the future growth would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact. 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) (Table 3.12-5). The WRTP Specific Plan proposes a new elementary school in the area zoned for medium density residential, south of Parkland Avenue and east of Road B. Prior to the construction of this school, students within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would attend Tafoya Elementary School, Woodland Prairie Elementary School, Douglass Middle School, and Pioneer High School, all of which are operating below capacity (Table 3.12-2, as revised in Chapter 3, “Errata,” of this Final EIR). The proposed WRTP Specific Plan would pay the State-mandated school impact fees to the WJUSD that are being levied at the time of development.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-133 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
The California Legislature has declared that payment of the State-mandated school impact fee is deemed to be full and adequate mitigation under CEQA (California Government Code Section 65996); therefore, the WRTP Specific Plan’s cumulative impacts related to increased demand for school facilities and services would be less than cumulatively considerable. Thus, no additional CEQA review is required 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 cumulative impacts related to transportation, such as air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation noise. The environmental effects from construction and operation of the WRTP Specific Plan, including proposed school facilities and transportation related to an increased student population associated with proposed residential development, are evaluated throughout the individual environmental topic area sections in the EIR, as well as the cumulative impact analyses contained in each topic area of 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.

PARKS AND RECREATION The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 6-44) (City of Woodland 2016) noted that counties, cities, and special districts in the region each have their own parkland ratios and standards and are responsible for providing parkland to meet the local demand. Although an increase in regional population could increase demand for parks and recreation facilities and services, these local jurisdictions have authority over land use, set and implement level of service standards, and determine the siting and timing of public service projects.

Therefore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that regional parks and recreation impacts would be cumulatively less than significant in and of themselves. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR also found that future growth in the City would likely require new park/recreation facilities to achieve the same parkland ratio. However, implementation of relevant policies in the 2035 General Plan related to parkland ratios and funding agreements would reduce environmental impacts, resulting in a less-than-cumulatively considerable contribution to regional parks and recreation impacts. Finally, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that construction of any additional parks/recreational facilities in the City would not combine with effects in neighboring communities to create cumulative impacts. The WRTP Specific Plan includes the creation of new on-site parks and recreational facilities, as well as project impact fees, as required by the City. As described above, the WRTP Specific Plan would comply with all 2035 General Plan policies related to the design and construction of new parks and recreational facilities, resulting in a less-than-cumulatively considerable contribution to regional parks and recreation impacts.

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, as well as the cumulative impact analyses contained in each topic area of 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, construction of the new parks/recreational facilities proposed in the WRTP Specific Plan would not combine with effects in neighboring communities to create cumulative impacts. Thus, no additional CEQA review is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-19 through 3.12-21.)

13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-44 through 6-46) (City of Woodland 2016) analyzed cumulative impacts to transportation and circulation based on regional growth projections identified in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS).

The proposed WRTP Specific Plan was included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in Chapter 6 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-134 City of Woodland

PROGRAMS, PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND POLICIES ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING TRANSIT, ROADWAY, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The General Plan determined that new growth in the region is not expected to conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance. In addition the potential for hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use, inadequate emergency access, and impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the vehicular roadway network and transit, was determined to be less than cumulatively considerable under the 2035 General Plan and Cap EIR. As described above, the 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. Draft street cross-sections for the Specific Plan include all of the bicycle facilities as identified in the 2035 General Plan. Also, with respect to pedestrian facilities, the Specific Plan identifies sidewalks on all streets within the project site, on the north side of CR 25A (southern project boundary), and on both sides of Parkland Avenue. Sidewalks and paths on streets within the project site range from 4.5 to 10 feet in width. The proposed road network for the project is consistent with the functional classification and street typology identified in the General Plan, and the Land Use Plan Layout and street cross-sections for the Specific Plan include all the roadway network facilities as identified in the 2035 General Plan. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.13-1a and 3.13-1b would require a pro-rata contribution to transit service so that it is provided to the Specific Plan Area in the future and require for on-site planning of transit stops to ensure adequate provision of transit to serve the WRTP Specific Plan Area. These transportation and circulation elements of the Specific Plan are consistent with the 2035 General Plan and the regional transportation and circulation planning to connect the Specific Plan Area to the surrounding communities. The proposed Specific Plan and the off-site SR 113/County Road 25A interchange improvements were included as part of the cumulative analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and there are no substantial changes to environmental conditions, regulatory updates, or the Specific Plan that require additional cumulative analysis or mitigation. Therefore, cumulative effects from implementing the Specific Plan in conjunction with development of related projects related to the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less-than-cumulatively considerable.

Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR evaluated VMT associated with buildout of the General Plan, including the Specific Plan Area, but the metric was not used to evaluate potential impacts under CEQA, as the CEQA guidelines implementing SB 743 were not implemented until after the adoption of the 2035 General Plan. Under SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), the California Air Resources Board is responsible for issuing greenhouse gas targets to metropolitan planning organizationsthat reduce vehicle emissions, consistent with State climate goals, by a future planning horizon compared to an established baseline. SB 375 requires each metropolitan planning organizations to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that shows how a land use/transportation scenario will achieve the assigned greenhouse gas target. The current adopted SACOG 2020 MTP/SCS for the region is for the years 2020 to 2040. For the 2020 MTP/SCS, California Air Resources Board assigned SACOG a target of 19 percent per-capita GHG emissions reduction. The MTP/SCS indicates that VMT per capita in the SACOG region, which dipped significantly during the Great Recession, has increased starting in 2011. The MTP/SCS projects a 10-percent reduction in VMT per capita by 2040 for the SACOG region. As discussed above, the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with the 2035 General Plan land use program and circulation network, and includes a TDM/VMT Program and funding to achieve the 10 percent VMT reduction required for new projects in General Plan Policy

