Barton Brierley, AICP, Director of Community Development (Staff Contact: Amy Feagans, (916) )

Transcription

1 Agenda Item No. 8A March 8, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attention: Laura C. Kuhn Barton Brierley, AICP, Director of Community Development (Staff Contact: Amy Feagans, (916) ) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VACAVILLE ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2004 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LOWER LAGOON VALLEY POLICY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT; AND DISCUSSION: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VACAVILLE APPROVING THE PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF VACAVILLE AND LAGOON VALLEY RESIDENTIAL, LLC FOR THE LOWER LAGOON VALLEY POLICY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT This proposal is to adopt an addendum to the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan and adopt an ordinance approving a Phasing and Development Agreement (the "Agreement") for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project (the "Project"). The Agreement, if approved, will be for a term of 12 years with phased milestones of construction to assure the Project is built in a timely manner. The Agreement will also extend the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the same 12-year period. Phasing and Development Agreement The proposed Phasing and Development Agreement (Exhibit A to Action Item 2) with a term of 12 years is between the City and Lagoon Valley Residential, LLC (the owner/developer). The Agreement outlines the terms, conditions and phasing of development for the approximately 868-acre project site. The Agreement will extend the vesting tentative subdivision map for 12 years (the same term as the Phasing and Development Agreement). In addition to extending the vesting tentative subdivision map, other key elements of the Agreement include: Section 4. Obligations the obligations of the Agreement are basically the same as set out in the previously established project approvals, conditions and other related agreements, including the Settlement Agreement and the First Amended Obligations Agreement ( Obligations Agreement ). The exception is the change to when the developer will receive the park credit as discussed below. Section 5. The Vested Elements certain previously approved actions such as Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan, the subdivision and parcel maps, the project Design Guidelines and the Conditions of Approval, remain in effect as originally approved throughout the term of the Agreement.

2 Section 6. Project Phasing this section establishes milestones for the Project, as well as the timing of payment of the $2,000,000 in park fee credit to which the Project is entitled. Construction milestones include: No later than July 1, 2017 Developer shall commence construction of the lift station, the water storage reservoir and the booster pump station. No later than December 1, 2018 Developer shall record the first residential final map. No later than April 1, 2023 Developer shall submit a performance bond for the completion of the golf course. The Developer is entitled to a park fee credit of $2,000,000 for the dedication of the 71-acre area north of Lagoon Valley Road. The proposed Agreement amends the Obligations Agreement so that the Developer begins receiving the credit only after the bond for completion of the golf course is in place, rather than starting with the first building permit as originally established in the Obligations Agreement. Vesting Tentative Map Extension The current vesting tentative subdivision map/phasing plan (Attachment 2) is set to expire in September 2016 and the applicant has requested an extension to allow for adequate time to build out the Project. This map extension is tied to the term of the Agreement for ease of tracking and implementation. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application at its February 16, 2016 meeting. One member from the public spoke in opposition to the Project. The Planning Commission recommended approval with a 5-0 vote (Commissioners Hardy and Nadasdy were absent). Environmental Review The City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan project on June 8, An Addendum was prepared as part of the Specific Plan process and approved on February 22, A second Addendum was prepared in January 2015, as part of minor modifications to the location of certain infrastructure. For the Project, the City contracted with PlaceWorks Consulting, a planning and environmental firm (and the lead consultants on the recently adopted General Plan) to review and evaluate the adequacy of the previously approved 2004 Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan Final EIR. It was determined that an Addendum to the 2004 EIR would be appropriate to address any change to the original project description as pertains to the proposed Agreement. Based on substantial evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the 2004 Specific Plan EIR and a 2005 Addendum to that EIR, the Addendum (Attachment 3) states the following conclusions: The proposed modifications identified in the Addendum would not result in new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of environmental impacts described in the 2004 Final EIR or the 2005 Addendum, with implementation of mitigation measures in the 2004 Final EIR, the 2005 Addendum, and in this Addendum.

3 Circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken have not resulted in substantial changes that would require major revisions of the 2004 Final EIR or the 2005 Addendum. No new findings of substantial importance indicate that new significant environmental impacts would be created, the severity of the environmental impacts previously identified would increase, or that mitigation measures found to be infeasible for implementation in the 2004 Final EIR or the 2005 Addendum would now be feasible. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Phasing and Development Agreement for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project has been prepared through a number of meetings and negotiations with City staff and the Developer. This Agreement will extend the life of the vesting tentative subdivision map/phasing plan for 12 years, as requested by the Developer. In return, the City will get guarantees on the timing of construction phasing and/or bonding for the improvements as described above. The Developer has submitted a letter confirming it agrees with the terms of the Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: The Community Development Department s review and processing of this application is directly funded by fees paid by the Developer/applicant. The development will be funded by the Developer and the Developer s obligations for providing facilities are detailed in the prior Obligations Agreement and other related documents. RECOMMENDATION: By simple motion: 1) Adopt the subject resolution; and 2) By title only, introduce the subject ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution - Action Item 1 Ordinance - Action Item 2 Attachment 1: Planning Commission Resolution No Recommending Approval of the Phasing and Development Agreement for the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan Attachment 2: Phasing Plan (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map by reference) Attachment 3: February 16, 2016 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 4: Letter dated February 29, 2016 from Developer indicating support of the business points contained in the Agreement

4 RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VACAVILLE ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2004 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LOWER LAGOON VALLEY POLICY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Vacaville has received an application for a Phasing and Development Agreement for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project which will extend the project s vesting tentative subdivision map for an additional 12 years; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR for the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan was adopted and certified by the City Council on June 8, 2004; and the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the project (June 2004, State Clearinghouse Number ) (the "2004 Final EIR" or Final EIR ) and made CEQA findings in approving the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan project; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an Addendum (February 22, 2005, State Clearinghouse Number ) (the "2005 Addendum") and made CEQA findings in approving the Project; and WHEREAS, the City completed the Final EIR and the 2005 Addendum in compliance with CEQA. The City presented the Final EIR and the 2005 Addendum to the City Council and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the 2005 Addendum prior to approving the Project. The Final EIR and the 2005 Addendum reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the 2004 Final EIR for the Lagoon Valley Specific Plan entitled the Lagoon Valley Phasing and Development Agreement Addendum has been prepared and is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 16, 2016, regarding the proposed Addendum and Phasing and Development Agreement and voted to recommend that the City Council approve said actions as detailed in the staff report and staff presentation at the February 16, 2016 public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard testimony from staff and other interested parties at the public hearing on March 8, 2016, and on the basis of factual information contained in the written record, including, but not limited to, the 2004 Final EIR and the 2005 Addendum, and testimony given at the public hearing, the City Council finds that with respect to the Lower Lagoon Valley Phasing and Development Agreement Addendum (the "Addendum"): 1 The proposed modifications identified in the Addendum would not result in new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of environmental impacts described in the 2004 Final EIR for the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan or the 2005 Addendum, with implementation of mitigation measures in the 2004 Final EIR, the 2005 Addendum, and in this Addendum.

5 2 Circumstances under which the project would be undertaken have not resulted in substantial changes that would require major revisions of the 2004 Final EIR or the 2005 Addendum. 3. No new findings of substantial importance indicate that new significant environmental impacts would be created, the severity of the environmental impacts previously identified would increase, or that mitigation measures found to be infeasible for implementation in the 2004 Final EIR or the 2005 Addendum would now be feasible. 4. There is no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the 2004 Final EIR was certified as complete or the 2005 Addendum was approved, which is now known and which if known would require major revisions to the 2004 Final EIR or the 2005 Addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Lower Lagoon Valley Phasing and Development Agreement Addendum as shown in Exhibit A, which is hereby attached and incorporated herein. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk

6 Exhibit A to Resolution LAGOON VALLEY PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ADDENDUM City of Vacaville February 8, 2016

7

8 Table of Contents CEQA CONTEXT... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 2 Background... 2 Proposed phasing and development agreement... 3 Project Objectives... 3 OTHER RELATED CEQA DOCUMENTS... 3 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION... 7 Land Use and Planning (including Agriculture)... 7 Parks and Recreation Visual Resources Transportation and Circulation Air Quality Noise Public Utilities Wastewater Public Utilities Electricity and Natural Gas Public Utilities Cable Television Public Services Police and Fire Protection Public Services Schools Public Services Solid Waste Water Supply Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality Geology and Soils Hazards and Human Health Cultural Resources Biological Resources Population, Housing, and Employment Greenhouse Gas Emissions CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Land Use and Planning Parks and Recreation P L A C E W O R K S i

9 Visual Resources Transportation and Circulation Air Quality Noise Public Utilities Public Services Water Supply Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality Geology and Soils Hazards and Human Health Cultural Resources Biological Resources Population, Housing, and Employment CONCLUSIONS ii F E B R U A R Y 8,

10 List of Figures Figure 1 Lagoon Valley Development Plan... 4 Figure 2 Study Area... 5 List of Tables Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Existing Conditions Table 2 Freeway Mainline Segment Level of Service Existing Conditions Table 3 Freeway Level of Service Existing Conditions Comparison Table 4 Intersection Level of Service Existing Conditions Comparison Table 5 Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Attainment Status Table 6 Existing Traffic Noise Contours from 2015 General Plan EIR Table 7 Traffic Noise Contours Existing Conditions Comparison Table 8 Intersection Level of Service from 2015 General Plan EIR Table 9 Freeway Segment Level of Service from 2015 General Plan EIR P L A C E W O R K S iii

11 iv F E B R U A R Y 8,

12 This document analyzes the Lagoon Valley phasing and development agreement in relation to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project was approved in The supporting CEQA documentation consists of a 2004 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan, and a 2005 Addendum to the EIR that considered changes to the project reflected in the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project. The Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project has not yet been constructed. The developer has proposed an extension to the vesting tentative subdivision map, and the developer and City have developed a phasing and development agreement for the project. Based on the analysis contained in this document, the City has concluded that approval of the proposed phasing and development agreement would not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those already identified in the 2004 EIR, and an Addendum to the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum is appropriate. This document serves as the Addendum that considers potential changes to impacts based on the proposed phasing and development agreement. CEQA Context CEQA Guidelines Section states that when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines one of the following: Substantial changes are proposed in the project. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to new or worsened environmental effects. New information of substantial importance, which was not known at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows that the project would have more or worsened significant effects compared to what was discussed in the previous EIR, or that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would reduce impacts. Case law 1 has clarified that supplemental analysis should only consider the net impacts of the project as revised in comparison to the project as approved. In this case, the project as revised is the proposed 1 Bowman v City of Petaluma (1986) 185 CA3d 1065, 1079, 230 CR 413; Benton v Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 CA3d 1467, 1482, 277 CR 481; Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians v Rancho Cal. Water Dist. (1996) 43 CA4th 425, 437, 50 CR2d 769; American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth v City of Am. Canyon (2006) 145 CA4th 1062, 1073, 52 CR3d 312; Sierra Club v City of Orange (2008) 163 CA4th 523, 542, 78 CR3d 1; San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v City of San Diego (2010) 185 CA4th 924, 110 CR3d 865. P L A C E W O R K S 1

13 phasing and development agreement; the approved Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project is not under review. If the above conditions exist but only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate, a supplement to the EIR may be prepared instead of a subsequent EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163). If none of the above conditions exist, but some changes or additions to the previous EIR are necessary, an addendum to the EIR may be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). In addition, because the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project is consistent with the General Plan that was adopted in 2015, Section of the CEQA Guidelines also applies. This section mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Therefore, impacts that are offsite would generally not require additional analysis. Project Description BACKGROUND On June 8, 2004, the Vacaville City Council certified a Final EIR for the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan in the southwestern portion of Vacaville. The development program in the Specific Plan project included approximately 1,325 residential units, a school, an 18-hole golf course, approximately 1 million square feet of business park/office space, approximately 50,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail space, an approximately 17.5-acre church parcel, open space areas, and associated infrastructure. On June 8 and June 22, 2004, the City Council approved that project (collectively, the June 2004 Approvals ). Subsequently, the June 2004 Approvals for the Specific Plan project were challenged by two referendum petitions. The project sponsor, Triad Communities, then submitted applications for an alternative project: a proposal to implement the 1990 Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan. The June 2004 Approvals were subsequently withdrawn and the referendum election was thus cancelled. The Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project was approved in 2005 with an Addendum to the 2004 EIR. The Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project includes the following: A 412-acre residential development area with about 850 market-rate units, 100 age-restricted units, and 24 affordable housing units, organized into three residential areas. A 244-acre golf course with a clubhouse and recreational complex. A 75-acre business village/town center area with approximately 700,000 square feet of business park/office space occupying about 54 acres, up to 50,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail space and 51 affordable housing units occupying about 11 acres, an approximately 8-acre Village Green recreational area, and a fire station located on a 1.5-acre site. 2 F E B R U A R Y 8,

14 A 71-acre open space/biological preserve area. A 17.5-acre church parcel. A landscape berm on approximately 45 acres south of Lagoon Valley Road, and buffer space adjacent to Interstate 80 along the church parcel. See pages 15 to 22 of the 2005 Addendum to the EIR for more details on the Lower Lagoon Valley Implementation Project components. The City Council approved the current development plan with design guidelines for Lagoon Valley on November 18, 2014 (see Figure 1); that development plan is consistent with the 2005 approval for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project. PROPOSED PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The City and the Lagoon Valley developer are negotiating an extension to the vesting tentative subdivision map and have prepared an associated phasing and development agreement. The current tentative subdivision map will expire in September 2017, and the applicant has requested a twelve-year extension in order to allow adequate time to build out the project. The phasing and development agreement specifies standards and conditions that will govern the phasing and development of the project. The City s approval of the phasing and development agreement is discretionary. While the phasing and development agreement will not change the project from what was previously approved, this new discretionary approval is subject to CEQA. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The project objectives are described in the June 2004 Final EIR and 2005 Addendum on pages 3-9 to 3-10 and page 7, respectively. These objectives remain the same for the proposed phasing and development agreement. Other Related CEQA Documents In addition to the Lagoon Valley CEQA documents described above, the City of Vacaville certified an EIR for its comprehensive General Plan Update in The General Plan EIR evaluated potential impacts associated with development allowed by the General Plan. The Draft General Plan EIR was published in October 2013, and the Final EIR was published in June Since it was certified in 2015, this EIR is referred to below as the 2015 General Plan EIR. The planned land uses for the Lagoon Valley project are reflected in the General Plan land use map, and a set of policies and actions under General Plan Goal LU-22 specifically address this development. Therefore, as part of its citywide analysis, the 2015 General Plan EIR also evaluated the planned Lagoon Valley development. All aspects of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation project were P L A C E W O R K S 3

15 Figure 1 Lagoon Valley Development Plan 4 F E B R U A R Y 8,

16 considered in the spatial analyses conducted for the General Plan EIR (aesthetics, agriculture, exposure to localized air pollution and noise, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards and safety, hydrology and water quality, and land use). The quantitative analyses (traffic generation, air pollution emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, noise generation, population growth, impacts on public services and utilities, and recreation) assumed development of 1,025 units in Lagoon Valley by However, as explained in the General Plan EIR, deviations from the horizon-year projection are not in themselves a basis for finding inadequacy of the General Plan EIR, since these projections represent Vacaville s best estimate of reasonably foreseeable development under the General Plan. The horizon-year projection is used as a basis for the environmental assessment, but the actual location, extent, and type of physical development is governed by the policies and land use designations in the City s adopted General Plan, not by the assumptions used for the General Plan EIR. Project Location and Setting The Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project is located in northern Solano County, in the southwestern corner of the City of Vacaville. The Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project uses the same boundary as the 1990 Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan, which is bounded on the west by Interstate 80 and by low hills on the north, east, and south. Separated by Interstate 80 from the northern portion of Lagoon Valley, the Policy Plan Area represents the transition zone between the City of Vacaville and the City of Fairfield to the south. Regional access is provided by Interstate 80; local access from the freeway is via Lagoon Valley Road, which traverses the Policy Plan Area, and via Pena Adobe Road. Other local roadways include Rivera and Nelson Roads, which are internal to the Policy Plan Area and run parallel to Interstate 80 on its east side. The Policy Plan Area is gently sloped to the center and north, with moderate and steep slopes at the perimeter. Three privately owned parcels occupy approximately 20 acres of highway commercial uses in the northern portion of the Policy Plan Area, adjacent to Interstate 80. Lagoon Valley Park, including Lagoon Valley Lake, covers over 300 acres of the Policy Plan Area to the north of Lagoon Valley Road and east of the three privately owned parcels. The remaining Policy Plan Area (approximately 1,800 acres) contains a few scattered single-family residences, but mainly covers substantial amounts of City-owned open space and agricultural and grazing land. The Policy Plan Area is larger than the development area planned by the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project. As shown in Figure 2, the Policy Plan Area extends beyond the Vacaville city limits, whereas the area planned for development is entirely within the city limits. Because the proposed phasing and development agreement only affects the area planned for development, this Addendum evaluates that development area (i.e., the study area for this Addendum), and not the entire Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Area. P L A C E W O R K S 5

17 6 F E B R U A R Y 8,

18 Environmental Evaluation This section assesses the potential impacts of the proposed phasing and development agreement, and whether such impacts have been adequately addressed in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR, 2005 Lagoon Valley Addendum, or 2015 General Plan EIR. For the majority of topics, the scope of the analysis, format, and terminology used in this memo are the same as those discussed in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum. However, the CEQA Guidelines have been amended since 2005 to address other new topics, so the evaluation below also considers those topics. For each topic below, any updates to the environmental setting since the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum are provided first, if any, followed by an assessment of impacts and a mitigation summary. LAND USE AND PLANNING (INCLUDING AGRICULTURE) Setting As described in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum, the majority of the study area is undeveloped, consisting of City-owned open space and privately owned agricultural and grazing land. Since the 2005 Addendum, the 168-acre Hines Nursery, which previously comprised about 35 percent of the development area, has closed. No other significant land use changes have occurred since Since the 2005 Addendum, the City of Vacaville has adopted an updated General Plan, which designates the study area for the following uses: Residential Golf Course: 418 acres Business Park: 256 acres Public Park: 2 acres Public Open Space: 187 acres Hillside Agriculture: 37 acres In 2008, Solano County adopted an updated General Plan, but because the study area is within the Vacaville city limits, the County General Plan does not apply. The California Department of Conservation released updated farmland data from 2012, which shows that the majority of the study area is classified as grazing land. Approximately 23 acres are classified as unique farmland. There are no parcels with Williamson Act contracts in the study area. Impacts Land Use Compatibility Impacts The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project would include construction and operation of developed uses that could be incompatible with agricultural uses in the Plan Area, Lagoon Valley Park, and adjacent existing uses. In addition, the 2004 EIR found that the previous project would include P L A C E W O R K S 7

19 construction and operation of incompatible uses internal to the Plan Area. These impacts were determined to be less than significant because the previous project would include land use policies, design guidelines, and buffers that minimize incompatibilities. The 2005 Addendum concluded that the revised project would not change the previous less-than-significant impact findings because it maintained the land use policies, design guidelines, and buffers that minimize incompatibilities. Also, because the revised project reduced the development area, the 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would reduce potential impacts related to compatibility with Lagoon Valley Park. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses. The 2004 EIR identified potential land use compatibility impacts related to ongoing agricultural operations at the Hines Nursery during the early phases of the project. Because the Hines Nursery has closed, potential impacts related to land use compatibility with those agricultural operations would be reduced. The existing land uses in the area have not otherwise substantially changed since the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no change to the previous less-than-significant impact findings related to land use compatibility. Agricultural Impacts The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project would convert Prime and Unique Farmland to a developed use, causing a net loss of 244 acres of Important Farmland within the Plan Area. No feasible mitigation was identified, and the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. The 2005 Addendum concluded that the revised project would convert 232 acres of Important Farmland and maintained the significant and unavoidable impact finding. As explained in the land use and planning setting description above, the California Department of Conservation s most recent farmland mapping data indicates that there are only 23 acres of Unique Farmland within the study area, so the acreage of impacted Important Farmland would be reduced from what was previously evaluated. However, because Important Farmland is still planned for development, the impact would remain significant. As stated in the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum, no feasible mitigation is available for this impact, so it would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, the 2015 General Plan EIR found a significant and unavoidable impact related to conversion of Important Farmland, including for the 23 acres of Unique Farmland located within the study area. Because this significant and unavoidable impact has been identified and evaluated in the 2004 EIR, 2005 Addendum, and 2015 General Plan EIR, no additional analysis would be required under CEQA for the proposed phasing and development agreement. Consistency with Other Planning Documents The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project could conflict with adopted applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, but found the impact to be less than significant with approval of General Plan amendments and adoption of the Specific Plan. The 2005 Addendum determined that the revised project would reduce impacts related to General Plan and Land Use and Development Code 8 F E B R U A R Y 8,

20 consistency because General Plan amendments and rezonings would no longer be required. In addition, the revised project would implement the 1990 Policy Plan with no amendments, and it would maintain consistency with the Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan and the concepts in the planned Solano County Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses or development concepts, so it would not change any impacts related to consistency with other planning documents. As explained in the land use and planning setting description above, since the 2005 Addendum, the City of Vacaville has adopted an updated General Plan. The 2015 General Plan anticipates the Lagoon Valley development, which is reflected on the General Plan land use map and addressed in Goal LU-22 and its associated policies and actions. Therefore, the impact related to consistency with the General Plan would remain less than significant. Other Thresholds In addition to the analyses from the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum discussed above, CEQA requires consideration of the following: Would the project physically divide an established community? Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use? As explained in the land use and planning setting description above, the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project will be located in an area that is primarily undeveloped. There are no existing established communities that would be affected by it. In addition, the study area is not currently zoned for forestland, timberland, or Timberland Production. While there are some woodlands in the southwest portion of the study area (see Figure of the 2013 General Plan Draft EIR), they are not located in the area proposed for development; rather, they are planned for open space use. Therefore, the approved Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would have less-thansignificant impacts with respect to dividing established communities and impacts to forest resources. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the less-than-significant impacts. Mitigation The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum concluded that no land use and planning mitigation measures were required for the previous or revised project, except in the case of the loss of Important Farmland where no feasible mitigation measure was available. No additional mitigation would be P L A C E W O R K S 9

21 necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement, and no new mitigation measures for the loss of agricultural land have been identified. PARKS AND RECREATION Setting According to the 2015 General Plan EIR, the City currently owns and manages 117 acres of neighborhood parkland, 140 acres of community parkland, and the 314-acre Lagoon Valley Regional Park. In addition, there are approximately 2,090 acres of publicly-accessible open space in Vacaville. Since the 2005 Addendum, the City prepared the Lagoon Valley Park Master Plan, and the Community Services Commission directed staff to complete the environmental assessment as appropriate at a later time. This Master Plan has not been formally adopted by the City Council. Impacts Parkland Provision Standards The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that the previous project could conflict with City standards for the provision of parkland. However, the EIR concluded that the impact would be less than significant because the previous project would provide 16 to 18 acres of residential recreational facilities and 15 acres of passive open space that would meet or exceed General Plan parkland requirements, as well as contribute $4 to $5 million to the City for park-related purposes. No mitigation was necessary. The 2005 Addendum concluded that the revised project would maintain the less-than-significant impact finding. With its reduced development potential, parkland requirements would be reduced; meanwhile, the revised project includes more parkland than the previous project. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses, number of new residents, or amount of parkland provided by the revised project from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no change to the previous less-than-significant impact finding related to parkland provision standards. Construction or Expansion of Park Facilities The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project could have created additional demand on existing recreational and park facilities, necessitating the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Because impacts of improvements to Lagoon Valley Park and to other open space acquisition projects could not be determined, the EIR found that the impact was significant. No feasible mitigation measures were identified, so the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. The 2005 Addendum maintained the significant and unavoidable finding. Although the resident population would be smaller 10 F E B R U A R Y 8,

22 with the revised project, it would still necessitate park improvements that could have physical effects on the environment. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the number of new residents that would place demands on existing recreational and park facilities. Therefore, the planned project would not increase demands on recreational and park facilities beyond what was evaluated in the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum, and the impact would remain unchanged. As explained in the parks and recreation setting section above, since the 2005 Addendum, the City has prepared the Lagoon Valley Park Master Plan, but the plan has not undergone environmental review nor has it been formally adopted by the City Council. Therefore, additional information is now known about the anticipated improvements to Lagoon Valley Park, which will be needed in part due to the residential development allowed by the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project. With this additional information, it is possible that mitigation measures could be identified to reduce the significant impact that was identified in the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum and that would be carried forward with the proposed phasing and development agreement. However, doing so would be premature given that the Lagoon Valley Park Master Plan has not yet been evaluated under CEQA and formally adopted, and planned improvements could change. Furthermore, as noted in the 2004 EIR, the Park Master Plan will be considered as a separate project for CEQA purposes and will undergo project-level CEQA review. Therefore, the proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the previous conclusion of a significant and unavoidable impact. Physical Deterioration of Park Facilities The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project could increase the use of existing park facilities such that substantial deterioration of these facilities could occur or be accelerated. The prior project included the establishment of a permanent funding mechanism for the maintenance of Lagoon Valley Park and other City-owned open spaces, as well as the contribution of $4 to $5 million in funds for park-related purposes. Since the City was initiating an update of the Lagoon Valley Park Master Plan, no specific Park improvements had yet been selected at the time of EIR certification; therefore, potential physical environmental effects associated with improvements to the Park could not be determined at that time. The EIR analysis concluded that this was a potentially significant impact and that there were no feasible mitigation measures available. The 2005 Addendum maintained the significant and unavoidable finding. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the number of new residents that would increase the use of existing recreational and park facilities. Therefore, the impact would remain unchanged. As explained above in the evaluation related to constructing or expanding park and recreation facilities, although the Lagoon Valley Park Master Plan has since been developed, it has not been formally adopted, and planned improvements could change. Therefore, the proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the previous conclusion of a significant and unavoidable impact. P L A C E W O R K S 11

23 Temporary Disruption of Existing Recreation Facilities The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that construction activities associated with installation of utilities infrastructure for the previous project could have temporarily disrupted existing recreation facilities. Installation of on-site and off-site utility infrastructure for the previous project would have involved earthdisturbing activities within Lagoon Valley Park, pedestrian/bike trails, and open space adjacent to Pena Adobe. Portions of these facilities would have required closure for infrastructure construction activities. The EIR concluded that this temporary disruption would be a significant impact; however, mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation Measure on page of the 2004 Draft EIR). The 2005 Addendum maintained this impact finding and mitigation measure. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the utilities infrastructure plan from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum, nor would it allow other construction activities to occur that could disrupt recreation facilities and that were not anticipated in the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no change to the previous impact finding related to disruption of recreation facilities, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.3-4, identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR to reduce temporary construction impacts on existing recreation facilities, would continue to be applicable. No new mitigation has been identified that would reduce the significant unavoidable impacts on existing parks or the impacts resulting from demand for new recreational facilities that were identified in the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum and that would be carried forward by the proposed phasing and development agreement. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. VISUAL RESOURCES Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, the California Building Code has been updated to include standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to improve energy efficiency, and to reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls. Impacts Scenic Vistas and Visual Character of Scenic Resources The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project would alter scenic vistas and the visual character of the scenic resources. In order to preserve views of the Plan Area, especially of Lagoon Valley Park, the prior project proposed to: (1) allow no alterations within the Park, except in conformance with an adopted Park Master Plan update; (2) permit no development on hillside open space areas; (3) create a 12 F E B R U A R Y 8,