3.A.4. The WRTP Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s VMT reduction targets and land use planning in alignment with the intent of SB 743, and there are no impacts that are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan that

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-135 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Therefore, the Specific Plan Area’s VMT will not contribute to regional impacts, and impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Substantially Increase Hazards or Result in Inadequate Emergency Access The 2035 General Plan determined that cumulative effects related to increasing hazards due to design features, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access would be less than cumulatively considerable. The cumulative environment does not change the conclusions and analysis discussed in the project-specific analysis above. The City’s land uses and transportation networks have been comprehensively planned through the Specific Plan process to conform to the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (2016), and establish appropriate and safe designs. Therefore, cumulative effects from implementing the Specific Plan in conjunction with development of related projects related to increasing transportation network hazards or resulting in inadequate emergency access would be less than cumulatively considerable.

14. UTILITIES
WATER SUPPLY The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-46 and 6-47) (City of Woodland 2016) analyzed cumulative impacts to water supply based on regional growth projections identified in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR noted that future growth in the region would result in increased water demand. Because available supply is dictated by water purveyor sources and purveyors who may have different demands, water supplies, water rights, and water quality challenges, the impacts on water supply related to implementation of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ 2016 MTP/SCS at the regional level are considered cumulatively potentially significant in the 2016 MTP/SCS EIR. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the City of Woodland has supported efforts to reduce water demand through conservation and other measures, which will lessen the demand for new water treatment facilities. Nevertheless, the City has not undertaken analysis of the availability of water supply beyond the population anticipated from implementation of the General Plan through 2035. Therefore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined it is possible the water demand from cumulative growth for the region may exceed supply. Because the City has not analyzed the water supply for cumulative growth for the region and cannot state with any certainty what impact on water supply new development will have, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that new development would make a cumulatively potentially significant and unavoidable contribution to the potentially significant cumulative impact. As described above, the project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would comply with 2035 General Plan and CAP policies, Implementation Programs, and Actions that require implementation of water conservation and preparation of water supply assessments. In addition, a reclaimed water system would be installed to meet landscape irrigation demands for medians, parks, and greenways to further reduce potable water demands. In all year types, if demand cannot be met from surface water alone, the City plans to meet any additional demand through groundwater pumping. As shown in the Table 3.14-1, water supply is projected to be sufficient to meet demand through 2035 in all water years. The water supply 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 (City of Woodland 2016, West Yost Associates 2016). The WRTP Specific Plan proposes land uses consistent with those in the 2035 General Plan and, therefore, assumed for the City’s UWMP. Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to meet the demands of the WRTP Specific Plan as well as existing and future development within the City’s service area through 2035. As noted, the UWMP assessed water demand and supply using land use assumptions in the 2035 General Plan, with which the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent. Therefore, water demand would be the same, if not less than due tcontinued conservation measures, as analyzed in the 2035 General

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-136 City of Woodland
Plan and CAP EIR. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that that water demand under the cumulative scenario may exceed demand and determined this to be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant and unavoidable impact. Proposed development under the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with development assumptions in the 2035 General Plan and would contribute to this impact. There are no cumulative impacts related to water supply that are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan Area that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (f), no additional cumulative analysis is required.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 6-47) (City of Woodland 2016) analyzed cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment facilities based on regional growth projections identified in the 2016 MTP/SCS. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR noted that growth in the region is expected to increase demand for wastewater management services because of increased amounts of wastewater effluent. Increased population from cumulative growth may result in the need for construction of new facilities for utilities and service systems. This was identified as a potentially significant impact in the 2016 MTP/SCS EIR, and thus has a potentially significant cumulative impact. Future growth in the City would result in increased development and therefore greater amounts of wastewater effluent. As discussed above, the future capacity of the WPCF could serve up to 105,000 residents and is sufficient to serve growth projected under the 2035 General Plan.

Policy 5.F.1 of the 2035 General Plan ensures that sufficient public facilities and services would be available to serve new development. Policy 5.H.1 requires “that increased wastewater treatment facility capacity is available to serve planned urban development within the Planning Area consistent with this General Plan.” This policy applies to all levels of development and therefore provides mitigation for increased demand for wastewater treatment associated with future development. Therefore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that future development would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the potentially significant cumulative impact. As stated above, the hydraulic capacity of the City’s WPCF is expected to meet the City’s projected needs through 2035, including the needs of the WRTP Specific Plan. In addition, the City has reduced residential and commercial wastewater design sanitary sewer flow rate assumptions for the WRTP Specific Plan Area (Cunningham Engineering 2020c). Therefore, 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. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that Policy 5.H.1 provides mitigation for increased demand for wastewater treatment associated with future development and determined that future development under the 2035 General Plan would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant and unavoidable impact. Proposed development under the WRTP Specific Plan is consistent with development assumptions in the 2035 General Plan and the Public Facilities Financing Plan will demonstrate how the infrastructure requirements and the associated costs are reasonably balanced throughout each segment of development and ensures that sufficient public facilities and services would be available to serve new development, consistent with General Plan policy.. There are no cumulative impacts related to water supply that are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan Area that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), no additional cumulative analysis is required.