24 landscaped corridor and a landscape berm along Interstate 80 to screen proposed uses from view; (4) maintain a major view corridor looking towards the lake; (5) impose restrictions on building heights, locations, and finishing materials; and (6) screen mechanical equipment and locate utilities underground. Overall, the EIR analysis concluded that even with incorporation of those scenic quality and view preservation features, the project would still result in a permanent change to existing scenic vistas and the visual character of existing scenic resources. There were no feasible mitigation measures identified, and the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. The revised project evaluated in the 2005 Addendum maintained those scenic quality and view preservation features, included additional view corridors, and reduced the development area. The 2005 Addendum concluded that although impacts would be reduced, they would remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan or the scenic quality and view preservation features from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. As stated in the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum, no feasible mitigation is available for this impact, so it would remain significant and unavoidable. Visual Character of Lower Lagoon Valley The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that the previous project would alter the visual character of Lower Lagoon Valley. The EIR analysis concluded that although the project would incorporate features to preserve the visual character of the Plan Area and minimize visual effects associated with its development, it would constitute a substantial change in the visual environment east of Interstate 80. There were no feasible mitigation measures identified, and the impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. The revised project evaluated in the 2005 Addendum maintained those features to preserve visual character and minimize visual effects, and it reduced the development area. The 2005 Addendum concluded that although impacts would be reduced, they would remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan or the features to preserve visual character and minimize visual effects from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. As stated in the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum, no feasible mitigation is available for this impact, so it would remain significant and unavoidable. Light and Glare The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that the previous project would create new sources of light, which could adversely affect nighttime views of the Plan Area. The EIR analysis concluded that the increase in nighttime lighting, the potential for this lighting to disturb future Plan Area residents, and the potential for glare from light reflecting off commercial and business/professional buildings would be a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce glare and light disturbance impacts to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation Measure on page of the 2004 Draft EIR), but impacts associated with the increase in nighttime lighting and changes in the existing nighttime environment were found to be significant and unavoidable. The 2005 Addendum maintained these impact findings and Mitigation Measure P L A C E W O R K S 13

25 The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan or the features to minimize visual effects from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no change to the previous impact findings related to light and glare, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.4-3, identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR to reduce project-related light and glare impacts, would continue to be applicable. No other new mitigation has been identified that would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts on scenic vistas, visual character, and nighttime lighting. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, a Class I bicycle facility has been constructed along Nelson Road within and near the study area. In addition, an updated regional transportation plan, Plan Bay Area, was adopted in Plan Bay Area includes a planned project that affects the study area: implementation of the Interstate 80/Lagoon Valley Road interchange improvements, which entails widening of overcrossing and ramps as well as signalization. Updated traffic operations data is available from the 2015 General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR analyzed ten of the twelve intersections that were studied in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR. Those intersections and their existing operations are provided in Table 1, along with intersection operations at one additional intersection in the Lagoon Valley vicinity that was not analyzed in the 2004 EIR (Lagoon Valley Road at Interstate 80 westbound ramps). As shown in Table 2, the 2015 General Plan EIR also provides updated freeway mainline segment level of service (LOS) information. Impacts Effects Determined to Have Less-Than-Significant Impacts The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project would not result in significant impacts to roadway segments under any of the analysis scenarios or to freeway segments under the Existing + Approved Projects scenario. The 2005 Addendum maintained those less-than-significant impact findings. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses and associated traffic generated by the project from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to traffic impacts would not change. 14 F E B R U A R Y 8,

26 TABLE 1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Control Peak Hour LOS a (sec) b,c Average Delay 3 Alamo Drive at I-80 EB Ramp Signalized AM A 6.7 PM A 2 4 Alamo Drive at Marshall Road Signalized 5 Alamo Drive at Merchant Street Signalized 16 Cherry Glen Road at Pleasants Valley Road One/Two-Way Stop 17 Cherry Glen Road at I-80 EB Ramp One/Two-Way Stop 18 Cherry Glen Road at I-80 WB Ramp One/Two-Way Stop 19 Lagoon Valley Road at I-80 EB Ramp One/Two-Way Stop 20 Lagoon Valley Road at I-80 WB Ramp One/Two-Way Stop 21 Cherry Glen Road at Lyon Road One/Two-Way Stop 29 I-80 EB at North Texas Street^ Signalized AM C 32.7 PM C 32.4 AM D 36.4 PM C 29.8 AM A(A) 8.1 (9.4) PM A(A) 6.4 (9.8) AM A(A) 3.4 (9.1) PM A(A) 6.5 (9.6) AM A(A) 6.3 (9.8) PM A(A) 6.2 (10) AM A(B) 7.2 (10.9) PM A(B) 8.7 (11.6) AM A(A) 1.8 (9.5) PM A(A) 2 (9.5) AM A(B) 4.2 (10.1) PM A(A) 5 (9.8) AM A 8.1 PM B I-80 WB at North Texas Street^ Signalized Note: ^ denotes intersections located in Fairfield a. LOS = level of service b. Average Delay = average vehicle delay in seconds c. For unsignalized intersections, LOS/delay are shown for both overall intersection and worst approach e.g. A (B) 2.4 (14.3). Source: Kittelson & Associates, AM C 21.6 PM C 25.4 As shown in Table 2, updated information is available from the 2015 General Plan EIR about existing traffic operations on Interstate 80. Table 3 below compares the existing freeway traffic operations from the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR to those provided in the 2015 General Plan EIR. As shown in Table 3, the updated existing freeway traffic operations from the 2015 EIR are similar to the existing traffic operations disclosed in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR, but operations have slightly worsened eastbound in the AM peak hour and westbound in the PM peak hour. The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR disclosed that the worst freeway segment P L A C E W O R K S 15

27 TABLE 2 FREEWAY MAINLINE SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS Location Interstate 80 West of Lagoon Valley Road No. of Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density a LOS b Density a LOS b Eastbound B 31.5 D Westbound C 25.4 C a. Density = passenger cars per mile per lane. b. LOS = Level of service. Source: Kittelson & Associates, operations in the Existing + Approved Projects scenario were LOS E eastbound in the PM peak hour. Because the updated existing operations information from the 2015 General Plan EIR indicates that eastbound PM peak hour traffic has remained the same as what was evaluated in the 2004 EIR (i.e., LOS D), freeway operations with the project are expected to remain at LOS E, and the impact would remain less than significant. TABLE 3 FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARISON AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Direction 2004 EIR 2015 EIR 2004 EIR 2015 EIR Eastbound (Worst segment) A B D D Westbound (Worst segment) D C B C Notes: LOS = Level of service. The 2004 EIR evaluated shorter individual segments than what was evaluated in the 2015 General Plan EIR. This table shows the LOS from the worst operating segments evaluated in the 2004 EIR. Because the traffic generated by the project would not change as a result of the proposed phasing and development agreement, and because updated existing traffic operations data do not indicate that a new significant impact would occur, there would be no change to the previous less-than-significant impact findings. Intersection Operations The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project would generate traffic that would cause LOS to degrade to an unacceptable level at one intersection under the Existing + Approved Projects + Project conditions, causing a significant impact. The 2005 Addendum eliminated that impact based on revisions to the project that reduced traffic. In the 2025 scenario, the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project would generate traffic that would cause intersection LOS to degrade to unacceptable levels at three intersections. The 2005 Addendum concluded that the revised project would not cause intersections to degrade to unacceptable LOS, assuming a signal is installed at the intersection of the Interstate 80 eastbound ramps 16 F E B R U A R Y 8,

28 with Lagoon Valley Road. Although the analysis assumed installation of this signal, it was listed as a mitigation measure for the revised project (part of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(a), page of the 2004 Draft EIR), as it was in the 2004 EIR, to ensure that it is implemented when needed. As noted in the transportation and circulation setting section above, the updated regional transportation plan identifies interchange improvements at Interstate 80/Lagoon Valley Road, including signalization, so this project is still planned. In summary, the 2005 Addendum found less-than-significant impacts on intersection operations, but maintained the portion of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(a) that requires installation of a traffic signal at the Interstate 80 eastbound ramps with Lagoon Valley Road (see page 50 of the 2005 Addendum). The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses and associated traffic generated by the project from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to traffic impacts would not change. As shown in Table 1 above, updated information is available from the 2015 General Plan EIR about existing traffic operations at ten of the twelve intersections that were evaluated in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR. Table 4 below compares the existing intersection operations from the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR to those provided in the 2015 General Plan EIR. As shown in Table 4, the updated existing intersection operations from the 2015 EIR are similar to the existing traffic operations disclosed in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR. In some cases, existing intersection operations have substantially improved, but they have worsened at two intersections: Alamo Drive at Marshall Road has changed from LOS B to LOS C in the PM peak hour. Alamo Drive at Merchant Street has changed from LOS C to LOS D in the AM peak hour. The 2005 Addendum found that Existing + Approved Projects + Project conditions would result in the following operations at the two intersections for which existing operations have worsened: Alamo Drive at Marshall Road: LOS B in PM peak hour Alamo Drive at Merchant Street: LOS D in the AM peak hour In the 2025 scenario, the 2005 Addendum found that LOS at those intersections would be as follows: Alamo Drive at Marshall Road: LOS D in PM peak hour Alamo Drive at Merchant Street: LOS E in the AM peak hour Comparing the traffic operations data between the 2005 Lagoon Valley Addendum and the 2015 General Plan EIR is not ideal because they use different methodologies. However, the 2015 LOS values indicate that existing traffic operations may have worsened at two intersections that will be affected by Lagoon Valley development compared to what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Because those intersections were projected to operate at or near the threshold of LOS E in the Existing + Approved Projects + Project and 2025 scenarios, it is possible that the worsened existing traffic operations would cause the project to trigger a new significant impact at one or both of these intersections, either by changing the LOS from an P L A C E W O R K S 17

29 TABLE 4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARISON Intersection Control Peak Hour Alamo Drive at I-80 EB Ramp Signalized 2004 EIR LOS 2015 EIR LOS AM B A PM D A Alamo Drive at Marshall Road Alamo Drive at Merchant Street Cherry Glen Road at Pleasants Valley Road Cherry Glen Road at I-80 EB Ramp Cherry Glen Road at I-80 WB Ramp Lagoon Valley Road at I-80 EB Ramp Lagoon Valley Road at I-80 WB Ramp d Cherry Glen Road at Lyon Road Signalized Signalized One/Two-Way Stop One/Two-Way Stop One/Two-Way Stop One/Two-Way Stop One/Two-Way Stop One/Two-Way Stop AM - C PM B C AM C D PM C C AM - A PM A A AM A A PM A A AM A A PM A A AM A A PM A A AM A PM A AM A PM A A I-80 EB at North Texas Street^ Signalized AM C A PM E B I-80 WB at North Texas Street^ Signalized AM C C PM C C Notes: LOS = level of service denotes intersection that was not evaluated in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR ^ denotes intersections located in Fairfield For unsignalized intersections, only the overall intersection LOS is shown for comparison because the 2004 EIR only provided overall intersection LOS (i.e., the 2004 EIR doesn t provide LOS for the worst approach). Source: Kittelson & Associates, acceptable level to an unacceptable level, or by degrading operations by 2 percent or more at an intersection that would operate at an unacceptable level without the project. The change in existing traffic operations since the 2005 Addendum constitutes a change with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which could result in a new significant impact. 18 F E B R U A R Y 8,

30 However, as described in the CEQA context section above, Section of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects that are consistent with the General Plan, such as the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, shall not require additional environmental review for offsite impacts, such as traffic impacts at intersections outside of the project itself. Such impacts have already been considered in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no additional analysis is required under CEQA. Freeway Operations in 2025 The 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum found significant impacts resulting from project-generated traffic that would cause freeway segment LOS to degrade to unacceptable levels on Interstate 80 in Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-3(b), (c), and (d) (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, because implementation is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Vacaville, these impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Because the traffic generated by the project would not change as a result of the proposed phasing and development agreement, there would be no change to the previous significant impact findings for freeway operations in Mitigation Measures 4.5-3(b), (c), and (d) would still apply, and the significant and unavoidable impact findings would remain unchanged given that those mitigations would need to occur outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Vacaville. No additional analysis would be required under CEQA. Freeway Ramps The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that project-generated traffic would cause one freeway ramp to degrade from acceptable to unacceptable LOS in The 2005 Addendum eliminated that impact based on revisions to the project. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses and associated traffic generated by the project from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to traffic impacts would not change. Updated freeway ramp operations data is not available. As a result, there would be no change to the previous less-than-significant impact findings related to freeway ramp operations. Freeway Diverge Operations The 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum found significant impacts resulting from project-generated traffic that would cause two freeway ramp diverge areas to degrade from acceptable to unacceptable LOS in the AM peak period: the diverge from westbound Interstate 80 to the Cherry Glen Road/Pena Adobe Road offramp and the diverge from westbound Interstate 80 to the North Cherry Glen Road off-ramp. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-5(b) and (c) (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce P L A C E W O R K S 19

31 these impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, because implementation is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Vacaville, these impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Because the traffic generated by the project would not change as a result of the proposed phasing and development agreement, there would be no change to the previous significant impact findings for freeway diverge operations. Mitigation Measures 4.5-5(b) and (c) would still apply, and the significant and unavoidable impact findings would remain unchanged given that those mitigations would need to occur outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Vacaville. No additional analysis would be required under CEQA. Variant with California Drive Overcrossing The Vacaville General Plan that was in effect when the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum were prepared included a series of recommended future roadway improvements in the Transportation Element. Among them was construction of an extension of California Drive between Marshall Road and Cherry Glen Road, including an overcrossing over the Interstate 80 freeway. This would connect Lower Lagoon Valley directly to other areas of Vacaville. That same recommended future roadway improvement is also included in the updated General Plan that was adopted in The transportation analysis for the California Drive Overcrossing Variant assumed that the overcrossing would be constructed as a two-lane roadway by 2025 (the 2015 General Plan also assumes a two-lane roadway). The westbound off-ramp from Interstate 80 at North Cherry Glen Road would be closed. The extension of Manuel Campos Parkway to North Texas Street and Interstate 80 was assumed, as for the 2025 Baseline and 2025 Baseline + Project scenarios. The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum evaluated how the California Drive Overcrossing Variant would affect the transportation impacts, and found that some impacts would be reduced compared to analysis without the variant, while other new impacts would occur. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses and associated traffic generated by the project from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to traffic impacts would not change, and no additional analysis is required under CEQA. Other Thresholds In addition to the analyses from the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum discussed above, CEQA requires consideration of the following: Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? 20 F E B R U A R Y 8,

32 Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? These four thresholds were considered in the 2015 General Plan EIR, which accounted for the land uses allowed by the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project. The air traffic and hazards impacts were found to be less than significant. The 2015 General Plan EIR found a significant and unavoidable impact on emergency access resulting from intersections operating at unacceptable LOS. In addition, the General Plan EIR found a potentially significant impact related to conflicts with the accessibility and geographic coverage goals of the Vacaville City Coach Short Range Transit Plan, but through implementation of General Plan policies and actions, found the impact to be less than significant. Because the General Plan EIR accounted for the land uses allowed by the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, these impacts have already been evaluated at a programmatic level. In addition, CEQA does not require that a subsequent EIR be prepared to evaluate new thresholds that were not covered by the prior CEQA document. Therefore, no additional analysis is required by CEQA. However, if a subsequent EIR is prepared for other reasons, we recommend evaluating these thresholds at a project level. Mitigation The following mitigation measures would continue to apply: Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(a), as revised in the 2005 Addendum on page 50, to require installation of a traffic signal at the Interstate 80 eastbound ramps with Lagoon Valley Road. Mitigation Measures 4.5-3(b), (c), and (d), identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, to address freeway segment impacts. Mitigation Measures 4.5-5(b) and (c), identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, to address freeway diverge operations impacts. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. AIR QUALITY Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the 1-hour ozone standard and enacted the 8-hour ozone standard, which required air districts and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a new attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP). The latest SIP for the 8-hour ozone standard, the 2009 Sacramento Metropolitan Area 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan, contains additional control measures to demonstrate that the region will attain the 8- hour standard by the target date of P L A C E W O R K S 21

33 In addition, since the 2005 Addendum, the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) has prepared and/or participated in other updated air quality plans, as summarized on page to of the Draft EIR for the General Plan published in October Updated attainment status information is shown in Table 5. TABLE 5 YOLO-SOLANO AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ATTAINMENT STATUS Pollutant Ozone (O 3 ) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) Sulfur Dioxide (SO x ) Particulate Matter (PM 10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5) Averaging Time State Standards National Standards 1-Hour Nonattainment N/A a 8-Hour Nonattainment Nonattainment 1-Hour Attainment Unclassified Attainment b 8-Hour Attainment Unclassified Attainment 1-Hour Attainment N/A Annual N/A Attainment 1-Hour Attainment N/A 24-Hour Attainment Attainment Annual N/A Attainment 24-Hour Nonattainment Unclassified Annual Average Nonattainment N/A 24-Hour Annual Average N/A Partial Nonattainment Sulfates 24-Hour Attainment N/A Lead (Pb) N/A 30-Day Avg. Attainment N/A Calendar Qtr. N/A Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour Attainment N/A Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour Attainment N/A Visibility Reducing Particles 8-Hour Attainment N/A a. N/A Not applicable. State or federal standard does not exist for the combination of pollutant and averaging time. b. Unclassified areas are those for which air monitoring has not been conducted but which are assumed to be in attainment. Source: Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, Impacts Short-Term Construction The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that construction phases of the previous project would generate reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and course particulate matter (PM10), resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified, but because it was not possible to quantify the effectiveness of the measure, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. The 2005 Addendum found 22 F E B R U A R Y 8,

34 that the revised project would reduce but not avoid this significant and unavoidable impact, and maintained the mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR). The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed development levels and associated construction activity from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to short-term air quality impacts from construction activity would not change, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure would still apply. Long-Term Operations The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that long-term operations of mobile and stationary sources from the previous project would emit ROG, NOX and PM10, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified, but because it was not possible to quantify the effectiveness of the measure, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would reduce but not avoid this significant and unavoidable impact, and maintained the mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR). The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated traffic generated by the project from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to long-term air quality impacts from operations of mobile and stationary sources would not change, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure would still apply. Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum concluded that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would not result in significant impacts related to carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles at local intersections. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated traffic generated by the project from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact related to carbon monoxide emissions would remain less than significant. Clean Air Plan Conflicts The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project had been accommodated in the Clean Air Plan growth projections, so it would not impair implementation of the Plan, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Air quality plans in the region have been updated since the 2005 Addendum, as summarized in the air quality setting section above. The Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan was prepared based on Vacaville s prior General Plan, which accounted for the development P L A C E W O R K S 23

35 allowed by the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project. Therefore, like the previous Clean Air Plan, the project would continue to be consistent with the updated air quality plan and not impair its implementation. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum; those land uses are consistent with the current regional air quality plan. Therefore, it would maintain the less-than-significant impact related to consistency with air quality plans. Toxic Air Contaminants The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could generate toxic air contaminants (TACs), but because sources of TAC emissions would be subject to review and permitting by the YSAQMD in order to protect sensitive on- or off-site receptors, the impact was found to be less than significant. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact related to TACs would remain less than significant. Odors The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could release objectionable odors at manholes along the sewer main, which follows a bicycle/pedestrian trail. The impact was determined to be significant, and mitigation was identified (Mitigation Measure on page of the 2004 Draft EIR). However, because odor detection is highly subjective and variable from person to person, the impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses or sewer alignment from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to odor impacts would not change, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure would still apply. Mitigation The following mitigation measures would continue to apply: Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, to reduce construction-phase air quality impacts. Mitigation Measure 4.6-2, identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, to address air quality impacts from long-term operations. 24 F E B R U A R Y 8,

36 Mitigation Measure 4.6-6, identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, to reduce project-related odor impacts. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. NOISE Setting Updated existing traffic noise contours data are available from the 2015 General Plan EIR; see Table 6 for updated data for the segments of Interstate 80 near the project. TABLE 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS FROM 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR Roadway Segment ADT a Centerline to 70 L dn (Feet) Centerline to 65 L dn (Feet) Centerline to 60 L dn (Feet) L dn (dba) 50 Feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane I-80 Rivera Road to Alamo Drive 93, , I-80 Alamo Drive to Davis Street 93, , a. ADT = average daily trips. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., June Impacts Temporary Noise and Vibration from Construction Activity The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that construction activities associated with the previous project could generate temporary or periodic noise levels that exceed City standards and could generate and expose people to excessive groundborne vibration levels, resulting in significant impacts. Mitigation was identified to reduce the magnitude of these impacts, but they were found to remain significant and unavoidable. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would reduce but not avoid these significant and unavoidable impacts, and maintained the mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures and on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR). The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed development levels and associated construction activity from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to temporary noise and vibration impacts from construction activity would not change, and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures and would still apply. P L A C E W O R K S 25

37 Exposure of Sensitive Uses to Noise The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the previous project could expose proposed residential and other sensitive land uses to noise in excess of City standards. With a landscape berm along Interstate 80 and other noise attenuation approaches, calculations showed that exterior noise levels in residential areas would be below the threshold, but the 2004 EIR conservatively found a significant impact because of the possibility of new land uses being exposed to noise levels from Interstate 80 that exceed City standards. Mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level because residential development would be located further from Interstate 80. However, the mitigation measure was retained. The mitigation, which requires an acoustical analysis showing that exterior noise levels in new residential areas relatively near the Interstate 80 freeway would meet City standards, would typically be required as a condition of approval for any residential project proposed near a busy roadway in Vacaville. The 2005 Addendum retained it in order to confirm that the general analysis prepared for the EIR is accurate for the more specific grading and building plans to be developed. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses and associated traffic generated by the project from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to traffic noise impacts would not change. As shown in Table 6, updated information is available from the 2015 General Plan EIR about existing traffic noise along Interstate 80. Based on this data, existing traffic noise along Interstate 80 has worsened slightly since Table 7 compares the existing traffic noise along the sections of Interstate 80 that are nearest to the project as reported in the 2005 Addendum and 2015 General Plan EIR. TABLE 7 TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS EXISTING CONDITIONS COMPARISON Roadway Segment I-80 N Texas Street to Lagoon Valley Road I-80 Rivera Road to Alamo Drive EIR 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR/ 2005 Addendum Centerline to 70 L dn (Feet) Centerline to 65 L dn (Feet) Centerline to 60 L dn (Feet) , General Plan EIR ,219 Figure NOI-4 in the Vacaville General Plan displays the future traffic noise contours in the year 2035 based on the General Plan land uses. As shown in that figure, the 60 L dn noise contour does not extend into the area planned for residential development, the nearest point of which will be about 3,300 feet from Interstate 80, as reported in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, although existing traffic noise has worsened along Interstate 80, residential development will not be exposed to traffic noise in excess of the City s 60 dba L dn noise standard. Therefore, the conditions under which the project will be undertaken have not changed to a degree that would result in a new significant impact. The impact would remain less than 26 F E B R U A R Y 8,

38 significant, and Mitigation Measure 4.7-3, identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, would be retained. Permanent Off-Site Ambient Noise The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum concluded that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would not increase local traffic volumes and associated traffic noise to a degree that would exceed the threshold of significance, so the impact was identified as less than significant. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses and associated traffic generated by the project from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to the traffic noise impact would not change, and it would remain less than significant. Other Thresholds In addition to the analyses from the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum discussed above, CEQA requires consideration of the following threshold: Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources? The project is not located within or near the 60 dba CNEL noise contours of the Travis Air Force Base airfield or the 55 dba CNEL noise contours of the Nut Tree Airport. There is no aircraft-related noise impact associated with the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, and the proposed phasing and development agreement would not affect that finding. Mitigation Mitigation Measures and 4.7-2, identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR to reduce temporary noise and vibration impacts, would continue to be applicable. Mitigation Measure 4.7-3, identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR to require an acoustical analysis regarding exterior noise levels in new residential areas near Interstate 80, would also apply. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. PUBLIC UTILITIES WASTEWATER Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) has been expanded and now has a sanitary base flow capacity of 15 MGD, up from an average flow capacity of 10 MGD when the 2005 Addendum was completed. P L A C E W O R K S 27

39 Impacts Wastewater Collection Capacity The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR determined that the prior project would require improvements to the existing wastewater collection system facilities in order to accommodate project wastewater flow. The project included new sewer lines in the project area that connected to existing sewer trunk lines. The analysis determined that capacities in downstream trunk sewers may be exceeded, but also that there are funding mechanisms in place for collection system improvements with citywide benefit. Because the project sponsor would pay applicable fees under these funding mechanisms, the production of additional wastewater flow and the need for improvements to the existing downstream collection system was identified as a less-than-significant impact. The 2005 Addendum determined that wastewater flows would be reduced by the revised project, and maintained the less-than-significant impact finding. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses, associated wastewater flow, and planned sewer infrastructure from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR determined that the prior project would increase flows to the Easterly WWTP, but concluded that the related impact would be less than significant because the WWTP was expected to be expanded to accommodate growth throughout the city, including the project area, prior to occupancy. The 2005 Addendum determined that the revised project would reduce wastewater treatment needs and maintained the less-than-significant impact. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated wastewater flow from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. In addition, the WWTP expansion to 15 MGD that was anticipated in the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum has been completed. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. Wastewater Collection Infrastructure The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the prior project would require construction of a collection system to expand the existing wastewater treatment facility service area. Both on-site and off-site facilities would be needed to collect wastewater from the project site and convey it to the existing wastewater collection system. The need to expand wastewater collection infrastructure to the prior project area was identified as a significant impact, and mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. The 2005 Addendum maintained the significant impact finding, and maintained the mitigation with some revisions. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated wastewater collection infrastructure needs from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. 28 F E B R U A R Y 8,

40 Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure 4.8-3, as revised in the 2005 Addendum (see pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR and pages 59 to 60 of the 2005 Addendum), would continue to apply. Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.8-3, as revised in the 2005 Addendum (see pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR and pages 59 to 60 of the 2005 Addendum), would continue to be applicable. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. PUBLIC UTILITIES ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, the California Energy Commission has updated the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards to require more energy efficient buildings. Impacts The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR determined that the prior project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas and result in the need for additional distribution infrastructure, but concluded that impacts would be less than significant because there was adequate capacity to meet project demands and the siting and construction of distribution facilities would be consistent with General Plan policies and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) requirements. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would reduce potential impacts because of reduced electricity and natural gas demands, and maintained the less-than-significant finding. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated electricity and natural gas demands from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. Mitigation The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum concluded that no electricity and natural gas infrastructure mitigation measures were required for the previous or revised project. No additional mitigation would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. PUBLIC UTILITIES CABLE TELEVISION Impacts The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR determined that the prior project would increase the demand for cable television and result in the need for additional distribution infrastructure, but concluded that impacts P L A C E W O R K S 29