SOLID WASTE The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 6-47) (City of Woodland 2016) analyzed cumulative impacts to solid waste disposal based on regional growth projections identified in the 2016 MTP/SCS. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR noted that growth in the region is expected to increase demand for solid waste management and recycling due to an increase in the amount of solid waste generated and requiring disposal. Any new landfill would be required to comply with relevant federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to permitting and operation prior to construction and operation. This is identified as less than significant in the 2016

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-137 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
MTP/SCS EIR, and thus has a less than significant cumulative impact. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that impacts related to construction and operation of new landfills in the region would be cumulatively less than significant The 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP EIR determined that the Yolo County Central Landfill’s disposal capacity is sufficient to absorb solid waste generated by future development, as well as projected increases from population growth in the rest of the County. Furthermore, the 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP include policies to reduce solid waste disposal needs through encouraging the development of regional and communitybased recycling facilities and secondary resource businesses, and through the promotion of waste reduction measures to Woodland residents and businesses. Therefore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that future development would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the potentially significant cumulative impacts related to solid waste disposal. As discussed above, the project applicants for future projects proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan would comply with all statues 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, City General Plan policies, and other City recycling programs would ensure that sufficient capacity at the Yolo County Central Landfill would continue be available to accommodate solid-waste disposal needs for future development. There are no cumulative impacts related to solid waste that are peculiar to the WRTP Specific Plan Area that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), no additional cumulative analysis is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-19 through 3.14-21.)

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-138 City of Woodland
VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
When a lead agency has determined that, even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a proposed project would still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. An alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to fully promote the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project.

When significant effects are identified in the EIR for the project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the EIR to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions as a way of avoiding the significant effects.

Subdivision (a) states:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The Lead Agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

Subdivision (b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis is to discuss alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if the alternatives would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the project objectives or if the alternative or alternative location would be more costly.

Subdivision (c) describes the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives and states that the range must include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the project’s basic objectives and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives and identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the agency’s reasons underlying that determination. Factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from consideration include an alternative’s failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, or the inability to avoid significant environmental effects. Thus, the range of alternatives is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to allow a reasoned choice. The EIR must include enough information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives.

Under CEQA, “(f)easible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.) The concept of feasibility permits agency decision-makers to consider the extent to which an

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-139 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
alternative is able to meet some or all of a project’s objectives. In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses desirability to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.

Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides a discussion of factors that can be taken into account in determining the feasibility of alternatives. These factors include:
► Project objectives;
► Avoid or substantially lessen significant effects;
► Site suitability;
► Other plans or regulatory limitations;
► Economic viability;
► Availability of infrastructure;
► Jurisdictional boundaries/regional context;
► Property ownership and control; and
► Other reasons for rejecting as infeasible (e.g., effects cannot be reasonably ascertained or implementation is remote and speculative).

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project are described in Section 4 of the EIR and summarized below. The project objectives, which informed the development of alternatives, are provided in Section II.A.2 of this document.

A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED FROM DETAILED

ANALYSIS
Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the project:

1. OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would envision the Specific Plan Area in continued agricultural use, while density and nonresidential development intensity would be increased in undeveloped portions of the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area, other Specific Plan areas (including SP-1B, -1C, and -3), and infill opportunity areas within the City.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-140 City of Woodland
While this alternative may reduce the level of impacts identified in the EIR associated with the Specific Plan Area itself, it would shift impacts associated with ground disturbance and new construction to other parts of the City’s Planning Area. This alternative would not fulfill project objectives related to creating a centralized hub supporting strategic new employment within immediate proximity to complementary uses, as well as gathering places and new housing to support day–to-day needs of businesses, their clients, and their employees. In addition, the applicant would have no control over the multiple properties that would be required to accommodate this level of development. Therefore, the Off-site Development Alternative was rejected since it is infeasible, and since it would largely shift rather than reduce impacts.

2. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE EIR
The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on alternatives that could the project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic project objectives. Those alternatives include:

NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Guidelines (Section 1526.6[e]) requires consideration of a no-project alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. The no-project alternative could take two forms: one, as a scenario in which urban development does not occur at all within SP-1A and existing conditions within SP-1A persist; or two, a scenario in which development still occurs, consistent with the framework for SP-1A prescribed by the 2035 General Plan and City’s planning efforts.

As the Specific Plan Area is planned for development (“SP-1A”) under the 2035 General Plan, and the Specific Plan Area is a key element of the development framework envisioned in the 2035 General Plan, it is not considered likely that a no-development scenario would persist well into the future. However, in order to provide the most complete set of information for decision makers, the no-development scenario has been included and analyzed as a no-project alternative.

Alternative 1: No Project (No Development) Alternative
The purpose of this alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. This alternative envisions that the proposed WRTP Specific Plan is not approved and development under the 2035 General Plan occurs elsewhere within the City of Woodland.

The Specific Plan Area is currently used for agricultural production, consisting of row crops and pasture, with one existing home and a barn associated with agricultural activities. The No-Project (No Development) Alternative assumes continued agricultural use throughout the Specific Plan Area, and increased residential density and nonresidential development intensity in undeveloped portions of the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area, other specific plan areas of the City (including SP-1B, -1C, -2, and -3), and infill opportunity areas within the City. This alternative also assumes no implementation of off-site improvements (i.e., the Caltrans Improvement Area and South Regional Pond).

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-141 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Alternative 1 (No Project, No Development) Impacts
► AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES: Alternative 1 envisions continued agricultural production within the Specific Plan Area and off-site proposed South Regional Pond area. With the continuation of existing agricultural uses, it is likely that no visual change would occur, or that any future activities permitted under the zoning and designation such as the construction of minor outbuildings or farming facilities or changes in agricultural operations would not entail a significant change in the visual character of the project site. No damage to scenic vistas or scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. There would be no additional sources of light or glare.
► AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Based on analysis of the Yolo County Important Farmland map, approximately 346 acres of Prime Farmland exists within the Specific Plan Area and the approximately 4-acre proposed South Regional Pond area is also considered Prime Farmland. This land within the Specific Plan Area would be directly and permanently converted to urban uses and the approximately four acres south of CR 25A and west of the Specific Plan Area would be directly and permanently converted to a detention basin. Alternative 1 envisions continued agricultural production within the Specific Plan Area and off-site proposed South Regional Pond area. There would be no loss of farmland or conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural urban uses, and no conflict with existing on-site or off-site agricultural operations. ► AIR QUALITY: Under Alternative 1, the Specific Plan Area would continue to be used for agricultural uses and the off-site South Regional Pond would not be constructed. Existing air pollutant emissions associated with agricultural activities would still occur under Alternative 1. However, since no urban construction or development would occur, the amount of construction-related air pollutants that would be generated under Alternative 1 would be substantially reduced as compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Operational generation of criteria air pollutants and precursors, as well as exposure to toxic air contaminants, would also be reduced compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.
► BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Because no development would occur under Alternative 1, no impacts to wildlife and their habitats would occur. The users of the land would be required to comply with all applicable State and federal regulations that prohibitimpacts to special-status animals and their habitats. ► CLIMATE CHANGE, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY: Under Alternative 1, the Specific Plan Area would continue to be used for agricultural uses and the off-site South Regional Pond would not be constructed. Existing greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption associated with agricultural activities would still occur under Alternative 1. However, since no urban construction or development would occur, the amount of construction-related greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated and energy that would be consumed under Alternative 1 would be substantially reduced as compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Operational generation of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption would also be reduced compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.
► CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Although investigations of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan Area did not identify known significant cultural resources present in the WRTP Specific Plan Area, the broader area does have an elevated sensitivity for archaeological resources, due to the long-standing Native American inhabitation and past historical agricultural and settlement uses. It is reasonable to assume that the area may contain resources not yet identified but that would qualify as archaeological resources under CEQA. Continued agricultural uses, consistent with current land use, on the existing parcels would not meet

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-142 City of Woodland
the definition of a “project” under CEQA and, therefore, a mitigation monitoring plan would not be implemented. However, all property owners would still be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, which governs the treatment of human remains. In addition, Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code prevents any person from obtaining or possessing Native American artifacts or human remains taken from a grave or cairn. Because Alternative 1 would entail continued agricultural uses, a very small amount of earth-moving activities would occur as compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.

Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be substantially lower.
► GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERALS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Alternative 1 would entail continued agricultural uses. Thus, no site-specific geotechnical reports or grading and erosion control plans would be prepared. A records search indicated that no paleontological resources have been recorded from the Specific Plan Area. Because the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area is composed of a mixture of the Riverbank and Modesto Formations, a paleontologically sensitive rock formation, fossils may be present under the ground surface in this area. Because Alternative 1 would entail continued agricultural, a very small amount of earth-moving activities would occur as compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Furthermore, ground disturbance associated with continued agricultural activities would not be deep enough to affect any undiscovered subsurface paleontological resources. Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts to paleontological resources would be substantially lower compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Since Alternative 1 would entail the continuation of existing agricultural land uses, the potential for accidental spills of hazardous materials associated with construction activities or construction workers exposure to hazardous materials would be greatly reduced. Based on the Phase II screening-level pesticide assessment for soils in the Specific Plan area and off-site proposed South Regional Pond site, residual metal (arsenic) and agricultural pesticides in the off-site improvement areas would not represent a human health or environmental hazard. Ongoing pesticide use could be expected on-site and on the adjacent agricultural lands. Agricultural chemical use represents a potential source of environmental contamination that could pose a human health and environmental hazard during future activities. However, agricultural operations would be required to follow applicable local, State, and federal regulations for the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, as well as comply with appropriate Yolo County Agricultural Weights and Measures Department regulations for environmental protections. Therefore, the potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 1 would be reduced relative to the WRTP Specific Plan.
► HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND WATER QUALITY: Under Alternative 1, agricultural production and related activities would continue similar to existing conditions. Specific measures required under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan to address water quality (a grading and erosion control plan, a stormwater pollution prevention plan, a drainage plan, and a best management practice and water quality maintenance plan) would not be implemented for agricultural production—which would allow the use of fertilizers and pesticides. While the City does not have any information to suggest that on-site agricultural operations have or will cause water quality issues, it is possible that agriculture can negatively affect water quality, even when done properly, due to nutrient loads from fertilizer, toxic fecal coliform from animal waste, or increased erosion and runoff.

Agricultural uses would be required to comply with appropriate Yolo County Agricultural Weights and Measures Department regulations for environmental protections Under Alternative 1, continued agricultural uses would continue to allow irrigation water and stormwater to percolate through the soil to the aquifer.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-143 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Therefore, Alternative 1 would reduce impacts associated with depletion of groundwater supplies and the increase in surface water runoff as compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► LAND USE PLANNING, POPULATION, AND HOUSING: The use of the Specific Plan Area for continued agricultural uses would not affect population or housing. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, Alternative 1 would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, induce substantial unplanned population growth, or divide an established community. Unlike the proposed Specific Plan, continuation of agricultural uses under Alternative 1 would not require annexation of the Specific Plan Area into the City, nor would it require amending the City’s Zoning Ordinance. However, the City of Woodland 2035 General Plan identifies the Specific Plan Area as “SP-1A,” a new growth area within the City. Alternative 1 would not promote development within the Specific Plan Area consistent with the City’s 2035 General Plan, and would not accommodate residential and employment growth anticipated within the City’s Planning Area and in support of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be inconsistent with the City’s primary land use planning tool, the 2035 General Plan. ► NOISE AND VIBRATION: Under Alternative 1, noise associated with the use of agricultural equipment would continue throughout the Specific Plan Area and the proposed off-site South Regional Pond area, and could potentially increase or change in type, depending on any changes in agricultural activities, including a change in crops or farming techniques, or other activities that would be permitted under the current zoning and designations. Under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, agricultural activity, and associated noise and vibration, could also continue on undeveloped areas within the Specific Plan Area. However, with the assumed development under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, on- and offsite construction and operational noise and vibration would be substantially higher than with Alternative 1. Thus, impacts from noise and vibration under Alternative 1 would be reduced as compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Alternative 1, which would entail continued agriculture and related uses, would have only a minor, negligible effect related to the provision of law enforcement and fire protection, and no impact on education. In addition, Alternative 1 would not result in the increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of parks or recreational facilities. However, as opposed to implementation of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, implementation of Alternative 1 would not include the contribution of funds toward the Woodland Sports Park. This would not result in any increase in an environmental impact relevant to CEQA, but would be a reduced benefit under Alternative 1 as compared to the WRTP Specific Plan.
► TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Assuming that agricultural operations would continue consistent with existing operations, no increase in travel demand would occur and no conflicts with transportation-related policies would occur. The development of multimodal transit hub would not occur and would not provide additional alternative transportation services that would otherwise serve the surrounding neighborhoods, such as the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area and future development of the other Specific Plan areas within the City.