41 would be less than significant because installation of cable service distribution infrastructure would be consistent with City requirements. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would reduce potential impacts because of reduced cable television service demands, and maintained the less-thansignificant finding. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated cable television service demands from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. Mitigation The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum concluded that no cable television infrastructure mitigation measures were required for the previous or revised project. No additional mitigation would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. PUBLIC SERVICES POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION Impacts Police Protection Services The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the prior project would increase the demand for police services, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level (Mitigation Measure on page of the 2004 Draft EIR). The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would reduce the demand on police services, but maintained the significant impact finding and the associated mitigation. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated demand for police services from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply. Fire Protection Services The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR determined that the prior project would increase the demand for fire protection services. In addition, it was located outside of the 7-minute response time zone of existing fire stations, only accessible via Interstate 80, not located near mutual aid entities, and adjacent to fire hazard areas. Because the prior project included construction and operation of a new fire station, including operating costs, as well as development and implementation of interim and permanent fire protection programs, the impact on fire protection services was identified as less than significant. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would continue to include a new fire station and funding mechanisms, so the impact remained less than significant. 30 F E B R U A R Y 8,

42 The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated demand for fire protection services from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum, nor would it change the plans for a new fire station. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.9-1, as identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, would continue to be applicable. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. PUBLIC SERVICES SCHOOLS Impacts The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the prior project would increase enrollment within the Vacaville Unified School District (VUSD) and Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (FSUSD) to a degree that would exceed capacities in existing schools. The prior project included construction of either a K-6 public school or a K-8 private school. The revised project evaluated in the 2005 Addendum does not include any new school facilities. Although it reduces the demand on existing school facilities from less residential development, the additional students would continue to exceed the capacities of existing school facilities. The 2005 Addendum concluded that payment of developer impact fees would constitute full mitigation, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated new students from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum, nor would it change the developer impact fee requirements. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. PUBLIC SERVICES SOLID WASTE Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, the Hay Road Landfill has been expanded; its total capacity is now 37 million cubic yards. As of 2010, the landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 30.4 million cubic yards. The permitted daily capacity is still 2,400 tons. Impacts The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that the previous project would increase the volume of solid waste generated by residents and employees in Vacaville, but not to a degree that would exceed landfill capacity or substantially shorten the life of the landfill. Therefore, the solid waste impact was identified as less than significant. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would reduce solid waste generation compared to the previous project, and maintained the less-than-significant impact finding. P L A C E W O R K S 31

43 The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated solid waste generation from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Since 2005, the landfill s capacity has increased. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. Mitigation The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum concluded that no solid waste mitigation measures were required for the previous or revised project. No additional mitigation would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. WATER SUPPLY Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, the City adopted an updated Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in The 2010 UWMP describes the annual water allocations to the City in the year 2035, which total 41,653 acre feet (AF). In addition, California is currently experiencing a multi-year drought, which could have significant impacts on water supply for Vacaville. The City is currently starting the process to prepare the 2015 UWMP update, which was delayed due to delays in State guidance for the update. The 2015 UWMP update will address this current drought, but because the update process has only just begun, updated water supply data is not yet available, and the 2010 UWMP provides the best available water supply data for Vacaville. Impacts Water Supply An SB 610 water supply assessment report (WSAR) was prepared for the previous project evaluated in the 2004 EIR. The WSAR found that no new surface or groundwater supplies beyond the planned water sources would be needed to supply the project s water demand. However, timing of the planned water sources had not yet been established, so water supply availability was considered a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum found that the total water demand for the revised project would increase compared to the 2004 analysis. Although there would be less development, the non-potable water demand would increase due to revised calculations of irrigation based on revised evapotranspiration rates and an increase in the golf course area. As with the 2004 analysis, the 2005 Addendum compared the total anticipated water demands in Vacaville in 2025 (i.e., the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project plus the adopted General Plan and other planned projects) to the anticipated water supply in 2025, and found that there would be adequate supply. However, as with the 2004 EIR, the 2005 Addendum maintained a significant impact finding because the timing of the planned water sources had not yet been established. The 2005 Addendum therefore also maintained Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 32 F E B R U A R Y 8,

44 Updated water supply information is available from the 2010 UWMP, which estimates the total water supply available to the City of Vacaville in the year 2035 to be 41,653 AF. Updated water demand information is available from the 2015 General Plan EIR, which estimates the average water demands in the year 2035 to be 29,350 AF, well below the available water supply. The 2015 General Plan also found that the maximum day water demands would exceed available production capacity, but production facility improvements have been identified in the 2010 UWMP to meet that demand, resulting in a less-thansignificant water supply impact. The 2035 water demands reported in the General Plan EIR account for the planned land uses in the study area. Therefore, with implementation of production capacity improvement projects identified in the 2010 UWMP, there is adequate water supply to serve the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project while also serving other planned development in Vacaville. The timing of the planned water sources had still not yet been established. Therefore, the proposed phasing and development agreement would maintain the significant impact finding, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply. Main Zone Water Distribution Improvements The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum determined that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would require main zone water distribution system improvements (i.e., the DIF 10 pipeline, described on page of the 2004 Draft EIR). Based on this determination, the 2004 EIR and 2005 EIR found a potentially significant impact if the DIF 10 project is not constructed. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated water demands, and the DIF 10 project is still needed to support the development. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply. On-Site Potable Water Distribution The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR determined that the prior project would require on-site potable water distribution system improvements. Because the elevation difference in the development area exceeded the City's design criteria for the maximum range of elevations in any new service area, two new distribution zones (Zones 2 and 3) would be required to supply the proposed development area. The need for additional pressure zones was considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure was included to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would require the same new distribution zones with no substantial change in the location and type of water storage and distribution facilities and access roads. The amount of water storage would be slightly less than assumed for the prior project, but the location and type of storage facilities would not change. The 2005 Addendum maintained the significant impact finding, as well as Mitigation Measure (page to of the 2004 Draft EIR), which would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. P L A C E W O R K S 33

45 The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated potable water distribution plans from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. On-Site Non-Potable Water Distribution The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR determined that the prior project would require on-site non-potable water distribution system improvements. While the non-potable water supply was adequate to meet the demands of the prior project, provision of distribution system improvements was considered a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would require generally the same non-potable water distribution system improvements as previously proposed. While the overall demand for non-potable water was greater than estimated for the prior project, the 2005 Addendum concluded that the average and maximum daily amounts needed would still be within the planned flow capacity. Although the peak demand would exceed the pipe capacities, additional flow would be provided by on-site ponds on the golf course. Therefore, the 2005 Addendum concluded that the existing flow capacity would continue to satisfy demand, and no additional improvements would be required. The 2005 Addendum maintained the significant impact finding and Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR), which would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and associated non-potable water distribution plans from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation The following mitigation measures would continue to apply: Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, to address the timing of planned water sources. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, to address the DIF 10 project. Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, to address the potable water distribution system. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, to address the nonpotable water distribution system. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. 34 F E B R U A R Y 8,

46 HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY Setting Although the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has released updated flood maps, the 100- year flood zone that affects the study area has not changed since what was evaluated in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum. Impacts Runoff and Downstream Impacts The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that the prior project would produce increased peak runoff flows that could exceed the capacity of downstream drainage facilities and increase the downstream flooding hazard, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant impact. The 2005 Addendum found that because the revised project included less impervious area, it would reduce peak runoff flows, but not to a degree that would avoid the significant impact. Therefore, the 2005 Addendum maintained the significant impact finding, as well as Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) that would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the amount of impervious area or the runoff volumes compared to what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. 100-Year Floodplain The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would place development, including residential development, within the 100-year floodplain. Because the project would expose people and property to increased risk of flooding, and because development of structures within the floodplain could impede or redirect flood flows such that additional areas could be inundated, a significant impact was identified. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the arrangement of land uses or development from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. In addition, as explained in the hydrology, drainage, and water quality setting section above, the 100-year floodplain has not changed in this area since Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained and reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. P L A C E W O R K S 35

47 Water Quality The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that increased rates of surface runoff generated by the construction or operation of the prior project could result in sedimentation and increased levels of urban contaminants that could affect receiving water quality, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum found that although the smaller area of development and other changes to the project would reduce impacts, the same types of impacts on water quality would still occur. The 2005 Addendum maintained the significant impact finding, as well as Mitigation Measures (a) through (d) (page of the 2004 Draft EIR), which would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures (e) and (f) were deemed no longer necessary because the City had received an approved Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, and the City adopted regulations implementing Phase II requirements in September The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses or the development plan from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measures (a) through (d) would be maintained and reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Onsite Flooding The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that runoff from the surrounding hillsides contains sediment that could plug drainage facilities, resulting in increased maintenance and increasing the potential for flooding within the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project area. This significant impact was caused by the condition of the upper watershed. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan or storm drainage facilities from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measures would be maintained and reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. Dam Failure The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that some areas of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project area that are adjacent to the lake could be subject to flooding from inundation due to failure of the Lagoon Valley Lake earthen dam, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum, nor would it affect the stability of the Lagoon Valley Lake earthen 36 F E B R U A R Y 8,

48 dam. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained and reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Inundation by Seiche The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that occupied uses adjacent to Lagoon Valley Lake could be subject to seiche activity in the event of a large earthquake, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained and reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Groundwater Resources The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that although the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would increase the extent of impervious surfaces that would reduce the area available for infiltration of rainwater, the groundwater impact would be less than significant because the site had not been identified as a significant recharge source. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan or impervious area from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. In addition, the site has not since been identified as a significant recharge source. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. Mitigation The following mitigation measures would continue to apply: Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring a Storm Drain Master Plan and drainage improvements. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring a floodplain study and Floodplain Management Ordinance compliance. Mitigation Measures (a) through (d), identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, regarding stormwater quality. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring an erosion control management plan. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring a dam failure inundation study. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring a site-specific geotechnical study. P L A C E W O R K S 37

49 No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impacts Seismic Activity The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum concluded that implementation of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could expose people and structures to potential risks caused by earthquake activity, including strong seismic groundshaking and seismic-related ground failures such as liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and development plan compared to what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. Short-Term Erosion The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that implementation of the prior project could result in short-term soil erosion caused by earth-moving activities, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum found that the revised project would reduce short-term soil erosion impacts because there would be a smaller amount of trenching and excavation. However, the impact would still be significant, and Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would still be required. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and area of earth-moving activity compared to what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. Unstable Soils and Landslide Hazards The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that development of residential and golf course uses in portions of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project area would occur at or adjacent to locations where unstable soils and/or landslide hazards are known or may exist. This would increase the number of people and structures subject to increased risk as a result of slope failure, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 38 F E B R U A R Y 8,

50 The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses and development plan compared to what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. Water Storage Facilities and Unstable Slopes The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that development of potable water storage tanks and associated infrastructure to serve the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project was planned at or adjacent to locations where unstable soils and/or landslide hazards are known or may exist. The proximity to unstable slopes would increase the potential for damage or failure of a tank or pipeline, resulting in the release of over a million gallons of water, and causing flooding as well as disruption of water service. This was identified as a significant impact; Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development and infrastructure plan compared to what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. Geotechnical Conditions The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that implementation of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would result in the development of structures and roadways that could be affected by subsurface geologic and soil characteristics. The preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the 2004 EIR identified expansive soils and bedrock materials; the swell/settlement potential of cut-and-fill on the development site could affect building foundations and infrastructure unless soils are properly compacted. Although standard engineering practice, compliance with State and local requirements, and compliance with design-level studies for each development site would address these soil conditions, the impact was identified as potentially significant impact because design-level studies had not been completed and it was not known if recommendations in these studies would be followed. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development, infrastructure, and roadway plans compared to what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. Unstable Slopes from Landscape Berm The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction of a landscape berm adjacent to the golf course and residential development could result in exposure of people and property to unstable P L A C E W O R K S 39

51 slopes. Construction of the berm would involve piling soil 35 to 50 feet above the ground surface. This soil mass could become unstable if not properly conditioned, compacted or otherwise stabilized, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the plans related to the landscape berm compared to what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-thansignificant level. Mitigation The following mitigation measures would continue to apply: Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring site-specific geotechnical reports. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring erosion-control measures. Mitigation Measures , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, regarding landslide hazard reduction and monitoring. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring a site-specific geotechnical study. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring a geotechnical design evaluation and inspection and maintenance procedures for the landscape berm. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. HAZARDS AND HUMAN HEALTH Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has released updated wildfire hazard maps that cover the study area. Figure of the 2015 General Plan EIR displays this updated wildfire mapping, which shows that the majority of the study area is classified as moderate fire hazard. Small portions of the study area are classified as high fire hazard. 40 F E B R U A R Y 8,

52 Impacts Routine Transport, Storage, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction and occupancy of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would result in the routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials. The Hines Nursery, which stored and used fertilizers and pesticides in addition to other hazardous materials, was expected to continue to operate on the site during the initial years of project development. Hazardous materials would be associated with all other aspects of the project. However, applicable federal, State, and local regulations and compliance programs was found to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level and no mitigation was required. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses or construction activity. In addition, as noted in the land use and planning setting section above, the Hines Nursery has closed, reducing potential hazardous materials impacts associated with that operation. Therefore, there would be no change to the previous less-than-significant impact finding related to hazardous materials. Hazardous Materials near Schools The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that the prior project would have resulted in the use, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within ¼-mile of a proposed school site, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The 2005 Addendum eliminated that impact because the revised project no longer included a school. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses or construction activity and associated hazardous materials use, transport, storage, and disposal. There are no new or planned new schools in the project vicinity. Therefore, there would continue to be no impact with regard to hazardous materials near schools. Site Contamination The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction and occupancy of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could create a health hazard to workers, the public, and the environment due to previously unidentified contaminated soil and groundwater. Owing to the prior use of the project site for walnut orchards, a nursery, livestock grazing, dryland farming, automobile and equipment maintenance shops, rural residences, barns, and an airstrip, there is the potential that soils and groundwater on the project site has been contaminated by the on-site storage of fuels; application of pesticides, herbicides, and other agricultural chemicals; or illicit debris disposal. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments prepared for the project reported that debris piles or stained soils on the Hines Nursery and Harr and Jamerson properties could indicate soil and/or groundwater contamination. Sampling and analysis of soil and groundwater had not been conducted to confirm or eliminate the presence of hazardous materials. Because the extent of contamination, if any, was unknown, this was P L A C E W O R K S 41