This would be a reduced benefit under Alternative 1 as compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► UTILITIES: Alternative 1 would not increase the demand for water, wastewater service and treatment, electrical services, natural gas services, and communications services. Currently there are six agricultural wells in use in the Specific Plan Area – four wells are located north of CR 25A and two wells are located south of CR 25A. It is anticipated that these wells would continue to provide water to serve continued agricultural production under

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-144 City of Woodland
Alternative 1. Unlike the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 1 would not require the construction of water supply conveyance facilities or wastewater collection and conveyance facilities. Overall, impacts related to utilities would be reduced under Alternative 1 compared to the Specific Plan Ability of Alternative 1 to Meet Project Objectives
This alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives since it would not create a centralized hub for research and technology to connect the growing U.C. Davis and Sacramento regions. There would be no new advanced technology-related jobs or related training to allow for the expanding number of Woodland residents and college graduates from the Woodland Community College and throughout the region to live and work in the community.

Findings for Project Alternative 1
The City Council specifically rejects Alternative 1 on the ground that Alternative 1 does not meet the proposed project’s objectives. This alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives since it would not create a centralized hub for research and technology to connect the growing UC Davis and Sacramento regions. There would be no new advanced technology-related jobs or related training to allow for the expanding number of Woodland residents and college graduates from the Woodland Community College and throughout the region to live and work in the community.

Alternative 2: No Project (Development) Alternative
The purpose of this alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. This alternative envisions that the proposed WRTP Specific Plan is not approved, but that development would occur within the Specific Plan Area as directed by the 2035 General Plan for SP-1A, but not as designed under the WRTP Specific Plan.

The No-Project (Development) Alternative assumes development within SP-1A in a manner that, like the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, is consistent with the 2035 General Plan and that has a density, layout, and mix of uses more consistent with a typical business park development with supporting land uses in proximity to a highway interchange. As detailed in the 2035 General Plan Policy 2.L.2, SP-1A is to be developed as “as a mixed-use residential district anchored by a research and technology business park in the Southern Gateway area at CR 25A and SR 113.” The General Plan directs a specific plan to “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.” Consistent with this policy, this No-Project (Development) Alternative assumes the business park would be concentrated in the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan Area near the interchange of SR 113 and CR 25A. The business park is assumed to be developed in a campus-like setting, as described in the 2035 General Plan, and include larger lots with two- to three-story buildings and large parking lots. Also consistent with General Plan direction to focus higherintensity development around the highway interchange, this alternative includes increased highway commercial acreage. As defined by General Plan Policy 2.L.2, the highest density housing would be close to the business park area, with lower-density residential uses in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area. The mobility hub proposed as a part of the WRTP Specific Plan is not a part of this alternative. The village center and associated park and residential development proposed as a part of the WRTP Specific Plan is not included under this alternative and, rather than high-density residential with a community commercial overlay along CR 25A, this land would include additional business park and highway commercial uses. The Specific Plan Area would still accommodate

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-145 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
approximately 1,600 residential dwelling units and 2.2 million square feet of non-residential uses. However, in order to support the residential units, the high-density residential land uses would be provided in relatively larger blocks surrounding the business park land uses and the single-family land use acreage would be reduced compared to that proposed under the WRTP Specific Plan.

Alternative 2 (No Project, Development) Impacts
► AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES: Alternative 2 envisions that development would occur as directed by the 2035 General Plan for SP-1A, but not as designed under the WRTP Specific Plan. As with implementation of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, farmland within the WRTP Specific Plan Area and offsite improvement areas would be converted to urban land uses from implementation of Alternative 2.

Development under this alternative would also adhere to policies consistent with the 2035 General Plan policies developed to limit the impact on visual character and quality from development within the City’s Planning Area. Development within SP-1A under this alternative would include larger parcels in the business park area with two- to three-story buildings and large parking lots to serve businesses, higher-intensity development around the highway interchange, increased highway commercial acreage to serve through-traffic in the area.

The high-density residential land uses would be provided in relatively larger blocks surrounding the business park land uses and the single-family acreage would be reduced compared to that proposed in the WRTP Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, this No-Project (Development) Alternative would result in a substantial change to the existing visual character from agricultural cropland to a mix of urban land uses, and would still add to the overall amount of lighting and glare in the City. However, the shift in the land use mix under this Alternative compared to the WRTP Specific Plan may also result in increased roadway signage in support of the business park and highway commercial land uses, larger parking lots to support business park land uses and associated parking and circulation, and reduced low-density residential areas; these changes could ultimately somewhat reduce continuity in scale, form, or overall visual character between SP-1A and the adjacent Spring Lake Specific Plan Area and increased sources of light and glare compared to development under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.
► AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Alternative 2 would involve approximately the same amount of development as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, implementation of Alternative 2 would permanently convert an estimated 350 acres of agricultural farmland, including Prime Farmland, to nonagricultural uses. In addition, as with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 2 would locate residential uses adjacent to existing on-site and offsite agricultural lands, resulting in potential conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. ► AIR QUALITY: Alternative 2 would involve approximately the same amount of development as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, but with a different mix and layout. As with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 2 would involve the temporary generation of criteria air pollutants and precursors resulting from construction activities throughout the Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas. Constructing Alternative 2 could also expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction, as well as during operations due to the creation of new sources such as at commercial truck docking areas.

Overall, short-term construction-related impacts and the potential for exposure to substantial localized pollutant concentrations would be similar compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Under Alternative 2, relatively fewer daily needs would be met through walking, bicycling, and transit since commercial uses would be focused in the southwestern edge of the Specific Plan Area and oriented to motorists, and since the mobility hub

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-146 City of Woodland
proposed as a part of the WRTP Specific Plan would not be a component of this alternative. Overall, the shift in development within the Specific Plan Area would increase air pollutant emissions from land use development under Alternative 2 compared to that of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Alternative 2 would entail the same amount of development as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, but with a different mix, layout, and density. Similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 2 could potentially result in the loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, and other raptors; loss and disturbance of potential nesting and foraging habitat for common migratory birds; removal of elderberry shrub(s) that serve as potential habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetle and larvae; loss of existing structures, orchard trees, and other trees that may support breeding pallid bats or western red bats; loss and degradation of State or federally protected wetlands. Similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, mitigation measures would be required to reduce or off-set potential impacts in accordance with the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan and State and federal regulations. Impacts related to the loss and disturbance of forging and nesting habitat for special-status wildlife, and to the loss and degradation of State or federally protected wetlands, would be similar in type and extent as under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan since the area envisioned for development would be the same.
► CLIMATE CHANGE, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND ENERGY: Alternative 2 would involve approximately the same amount of development as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. As with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 2 would involve the temporary generation of greenhouse gas emissions and use of fuel as a result of construction activities throughout the Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas. Operations under Alternative 2 would provide for relatively fewer daily needs would be met through walking, bicycling, and transit since commercial uses would be focused in the southwestern edge of the Specific Plan Area and oriented to motorists, and since the mobility hub proposed as a part of the WRTP Specific Plan would not be a component of this alternative, thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption associated with vehicle use, which is the biggest source of emissions for development of the Specific Plan Area and the City as a whole. In addition, this Alternative may not include the same emphasis on energy conservation and sustainability as emphasized in the guiding principles of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Overall, the shift in development within the Specific Plan Area would increase greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption from land use development under Alternative 2 compared to that of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.
► CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Alternative 2 would entail the same amount of ground disturbance as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan and would be subject to the same regulations protecting cultural resources. Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be similar.
► GEOLOGY, SOILS, MINERALS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Alternative 2 would result in a similar amount of development as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Although the layout and specific land uses would be different under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, the area of ground disturbing activities would be similar and therefore the impacts would be similar. ► HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Alternative 2 would result in a similar amount of development as the WRTP Specific Plan and in the same location as the WRTP Specific Plan. Although the

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-147 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
layout and specific land uses would be different under Alternative 2, the associated potential hazards and use of hazardous materials would be the same. 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.

Workers and members of the public could be exposed to hazards during construction activities from accidental releases of hazardous materials. However, like the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 2 would be subject to the federal, State, and local requirements associated with the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. Therefore, the potential for impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under Alternative 2 as to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND WATER QUALITY: Alternative 2 would result in similar development as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Construction and grading activities associated with implementation of Alternative 2 have the potential to cause temporary and short-term increased erosion and sedimentation, similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. The same State and local regulations and best management practices would be required of development under Alternative 2 as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. As with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, 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 new development, as well as comply with other City and State requirements pertaining to urban runoff and water quality. As compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 2 may result in increased impervious surface area associated with more expansive business park building and parking lot footprints and lack of passive green space, including ‘The Yard,’ the 11-acre park within the heart of the Specific Plan Area as envisions under the WRTP Specific Plan. Therefore, the peak discharge flows and rate of stormwater runoff generated within the Specific Plan Area would be slightly increased. Thus, Alternative 2 could increase potential effects related to groundwater recharge and increased surface runoff compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► LAND USE PLANNING, POPULATION, AND HOUSING: Alternative 2 would result in new development throughout the same are as that under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. This Alternative assumes development within the Specific Plan Area in a manner that is consistent with the 2035 General Plan and that has a density, layout, and mix of uses more consistent with a typical business park development with supporting land uses in proximity to a highway interchange. Similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, this development would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, induce substantial unplanned population growth, or divide an established community. In addition, as with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 2 would require the annexation of the Specific Plan Area into the City and amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Therefore, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the City’s2035 General Plan, and impacts related to land use, population, and housing under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► NOISE AND VIBRATION: Alternative 2 would result in new development throughout the same are as that under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. This Alternative assumes development within the Specific Plan Area in a manner that is consistent with the 2035 General Plan and that has a density, layout, and mix of uses more consistent with a typical business park development with supporting land uses in proximity to a highway interchange. As with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 2 would involve the temporary and shortterm noise and vibration resulting from demolition and construction activities. In addition, future operational uses within the WRTP Specific Plan Area could generate noise and vibration in proximity to existing or future

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-148 City of Woodland
noise sensitive receptors, similar to conditions under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Overall, impacts would be similar compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION: Alternative 2 would result in new development throughout the same are as that under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. This Alternative assumes development within the Specific Plan Area in a manner that is consistent with the 2035 General Plan and that has a density, layout, and mix of uses more consistent with a typical business park development with supporting land uses in proximity to a highway interchange, but likely to accommodate approximately the same number of residential dwelling units and non-residential square feet. As such, the project’s law enforcement, fire protection, public school services, and parks and recreational services needs would be similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.