53 identified as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses or construction activity compared to what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the significant impact would not change, and Mitigation Measure would continue to apply, reducing the impact to a less-thansignificant level. School Site Contamination The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that construction and occupancy of the proposed elementary school could create a health hazard to school children and school workers due to unidentified contaminated soils, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. The 2005 Addendum eliminated that impact because the revised project no longer included a school; mitigation would no longer be required. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, there would continue to be no impact with regard to contamination on a school site. Wildland Fires The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that implementation of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires because it would construct residences within areas identified as moderate to extreme fire hazard zones and surrounded by areas classified as high to extreme fire hazard zones. Because the project includes construction of a new fire station and development would be subject to General Plan policies to provide a safe environment, decrease the risk of wildland fires, and provide a level of service sufficient for emergency response times, impacts from wildland fires were identified as less than significant and no mitigation was necessary. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed uses from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Although updated fire hazard mapping has been released since 2005, the study area faces similar wildland fire threats as with the previous mapping, including moderate and high fire hazards in the study area and high fire hazards surrounding the study area. In addition, although the General Plan was updated since 2005, it maintained and strengthened previous policies regarding wildland fire protection. Therefore, there would be no change to the previous less-than-significant impact finding related to wildland fire hazards. 42 F E B R U A R Y 8,

54 Mitigation Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR to address potential site contamination issues, would continue to be applicable. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts Sewer Line Construction and Known Cultural Resources The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction of sewer lines for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could affect known prehistoric archaeological sites or historic archaeological features associated with the Pena family adobes. All of these sites are considered significant historical resources because they are listed on or determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. The 2004 and 2005 analysis concluded that this would be a significant impact; Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Since the 2005 Addendum, the planned sewer line locations have shifted to the east side of the lagoon, where other utility lines are already present, and the installation will follow the surface of the hillside rather than tunneling through it. Therefore, impacts from sewer lines on these resources will be reduced. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the planned utilities infrastructure plan, so it would not change any impacts on cultural resources from sewer line construction. However, because it s possible that resources will be impacted, although to a reduced degree, the impact would remain significant. Therefore, there would be no change to the previous impact finding related to cultural resource impacts from sewer line construction, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Utility Corridors and Known Cultural Resources The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that installation of utility lines for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could damage or destroy a known prehistoric archaeological resource, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the utilities infrastructure plan from what was previously evaluated in the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no change to the previous impact finding related to cultural resource impacts from utility corridor installation, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. P L A C E W O R K S 43

55 Previously Unidentified Resources The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that earth-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the prior project could result in the disturbance of previously unidentified prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum concluded that although impacts would be reduced due to a smaller development area, the impact would remain significant. Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) was maintained. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan and associated area of earth-disturbing activities from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Pena Adobe The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that trenching for two of the sewer line options in the vicinity of the Pena Adobe for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could subject the structure to vibration, which could affect the building structure or nonstructural elements, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the infrastructure plan from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Human Remains The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that earth-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could result in the disturbance of previously unidentified human remains, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan and associated area of earth-disturbing activities from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Paleontological Resources The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could encounter previously unidentified paleontological resources, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 44 F E B R U A R Y 8,

56 The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the development plan and associated area of earth-disturbing activities from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Mitigation The following mitigation measures would continue to apply: Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring pre-excavation analysis, monitoring, and associated requirements. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring pre-excavation testing and associated requirements. Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, establishing requirements if resources are discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring an engineering analysis and monitoring for activity near the Pena Adobe. Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, establishing requirements if human remains are discovered during construction. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan. No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Setting The Solano Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which was underway when the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR was prepared, is still underway, but progress has been made. In October 2012, the Public Draft Solano HCP was published. The data developed for the Solano HCP is reported on pages to of the 2015 Draft General Plan EIR. HCP information that is pertinent to the study area and the analysis in this memo is highlighted below. A small portion of the study area is mapped as a medium-value vernal pool conservation area in the Solano HCP, which are areas that are highly to very highly disturbed and located on historic vernal pool soils and adjacent valley floor grassland habitat located on non-vernal pool soils. This portion of the study area is planned for open space use in the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project. No Swainson s hawk records are located in the study area; the nearest record is on Cherry Glen Road northwest of the study area. There are no burrowing owl occurrences in or near the study area. P L A C E W O R K S 45

57 Portions of the study area are mapped as potential California tiger salamander range. The majority of this potential range is outside the area planned for development in the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, but there are small areas of potential range that are planned for development. However, biological surveys and monitoring on the site have confirmed that California tiger salamanders are not present in the study area. The entire study area is mapped as a priority watershed in Conservation Area RSM 1, where the primary conservation objective is preservation with an emphasis on avoiding and minimizing impacts on sensitive resources. Impacts Wetlands The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR concluded that construction of the prior project could result in the loss of almost 8 acres of wetlands or other waters of the United States, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum found that the reduction in development area would reduce the impact, but it would remain significant. Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) would remain applicable and would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Vernal Pool Habitat The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could result in the loss of vernal pool habitat. No vernal pools were identified within the development area of the project analyzed in the 2004 EIR, but no wetland delineation was conducted in the portion of the project area that is outside the proposed development area. If vernal pools are located there, they could be damaged by alteration of runoff patterns, erosion of adjacent uplands, and disturbance by humans and pets residing within the development area. This impact was identified as significant. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. As noted in the biological resources setting section above, the Solano HCP has mapped a small portion of the study area as a medium-value vernal pool conservation area in the Solano HCP, indicating an area that is highly to very highly disturbed and located on historic vernal pool soils and adjacent valley floor grassland habitat located on non-vernal pool soils. The Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project has identified this portion of the study area for open space use. This vernal pool conservation area mapping supports the finding from the 2004 EIR 46 F E B R U A R Y 8,

58 and 2005 Addendum that there may be vernal pools located outside of the development area that could be affected by Lagoon Valley development. Therefore, the proposed phasing and development agreement would maintain the significant impact finding from the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum, as well as Mitigation Measure , which would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Swainson s Hawks and Nesting Raptors The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could result in the loss of Swainson's hawks and other nesting raptors. Nests and birds could be lost if nest trees, located within or peripheral to riparian areas, are removed or if construction-related disturbance in the area of a nest causes abandonment. This impact was identified as significant. The project included avoidance measures for active raptor nests. Mitigation included either participation in a countywide HCP if one is adopted, or implementation of Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) until an HCP is adopted, reducing the impact to a lessthan-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. As noted in the biological resources setting section above, Solano HCP data do not show any Swainson s hawk records in the study area. However, Swainson s hawks and other nesting raptors could occur in the study area, and the proposed phasing and development agreement would maintain the significant impact finding from the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum. Since the Solano HCP has not yet been adopted, Mitigation Measure would not change, and would continue to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Burrowing Owls The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could result in the loss of burrowing owls. Although burrowing owls had not been recorded on the site to date, the site provides suitable grassland nesting habitat and adjacent areas are suitable for foraging. Loss of burrowing owls or their habitat was identified as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. As noted in the biological resources setting section above, Solano HCP data do not show any burrowing owl occurrences in or near the study area. However, as explained in the 2004 Draft EIR, the site provides suitable grassland nesting habitat and adjacent areas are suitable for foraging. Therefore, the proposed phasing and development agreement would maintain the significant impact finding from the 2004 EIR and 2005 Addendum, and Mitigation Measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. P L A C E W O R K S 47

59 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetles The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could result in the loss of Valley elderberry longhorn beetles and their habitat. One elderberry shrub was observed and others could be present. This loss was identified as a significant impact. Mitigation included either participation in a countywide HCP if one is adopted, or implementation of Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) until an HCP is adopted, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant. Since the Solano HCP has not yet been adopted, Mitigation Measure would not change, and would continue to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Western Pond Turtles The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could result in the loss of western pond turtles or their habitat. This species had been confirmed in the stream draining from Lagoon Valley Lake. Implementation of the proposed stormwater drainage improvements could damage turtles or their habitat. Loss of pond turtles or their habitat was identified as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Rare Plant Populations The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that construction of the prior project could result in the loss and degradation of rare plant populations. Initial surveys had determined that potential habitat for eight special-status plant species occurred within the proposed development area. Loss of individual plants or their habitat was identified as a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum found that because of the reduced development area, impacts would be reduced, but there was still the potential for impacts to rare plant populations, so the impact was still significant. Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. 48 F E B R U A R Y 8,

60 Oak Woodlands and Protected Trees The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would result in the loss of oak woodland/savannah, individual oak trees, and other protected trees. Trees removed would be replaced at a ratio of 5:1 for native oaks and 3:1 for other tree species. This impact was identified as less than significant. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain less-thansignificant. Riparian Habitat The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that construction of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project could result in the loss of riparian habitat, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure (page of the 2004 Draft EIR) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. Loggerhead Shrike and White-Tailed Kite The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that construction of the prior project could result in the loss of nests and habitat of loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation was identified to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The 2005 Addendum found that the reduced development area in the revised project would reduce the impact, but it would remain significant. Mitigation Measure (pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR) was retained, and it would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the impact would remain significant, and Mitigation Measure would be maintained. California Tiger Salamander The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR found that although the California tiger salamander could potentially occur in the project vicinity, there were no records for this species in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, it was not evaluated further in the EIR. As noted in the biological resources setting section above, the Solano HCP has identified portions of the study area as potential California tiger salamander range. The majority of this potential range is outside P L A C E W O R K S 49

61 the area planned for development in the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, but there are small areas of potential range that are planned for development. Since the 2005 Addendum, both LSA and M&A biologists have conducted numerous amphibian larval surveys for CTS. These surveys were conducted in all tributary pools (when and if present) and in three man-made stock ponds located in the southern portion of the site and included the rainy seasons of 2006/2007 and Due to two years of formal larval surveys and one year of USFWS-approved protocol winter drift fence/pitfall trapping, all with negative results, and considering the historical and current barriers to CTS migration, the Revised Biological Assessment for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, prepared by Monk & Associates in December 2011 concludes that the project will not affect CTS. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area of development from what was previously evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. In addition, subsequent site-specific surveys and monitoring have confirmed that California tiger salamanders are not present in the study area. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. Mitigation The following mitigation measures would continue to apply: Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring wetland avoidance or no net loss. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring vernal pool habitat surveys in non-development areas and associated mitigation if habitat is found. Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring pre-construction surveys, monitoring, and mitigation fee, or HCP participation. Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring surveys, monitoring, and on- and off-site mitigation. Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring surveys, avoidance measures, and compensation. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring monitoring and buffer zones, as well as implementation of Mitigation Measure , described above. Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring surveys, avoidance, and compensation. Mitigation Measure , identified on page of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring avoidance or a riparian habitat mitigation plan. Mitigation Measure , identified on pages to of the 2004 Draft EIR, requiring surveys, protection measures, and environmental awareness training. 50 F E B R U A R Y 8,

62 No other new mitigation measures would be necessary for the proposed phasing and development agreement. POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT Setting Since the 2005 Addendum, updated population, housing, and employment data has been made available. This section highlights updated data that is relevant to the impact analysis below. As of 2015, California Department of Finance (DOF) data, combined with data from the California Department of Corrections, indicates that the population of Vacaville, excluding the prison population, is 88, The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the official comprehensive planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, which is composed of the nine counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and contains 101 cities. ABAG produces growth forecasts, identified in documents entitled Projections, on four-year cycles so that other regional agencies, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) can use the forecast to make project funding and regulatory decisions. The latest set of projections were published in 2013, and they include the following projections: Total Vacaville Population in 2025: 101,700 Total Vacaville Jobs in 2025: 36,120 ABAG s Projections also estimate that there are about 95,300 people living in Vacaville and 32,220 total jobs existing in Vacaville in Impacts Regional Population and Employment Projections The 2005 Addendum determined that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would generate about 2,900 new residents and 1,620 new jobs. These population and employment projections would not exceed ABAG s future population and employment estimates. In addition, by supporting job growth, the project would contribute to the City s efforts to improve its jobs-to-housing ratio. The impact was considered less than significant. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the number of new residents or jobs generated by development in Lagoon Valley. As noted in the project description section of this 2 State of California, Department of Finance, May 2015, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, , with 2010 Benchmark; State of California, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Data Analysis Unit, February 1, 2015, Monthly Report of Population as of Midnight January 31, P L A C E W O R K S 51

63 memo, the developer is requesting a twelve-year extension of the vesting tentative subdivision map, so this analysis considers a buildout in the year 2025, the closest year of ABAG s forecasts. ABAG s updated forecasts for Vacaville indicate that there will be 6,400 new residents and 3,900 jobs added between 2015 and 2025; therefore, the residents and jobs generated by the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would still not exceed the updated regional population and employment projections, and the impact would remain less than significant. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change this conclusion. Existing Housing and Employment The 2005 Addendum determined that the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project would result in the displacement of fewer than six residential units and 380 jobs associated with the Hines Nursery. Given the 1,025 residential units, including affordable units, and the 1,620 net new jobs that would be generated by the project, the residential and job displacement was considered negligible, and impact was considered less than significant. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the jobs and housing displacement characteristics of the approved project, except that the Hines Nursery has already closed, so those jobs are no longer in place. The agreement would also not change the number of new residents or jobs generated by development in Lagoon Valley. Therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum did not consider impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. That topic had not yet been added to the CEQA Guidelines. As described in the CEQA context section above, supplemental analysis should only consider the net impacts of the project as revised in comparison to the project as approved. The proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the allowed land uses, development, traffic generation, and construction activity from what was evaluated in the 2005 Addendum. Therefore, the project s contribution to GHG impacts would not change. No further analysis is required under CEQA. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts were addressed separately in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum. Those cumulative impact analyses considered buildout of the Vacaville General Plan and the Southtown and Rice McMurtry projects, which were proposed at the time. Because ten years have passed since the previous analysis, during which other projects were developed, and because the Vacaville General Plan has since been updated, this evaluation considers changes to the circumstances under which the Lagoon Valley project will be undertaken with respect to cumulative development. This cumulative impact evaluation is therefore based on the 2015 General Plan EIR. 52 F E B R U A R Y 8,