Overall, impacts would be similar compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. ► TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Alternative 2 would generate travel demand associated with construction and operations of future development of the Specific Plan Area. This Alternative assumes development within the Specific Plan Area in a manner that is consistent with the 2035 General Plan and that has a density, layout, and mix of uses more consistent with a typical business park development with supporting land uses in proximity to a highway interchange, but likely to accommodate approximately the same number of residential dwelling units and non-residential square feet. Alternative 2 would involve the temporary and short-term generation of trips during demolition and construction activities – since development would be similar in overall scale to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, constructionrelated trips are anticipated to be similar. The land use layout may not accommodate non-vehicular transportation through multi-use trails and proximity of complementary land uses that is provided by the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, thereby increasing operational-related travel demand compared to that of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. In addition, this Alternative may not be subject to the same Comprehensive Transportation Demand Management/Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program (TDM/VMT Program), developed as part of and detailed in Section 6.2.3, “Subsequent Implementation Documents/Analysis,” of the WRTP Specific Plan. While the City may require a similar program to ensure consistency with the General Plan, it may be that this alternative would require offsite, net reductions in VMT if the requisite VMT reductions cannot feasibly be met due to the density, mix, and layout of this alternative. Overall, Alternative 4 is anticipated to generate a similar level of net VMT compared to the proposed Specific Plan, and impacts would be similar to the proposed Specific Plan. ► UTILITIES: Alternative 2 would result in new development throughout the same are as that under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. This Alternative assumes a different land use mix and layout than the proposed WRTP Specific Plan Area, but in a manner that is consistent with the 2035 General Plan and likely to accommodate approximately the same number of residential dwelling units and non-residential square feet as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. As with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 2 would still require the construction of water supply conveyance facilities and wastewater collection and conveyance facilities to serve the Specific Plan Area. Development under this Alternative would be subject to the same service and improvement standards, and state and federal laws and regulations as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. As such, the project’s utility requirements would be similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan and impacts would be similar compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-149 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Ability of Alternative 2 to Meet Project Objectives
This alternative would meet land use requirements as defined by the 2035 General Plan, but may not as effectively meet the project objectives developed as guiding principles through the City’s detailed planning process for the overarching vision of development within the Specific Plan Area. The business park may still accommodate and attract innovation and technology-related industry. However, it may not provide social gathering spaces for employees, residents, and visitors to connect, recreate, and relax in proximity to their place or work and residence.

In addition, the housing mix would include a greater proportion of high-density residential, provided in larger blocks surrounding the business park land uses, which may result in less “seamless transitions,” as sought by the project objectives. Finally, the circulation plan could still accommodate well-designed complete streets and pedestrian and bicycle facilities; however, relatively fewer daily needs would be met through walking, bicycling, and transit since commercial uses would be focused in the southwestern edge of the Specific Plan Area and oriented to motorists, and since the mobility hub proposed as a part of the WRTP Specific Plan is not a component of this alternative he business park and highway commercial land uses, larger parking lots to support business park land uses and associated parking and circulation, and reduced low-density residential areas; these changes could ultimately somewhat reduce continuity in scale, form, or overall visual character between SP-1A and the adjacent Spring Lake Specific Plan Area and increased sources of light and glare compared to development under the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.

Findings for Project Alternative 2
The City Council specifically rejects Alternative 2 on the ground that it does not meet the proposed project’s objectives. This alternative would meet land use requirements as defined by the 2035 General Plan, but may not as effectively meet the project objectives developed as guiding principles through the City’s detailed planning process for the overarching vision of development within the Specific Plan Area. The business park may still accommodate and attract innovation and technology-related industry. However, it may not provide social gathering spaces for employees, residents, and visitors to connect, recreate, and relax in proximity to their place or work and residence.

In addition, the housing mix would include a greater proportion of high-density residential, provided in larger blocks surrounding the business park land uses, which may result in less “seamless transitions,” as sought by the project objectives. Finally, the circulation plan could still accommodate well-designed complete streets and pedestrian and bicycle facilities; however, relatively fewer daily needs would be met through walking, bicycling, and transit since commercial uses would be focused in the southwestern edge of the Specific Plan Area and oriented to motorists, and since the mobility hub proposed as a part of the WRTP Specific Plan is not a component of this alternative. In addition, Alternative 2 would be less feasible compared to the proposed Specific Plan based on the reduction in land for lower-density residential development and the increase in capacity for higher-density development. The balance between housing types and densities in the proposed Specific Plan allows for the collection of fees adequate to provide for the required infrastructure needed to serve the planned development. The scenario envisioned under Alternative 2 would make it infeasible, at least in the near-term, to collect fees in amounts required to support the necessary infrastructure for the Specific Plan.

Alternative 3: Reduced Mobile-Source Emissions and Proximity Between Emissions Sources and Sensitive Land Uses
Alternative 3 would have similar overall amount of development as the proposed Specific Plan, but would shift the land use mix so that destination land uses are balanced and mixed within residential areas to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access for future residents.

AECOM Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC B-150 City of Woodland
This alternative would adjust the layout, mix, and density of land uses in order to allow a greater number of trips within the Specific Plan Area to occur on foot, by bicycle, or via transit, as well as minimize industrial and warehouse uses in proximity to residential land uses.