64 LAND USE AND PLANNING The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum identified a significant cumulative impact related to the loss of Important Farmland. No mitigation measures were identified for this impact. The 2015 General Plan EIR found that development allowed by the General Plan, including the area proposed for development in the study area, would contribute to significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impacts on agricultural resources. Because the proposed phasing and development agreement would not change the area planned for development compared to what was evaluated in the 2015 General Plan EIR, no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. PARKS AND RECREATION The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that cumulative impacts related to parks and recreation would be less than significant. The 2015 General Plan EIR found that although future residential growth would result in increased demand for park and recreational facilities, implementation of General Plan policies would ensure the provision of adequate parklands along with new development, including Lagoon Valley development. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. VISUAL RESOURCES The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum identified significant cumulative impacts related to substantial changes to the visual character of the valley and contribution to nighttime lighting. The 2015 General Plan EIR found that the General Plan could substantially alter the existing visual character in undeveloped portions of Vacaville, such as Lagoon Valley, resulting in a significant impact. No feasible mitigation was identified, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. All other visual resource thresholds were found to result in less-than-significant impacts. While development allowed by the General Plan has the potential to affect scenic vistas and contribute to light pollution, policies in the Vacaville General Plan and other requirements like California Building Code standards would minimize potential aesthetic effects of development. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses and development in Lagoon Valley, cumulative impacts on visual resources associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. P L A C E W O R K S 53

65 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum identified significant cumulative impacts related to intersection operations, freeway segments, freeway ramps, and freeway diverge operations. As explained in the environmental evaluation for transportation and circulation above, the General Plan EIR analyzed eleven intersections in the vicinity of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project. The future 2035 operations at those intersections are provided in Table 8. As shown in Table 8, five intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS. Mitigation was identified for all impacts; however, four impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable because the intersections are not under the City s jurisdiction. In addition, the General Plan EIR evaluated freeway segment operations with implementation of the General Plan in The results are shown in Table 9, and they indicate two significant impacts related to freeway operations. Feasible mitigation was not identified, and the impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses in Lagoon Valley and analyzed an amount of 2035 development that encompasses the Lagoon Valley project, as well as additional reasonably foreseeable development throughout Vacaville and the surrounding area, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. In addition, as described in the CEQA context section above, Section of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects that are consistent with the General Plan, such as the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, shall not require additional environmental review for offsite impacts, such as traffic impacts. Such impacts have already been considered in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no additional analysis is required under CEQA. AIR QUALITY The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that cumulative impacts related to air quality would be less than significant. The 2015 General Plan EIR found a significant air quality impact because development allowed by the General Plan would generate mobile-source air pollutant emissions that would exceed PM10 standards. Although mitigation was incorporated, it would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level, and the impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. All other air quality impacts were found to be less than significant. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses in Lagoon Valley and analyzed an amount of 2035 development that encompasses the Lagoon Valley project, as well as additional reasonably foreseeable development throughout Vacaville and the surrounding area, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. In addition, as described in the CEQA context section above, Section of the 54 F E B R U A R Y 8,

66 TABLE 8 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE FROM 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR Intersection Control Peak Hour 3 Alamo Dr at I-80 EB Ramp Signalized Year 2035 Adopted General Plan LOS a Average Delay (seconds) b,c AM A 4.8 PM A Alamo Dr at Marshall Rd Signalized 16 Cherry Glen Rd at Pleasants Valley Rd One/Two-Way Stop 17 Cherry Glen Rd at I-80 EB Ramp One/Two-Way Stop 18 Cherry Glen Rd at I-80 WB Ramp One/Two-Way Stop 19 Lagoon Valley Rd at I-80 EB Ramp One/Two-Way Stop 20 Lagoon Valley Rd at I-80 WB Ramp One/Two-Way Stop 21 Cherry Glen Rd at Lyon Rd One/Two-Way Stop 29 I-80 EB at North Texas St^ Signalized AM D 47.9 PM D 45.4 AM A (B) 8.6 (10.2) PM A (B) 6.6 (12.3) AM A (B) 4.9(10.4) PM B (C) 10.3 (20.7) AM C (C) 18.1 (21.5) PM A (B) 9.8 (14.9) AM A (C) 5.2 (23.1) PM F (F) >150 (>150) AM E (F) 43.4 (>150) PM F (F) 60.4 (>150) AM A (B) 5.2 (13) PM A (C) 10.0 (19.5) AM F PM F > I-80 WB at North Texas St^ Signalized AM F PM D 48.6 Note: Bold denotes substandard locations; Highlight denotes locations with significant impacts. ^ denotes intersections located in Fairfield * denotes intersections located within the Downtown Overlay District a. LOS = level of service. b. Delay = average vehicle delay. c. For unsignalized intersection, the delay for both overall intersection and the worst approach is shown; e.g. A (B) 2.4 (14.3). Source: Kittelson & Associates, P L A C E W O R K S 55

67 TABLE 9 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE FROM 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR Year 2035 Proposed General Plan AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Interstate 80 West of Lagoon Valley Road Volume Density a LOS Volume Density a LOS Eastbound 5, C 8, F Westbound 7, D 7, E Interstate 80 East of Leisure Town Road Eastbound 2, B 6, F Westbound 5, D 4, C Interstate 505 North of Interstate 80 Northbound 1, B 2, C Southbound 2, B 1, B Notes: Bold denotes substandard locations; Highlight denotes locations with significant impacts. a. Density in passenger cars per mile per lane. Source: Kittelson & Associates, CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects that are consistent with the General Plan, such as the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, shall not require additional environmental review for offsite impacts, such as offsite air quality impacts. Such impacts have already been considered in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no additional analysis is required under CEQA. NOISE The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that cumulative impacts related to noise would be less than significant. The 2015 General Plan EIR found a significant noise impact resulting from an increase in traffic noise levels of more than 5 dba compared to existing conditions along the following roadway segments: Vaca Valley Parkway from the Interstate 505 northbound ramps to Leisure Town Road Leisure Town Road from Alamo Drive to Vanden Road Ulatis Drive from Nut Tree Road to Leisure Town Road The General Plan EIR identified mitigation that requires quiet pavement along those roadways for applicable projects, which will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. All other noise impacts were found to be less than significant. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses in Lagoon Valley and analyzed an amount of 2035 development that encompasses the Lagoon Valley project, as well as additional 56 F E B R U A R Y 8,

68 reasonably foreseeable development throughout Vacaville and the surrounding area, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. In addition, as described in the CEQA context section above, Section of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects that are consistent with the General Plan, such as the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project, shall not require additional environmental review for offsite impacts, such as offsite noise impacts. Such impacts have already been considered in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, no additional analysis is required under CEQA. PUBLIC UTILITIES The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that cumulative impacts related to public utilities would be less than significant. The 2015 General Plan EIR found that impacts related to wastewater and energy resources would be less than significant. Although future development would increase the demand for public utilities, which could require the construction or operation of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects, General Plan policies would minimize impacts. In addition, the timing and location of new or expanded public utility facilities was not known, nor was the exact nature of those facilities known, so project-specific environmental impacts could not be determined. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses in Lagoon Valley and analyzed an amount of 2035 development that encompasses the Lagoon Valley project, as well as additional reasonably foreseeable development throughout Vacaville and the surrounding area, cumulative impacts related to public utilities from the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. PUBLIC SERVICES The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that cumulative impacts related to public services would be less than significant. The 2015 General Plan EIR found that impacts related to police, fire protection, schools, and solid waste services would be less than significant. Although future residential growth would increase the demand for public services, which could require the construction or operation of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects, General Plan policies would minimize impacts. In addition, the timing and location of new or expanded public services facilities was not known, nor was the exact nature of those facilities known, so project-specific environmental impacts could not be determined. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses in Lagoon Valley and analyzed an amount of 2035 development that encompasses the Lagoon Valley project, as well as additional reasonably foreseeable development throughout Vacaville and the surrounding area, cumulative impacts related to public services from the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. P L A C E W O R K S 57

69 WATER SUPPLY The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that cumulative impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. The 2015 General Plan EIR found that impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. Although future development would increase water supply demands, the projected average water demands in 2035 would be within the existing water supply entitlements. To meet the maximum day water demands in 2035, additional production capacity is needed, but the 2010 UWMP has identified production facility improvements to meet the future demand. Although those facility improvements could cause significant environmental effects, General Plan policies would minimize impacts, and projectspecific impacts would be considered pursuant to CEQA in a project-specific review. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses in Lagoon Valley and analyzed an amount of 2035 development that encompasses the Lagoon Valley project, as well as additional reasonably foreseeable development throughout Vacaville and the surrounding area, cumulative impacts related to water supply from the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found a significant cumulative impact resulting from increases in runoff volumes that would exceed the capacities of existing drainage facilities and contribute to localized flooding. In addition, the approved project was found to have a significant cumulative impact related to water quality. The mitigation that was identified for the related project-level impacts would also reduce cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. The 2015 General Plan found that most hydrology, drainage, and water quality impacts would be avoided through compliance with existing regulations and compliance with NPDES permit requirements. However, the 2015 General Plan EIR found significant project-level and cumulative impacts resulting from allowing development in areas that could be inundated by levees or dams. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses and development in Lagoon Valley, cumulative impacts on hydrology, drainage, and water quality associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found a significant cumulative impact resulting from exposing people to risks from earthquake activity. The mitigation that was identified for the related project-level impacts would also reduce cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. 58 F E B R U A R Y 8,

70 The 2015 General Plan EIR found that although future development would bring more structures, residents, and visitors to Vacaville, an area vulnerable to seismic activity and geologic hazards, geotechnical and engineering standards in State and local regulations would reduce potential risks to a less-than-significant level. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses and development in Lagoon Valley, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. HAZARDS AND HUMAN HEALTH The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found that cumulative impacts related to hazards and human health would be less than significant. The 2015 General Plan EIR found that although future development would result in the increased use of and potential exposure to hazardous household, commercial, and industrial materials, and could increase exposure to potential hazards associated with wildland fires, General Plan policies and other local, regional, State, and federal regulations would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses and development in Lagoon Valley, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. CULTURAL RESOURCES The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum identified a significant cumulative impact related to the loss of prehistoric and historic cultural resources. The mitigation that was identified for the project-level impacts would reduce cumulative impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the cumulative impact was identified as significant and unavoidable. The 2015 General Plan EIR found that although future development has the potential to adversely impact historical resources from intensified land uses, incompatible site designs, and demolition, City General Plan policies and development regulations would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Similarly, although development could adversely impact archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains through destruction or disturbance, General Plan policies and project-specific mitigations, such as those required in the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses and development in Lagoon Valley, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. P L A C E W O R K S 59

71 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum found a significant cumulative impact resulting from the reduction in the availability and accessibility of natural habitats. The mitigation that was identified for the related project-level impacts would also reduce cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. The 2015 General Plan EIR found that although future development could contribute to the loss of habitat for a number of special-status species and sensitive habitats, including riparian habitats and wetlands, General Plan policies, combined with other federal, State, and local regulations, would reduce impacts. In addition, the Solano HCP that is underway will provide a comprehensive plan for addressing and mitigating impacts of development. Although project-level impacts were found to be less than significant, the General Plan EIR still included mitigation to ensure that mitigation requirements consistent with the Solano HCP are enforced until the HCP is adopted. The 2015 General Plan found a significant and unavoidable impact related to impacts to a key wildlife corridor, the Vacaville-Fairfield Greenbelt. This impact would result from anticipated public development within the Public/Institutional land use designation south of the city limits, where, in combination with the planned development in the nearby Northeast Fairfield Specific Plan, retention of a viable key corridor could be precluded. This impact is not affected by the Lagoon Valley development. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses and development in Lagoon Valley, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT The 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR and 2005 Addendum did not evaluate cumulative impacts related to population, housing, and employment. The 2015 General Plan EIR found significant project-level and cumulative impacts resulting from inducing population growth that exceeds ABAG s projections. Development allowed by the General Plan would generate 26,500 new residents by 2035, while ABAG only projected 11,400 new residents. Feasible mitigation was not identified, and so the impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Because the 2015 General Plan EIR accounted for the planned land uses and development in Lagoon Valley, cumulative impacts on population, housing, and employment associated with the proposed phasing and development agreement were adequately addressed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and no additional analysis would be required under CEQA. 60 F E B R U A R Y 8,

72 Conclusions As described above, project-level and cumulative impacts of the proposed phasing and development agreement have adequately been addressed by the 2004 Lagoon Valley EIR, 2005 Addendum, and 2015 General Plan EIR. No new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects would result from this modification to the approved project. Therefore, consistent with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum satisfies CEQA requirements for the City approval of the proposed phasing and development agreement. P L A C E W O R K S 61