This alternative would have a greater proportion of relatively compact housing types focused around the central core (Village Center) of the Specific Plan Area, would remove inclusion of the highway commercial land use designation and would also disperse the retail and commercial services throughout the planned residential neighborhoods so that almost all future residents would be within walking distance (approximately ¼ mile) of these destinations, thereby increasing non-vehicular trips and reducing vehicle trip distances. In addition, the research and technology park land uses would be primarily developed with office uses (which could still accommodate research and technology-related uses, as well as other office-based uses). Permitted land uses for warehousing, storage, distribution, and logistics, agricultural or seed processing, packaging and manufacturing, agricultural production, and brewery/distillery, all of which are likely to attract diesel-powered truck trips, would be limited to the southwestern and southern extremities of the Specific Plan Area, farthest from planned open space and residential land uses. The light and medium industrial uses would remain in the southern extremity of the Specific Plan Area, since these uses have relatively low employment densities and have greater potential to include substantial on-site emissions sources, but office uses, like retail and commercial services, would be located near the residential areas.

Having increased housing density around the central core area could encourage a greater portion of trips on foot and via bicycle from residential areas. The presence of complementary commercial and retail land uses in greater proximity to the residential areas of the Specific Plan Area would make them relatively more accessible by foot or bike. Limiting high truck trip generating land uses, such as warehousing, storage, distribution, and logistics, and agricultural or seed processing, packaging and manufacturing, to the southern extremity of the Specific Plan Area would minimize the potential for the presence of substantial emissions sources in proximity to sensitive receptors.

The intent of this alternative is to decrease single-passenger vehicle use and related criteria air pollutant emissions and establish a greater level of separation between residential and non-residential emissions sources, and reduce associated adverse physical environmental effects.

Alternative 3 Impacts
► AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES: Alternative 3 would include similar development as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. As with implementation of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, farmland within and immediately south (for the proposed South Regional Pond) of the WRTP Specific Plan Area would be converted to urban land uses from implementation of Alternative 3. However, the WRTP Specific Plan Area and the off-site improvement areas are of moderate visual quality and do not represent scenic vistas. While the specific density and mix of land uses may vary somewhat under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, and the development of structures and new lighting throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area would still generate new sources of light and glare. As such, the type of aesthetics impacts would be similar to those of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Alternative 3 would alter existing views of, and from, the WRTP Specific Plan Area. Although development under Alternative 3 would also adhere to the WRTP Specific Plan Design Standards and Design Guidelines contained in Chapter 3 of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, development under Alternative 3 would still result in conversion of agricultural land to urban environment, which, like the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, would substantially alter the visual character of the WRTP

Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan FEIR AECOM City of Woodland B-151 CEQA Findings of Fact and SOC
Specific Plan Area from both public and private viewing locations. In addition, just as with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 3 would include the construction of new buildings with reflective surfaces that could cause daytime glare and would create new sources of additional nighttime lighting. Alternative 3 would still include the WRTP Specific Plan Design Standards and Design Guidelines contained in Chapter 3 of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, that further detail requirements within various land use designations to avoid light spillover and glare into surrounding areas and reduce night sky pollution from new light sources. However, as with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, implementation of Alternative 3 would still add to the overall amount of lighting and glare in the City, specifically within and around the WRTP Specific Plan Area. ► AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Alternative 3 would involve approximately the same amount of development as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, implementation of Alternative 3 would permanently convert an estimated 350 acres of agricultural farmland, including Prime Farmland, to nonagricultural uses. In addition, as with the proposed Specific Plan, Alternative 3 would locate residential uses adjacent to existing on-site and off-site agricultural lands, resulting in potential conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses.
► AIR QUALITY: As with the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 3 would involve the temporary generation of criteria air pollutants and precursors resulting from construction activities throughout the WRTP Specific Plan Area and offsite improvement areas. Constructing Alternative 3 could also expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction as well as during operations due to the creation of new stationary emissions sources and potential concentrated mobile sources, such as at commercial truck docking areas. Overall, short-term construction-related impacts and the potential for exposure to substantial localized pollutant concentrations would be similar compared to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.

Development under Alternative 3 would include a greater proportion relatively compact housing types focused around the central core (Village Center) of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, would remove inclusion of the highway commercial land use designation and would also disperse the retail and commercial services throughout the planned residential neighborhoods, with the intent to increase non-vehicular trips and reducing vehicle trip distances. In addition, the research and technology park land uses would be primarily developed with office uses (which could still accommodate research and technology-related uses, as well as other officebased uses). Permitted land uses for warehousing, storage, distribution, and logistics, agricultural or seed processing, packaging and manufacturing, agricultural production, brewery/distillery, and general light and medium industrial uses, all of which are likely to attract diesel-powered truck trips, would be limited to the southwestern and southern extremities of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, farthest from planned open space and residential land uses; these uses have greater potential to include substantial on-site emissions sources. Having increased housing density around the central core area, and presence of complementary commercial and retail land uses in greater proximity to the residential areas of the WRTP Specific Plan Area, could encourage a greater portion of trips on foot and via bicycle. Limiting high truck trip generating land uses and land uses that typically include substantial pollutant-generating sources to the southern extremity of the WRTP Specific Plan Area would minimize the potential for the presence of substantial emissions sources in proximity to sensitive receptors. Overall, the shift in development within the WRTP Specific Plan Area would reduce air pollutant emissions from land use development under Alternative 3 compared to that of the proposed WRTP Specific Plan.
► BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Alternative 3 would include the same amount of development as the proposed WRTP Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed WRTP Specific Plan, Alternative 3 could potentially result in the