73 62 F E B R U A R Y 8,

74 ORDINANCE NO ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VACAVILLE APPROVING THE PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF VACAVILLE AND LAGOON VALLEY RESIDENTIAL, LLC FOR THE LOWER LAGOON VALLEY POLICY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VACAVILLE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the Phasing and Development Agreement between the City of Vacaville and the Lagoon Valley Residential, LLC for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached and hereby incorporated, in accordance with the findings for approval. SECTION 2. This Ordinance and the underlying Phasing and Development Agreement are approved by the City Council in accordance with the following findings including those outlined in Chapter , which findings are based on substantial evidence in the record of these proceedings: 1. The Phasing and Development Agreement is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan in that the development schedule and Project conditions of approval ensure the Project will be developed as envisioned consistent with the General Plan and the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan. 2. The Phasing and Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is or will be located in that the Phasing and Development Agreement does not allow for any changes to the approved land use or uses proposed in the original Project approvals or land uses outlined in the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan within the Project site. 3. The Phasing and Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the community in that the Phasing and Development Agreement allows for development that is consistent with the allowed land uses and provides for improvements and amenities that will be of benefit to the public such as the golf course and fire station. 4. The Phasing and Development Agreement would promote the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices, and is in the best interest of the community in that the agreement is consistent with the previously approved entitlements including the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan and Planned Development Design Guidelines that reflect the goals of the City s General Plan and the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan. 5. The Phasing and Development Agreement would not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the previously approved planned development permit design guidelines establish design

75 criteria and standards to which all development will adhere and these guidelines will not be changed or modified as a result of this Phasing and Development Agreement 6. The Phasing and Development Agreement would promote and encourage the development of the Project by providing a greater degree of requisite certainty. This is achieved by ensuring that the vesting tentative subdivision map, along with previous Project approvals, including the final planned development permit and design guidelines, conditions of approval, the Settlement Agreement and others as outlined in the Phasing and Development Agreement establish standards and criteria ensuring a high quality of development. 7. Any tentative map prepared for the Project pursuant to the Phasing and Development Agreement will comply with California Government Code section SECTION 3. In approving this Ordinance and the underlying Phasing and Development Agreement the City Council hereby incorporates the findings in Resolution 2016-, adopted immediately prior hereto, and determines that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the CEQA Guidelines, and particularly California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15164, the Addendum has been prepared and concludes, based on substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding, that the Phasing and Development Plan will not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 2004 certified Final EIR. SECTION 4. Modification: Consistent with Section A.2 of the Vacaville Municipal Code, the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager and the Director of Community Development to implement the Phasing and Development Agreement, and in doing so, to allow variation from the Phasing and Development Agreement and the Vested Elements thereunder that is not inconsistent with the substance and intent of the original document or approval. SECTION 5. Necessity: The City Council finds that the Phasing and Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is necessary to ensure that said lands ultimately are used for the purposes which are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole. SECTION 6. Severability: If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, phrase, or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, phrases, or clauses be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 7. Effective Date: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage thereof. SECTION 8. Publication: This ordinance shall be published in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section

76 I HEREBY CERTIFY that this ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Vacaville, held on the 8th day of March, 2016, and ADOPTED and PASSED as a regular meeting the City Council held on the day of, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Michelle A. Thornbrugh, City Clerk Leonard J. Augustine, Mayor

77 Exhibit A to Ordinance RECORDING FEES EXEMPT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Vacaville WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Michelle Thornbrugh City Clerk City of Vacaville 650 Merchant Street, Vacaville, CA APNs: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF VACAVILLE AND LAGOON VALLEY RESIDENTIAL, LLC FOR THE LOWER LAGOON VALLEY POLICY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT March, 2016 DATE

78 Exhibit A to Ordinance PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF VACAVILLE AND LAGOON VALLEY RESIDENTIAL, LLC FOR THE LOWER LAGOON VALLEY POLICY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT THIS PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the Agreement ) is entered into this day of March, 2016, by and between LAGOON VALLEY RESIDENTIAL, LLC, a California limited liability company (the Developer ) and the CITY OF VACAVILLE, a municipal corporation (the City ), pursuant to the authority of Sections through of the California Government Code, and Division of the Vacaville Municipal Code. City and Developer are also referred to hereinafter individually as party or collectively as the parties. RECITALS This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts: A. Developer has a legal and/or equitable interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 868 acres situated in an area commonly referred to as Lower Lagoon Valley, located in Vacaville, California, as generally shown in Exhibit A, entitled Project Site. B. The City has previously approved the project commonly known as the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project consisting of 1,025 residential units, a championship-level golf course, and approximately 750,000 square feet of commercial and office space uses, subject to various Project Approvals as hereinafter defined and identified (the Project ). C. The parties now desire to set forth their understandings and agreement as to the phasing of development, the extension of certain vested rights, and other obligations related to the Project. In executing this Agreement, Developer recognizes that the use and development of the Project Site are subject to the grant of certain Subsequent Approvals, which are hereinafter defined and identified. Developer recognizes that the Subsequent Approvals are subject to review by City staff, public hearings and discretionary approvals by the appropriate decision-making body(ies) and are further subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq., the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations et seq., and City s local regulations, policies and guidelines (collectively referred to as CEQA ) to the degree the environmental impacts of the Subsequent Approvals have not already been reviewed in accordance with CEQA such as the environmental impact report and addenda developed for this Agreement and the Project Approvals. City has also adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (the MMRP ) to ensure those mitigation measures incorporated as part of, or imposed on, the Project are enforced and completed. 1

79 Exhibit A to Ordinance D. City acknowledges that Developer s agreement to make the commitments herein furthers the City s efforts for development of the Project Site and that such commitments constitute a material factor in City s willingness to approve this Agreement. City also acknowledges that it is willing to provide Developer with the undertaking contained in this Agreement because City has determined that development of the Project Site specifically as set forth in the Project Approvals will provide public benefits that could not be obtained without vested approval of large-scale development including, without limitation, needed community open space, increased tax revenues, coordinated planning of development, installation of both on and off-site public infrastructure, creation of additional needed local employment, housing and recreational opportunities, the economic and social benefits associated with development of City s roadway network within the Project area, and funding for community benefits and public safety (collectively, the Public Benefits ). E. In exchange for the Public Benefits, together with other benefits that will result from the development of the Project Site, the parties now desire to set forth their understandings and agreements concerning the phasing of development of the Project and the vesting of Developer s right to develop the Project Site in accordance with the Project Approvals. Developer will receive by this Agreement certain assurances concerning the conditions under which Developer may proceed with the Project and, therefore, desires to enter into this Agreement. F. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section As required by Government Code Section , City has found that the provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in City s General Plan. G. On February 16, 2016, City s Planning Commission (the Planning Commission ), the initial hearing body for purposes of development agreement review, recommended approval of this Agreement. On March, 2016, City s City Council (the City Council ) adopted its Ordinance No. approving this Agreement and authorizing its execution. H. Developer (or Developer s predecessor(s)), has secured various environmental and land use approvals, entitlements, permits, agreements, supporting documents and reports relating to the development of the Project (the Project Approvals ). These Project Approvals include, without limitation, the following: (1) The Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan, approved by the City Council on December 18, 1990, as amended March 26, (2) Agreement to Settle Litigation Regarding Lower Lagoon Valley ( Settlement Agreement ). On December 7, 2004, after a duly-noticed public meeting, the City Council approved a Settlement Agreement between Greenbelt Alliance, Triad Communities L.P. ( Triad ), and the City of Vacaville related to a prior development project in Lower Lagoon Valley and including parameters on future development of the Project Site. Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement 2

80 Exhibit A to Ordinance consists of an agreement between the City and Triad setting forth Further obligations of Developer and City for implementation of the Project ( Original Obligations Agreement ). (3) Settlement Agreement Between Triad Communities, LP and Community Homes, Inc, Regarding the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project. On July 7, 2005, Developer s predecessor, Triad Communities, LP and a neighboring land owner entered into an agreement regarding settlement of a dispute arising from approval of the VTM and the impact on Community Homes property (the "CH Settlement Agreement"). (4) Vesting Tentative Map; Planned Development Permit; Conditions of Approval; Draft Design Guidelines. On February 22, 2005, following review and recommendation of the City s Planning Commission, and after a duly-noticed public hearing, the City Council, by Resolution No , approved Developer s request for a vesting tentative map and planned development permit (together referred to as the VTM ) subject to conditions of approval and also approved Draft Design Guidelines. (5) First Amended Obligations Agreement. On April 18, 2006, the City and Triad Communities, LP (as a predecessor to Developer) entered into the First Amended Agreement Regarding Further Obligations of Developer and City for Implementation of the Revised Project ( Obligations Agreement ). The Obligations Agreement superseded the Original Obligations Agreement. (6) Amendment to the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project Planned Development Residential Phasing Plan. On December 12, 2006, the City Council approved a revised residential phasing plan for the Project establishing an anticipated build-out schedule for residential units within the Project. (7) Lot Line Adjustment. On April 19, 2010, the Community Development Director approved three lot line adjustments to form portions of the boundary of the business village. (8) Agreement for Exchange of Land and Use of Land for Mitigation Purposes ( Land Exchange Agreement ). On May 23, 2012, the City and Developer entered into the Land Exchange Agreement implementing certain provisions of the Obligations Agreement and allowing Developer to install and maintain some project mitigation features required by the resource agencies on City-owned or controlled land. (9) Agreement for the Deferred Payment of Park Maintenance Fees for Lagoon Vally (sic) Park. On April 22, 2013, City and Developer entered into an agreement related to payment of park maintenance fees for Lagoon Valley Park as required by the Obligations Agreement. 3

81 Exhibit A to Ordinance (10) Director s Letter Approval of Modifications to Conditions of Approval and Other Requirements of the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project ( Director s Letter ). On October 8, 2014, after a duly noticed administrative hearing, the Director of Community Development issued a letter approving modifications to the phasing schedule, conditions of approval, and other requirements for the Vesting Tentative Map and Planned Development. (11) Large Lot Final Map (referred to herein as the Master Final Map and in the Obligations Agreement as the Master Parcel Map ). On October 14, 2014,the City Council, by Resolution No approved the revised Large Lot Final Map finding it in substantial compliance with the approved 2005 Vesting Subdivision Map. (12) Final Planned Development and Design Guidelines. On November 18, 2014, following review and recommendation of the City s Planning Commission, and following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No approving the Final Planned Development Permit and Design Guidelines for the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project dated October (13) Caltrans Cooperative Agreements. On July 11, 2014 and February 10, 2015, the City entered into two agreements with Caltrans related to improvements to the Lagoon Valley Road I80 overcrossing improvements necessitated by the Project. (14) Developer Mirror Cooperative Agreement. On February 26, 2015, the City and Developer entered into an agreement related to allocation of obligations under the Caltrans Cooperative Agreements. (15) Development Agreement. On February 16, 2016, following a duly-noticed public hearing, City s Planning Commission made the findings required by Division of the Vacaville Municipal Code, and recommended that the City Council approve this Agreement. On March, 2016, the City Council made findings required by the Vacaville Municipal Code, the California Government Code and CEQA and adopted Ordinance No. approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement. (16) Geologic Hazard Abatement District. On March, 2016, following a duly-noticed public hearing, the City Council, acting on a properly submitted petition formed the Lower Lagoon Valley Geologic Hazard Abatement District. (17) CEQA Compliance Documents. In adopting and approving the foregoing, City's Planning Commission and City Council certified, adopted findings based on, and otherwise relied on the following: (A) EIR. The Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No ), which was prepared 4

82 Exhibit A to Ordinance pursuant to CEQA, was recommended for certification by the Planning Commission on June 1, 2004, and certified with findings by the City Council on June 8, 2004, by Resolution No (the EIR ). (B) 2005 Addendum. On February 22, 2005, the City Council adopted an Addendum to the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan Final EIR by Resolution No (C) 2015 Addendum. On January 19, 2015, an addendum was prepared and submitted to the file addressing minor modifications to the Project infrastructure locations. (D) 2016 Addendum. On March, 2016, the City Council adopted the 2016 Addendum to the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan Final EIR by Resolution No (18) The Mitigation and Monitoring Program For the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan project approved by the City Council on June 8, 2004, by Resolution No and which is based on the EIR certified by the City Council on June 8, 2004 (State Clearinghouse No ) (see subsection H.(17 (A)), above). I. Immediately prior to the approval of this Agreement, the City Council took the following actions: (1) determined that the EIR, the 2005 Addendum, the 2015 Addendum and the 2016 Addendum, adequately evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this Agreement and made the findings required by CEQA; and (2) after a duly-noticed public hearing, made appropriate findings required by Division of the Vacaville Municipal Code that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the General Plan. J. Applications for land use approvals, entitlements, and permits other than the Project Approvals that are necessary to or desirable for the development of the Project Site and that are consistent with the Project (collectively, the Subsequent Approvals ) have been or will be made by Developer. The Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation, the following: amendments of the Project Approvals; design review approvals (including site plan, architectural and landscaping plan approvals); deferred improvement agreements and other agreements relating to the Project; formation of financing and assessment districts; conditional use permits; grading permits; building permits; lot line adjustments; sewer and water connections; certificates of occupancy; subdivision maps (including tentative, vesting tentative, parcel, vesting parcel, and final subdivision maps); preliminary and final development plans; re-zonings; encroachment permits; re-subdivisions; and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. At such time as any Subsequent Approval applicable to the Project Site is approved by City, then such Subsequent Approval shall be treated as a Project 5

83 Exhibit A to Ordinance Approval under this Agreement and shall become subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement applicable to Project Approvals. K. Developer and City agree that phased final maps may be recorded in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map. These final maps may trigger the installation of infrastructure and public improvements by Developer to serve the Project based on the Project Approvals. L. Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Agreement shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Project Approvals. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Project Approvals, the Project Approvals shall control unless this Agreement expressly states to the contrary. M. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by City s staff, Planning Commission and City Council at publicly-noticed meetings and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable and in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Agreement Legislation, and Division of the Vacaville Municipal Code and, further, the City Council finds that the economic interests of City s residents and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the parties acknowledge and accept and in consideration of the promises, covenants and provisions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE; TERM OF AGREEMENT AND CORRESPONDING PROJECT APPROVALS A. Effective Date This Agreement shall become effective on the thirty-first (31 st ) day following the later of: (i) the adoption by the City Council of the ordinance approving this Agreement; or (ii) receipt of the certified results of a referendum election unsuccessfully challenging such ordinance or approval of this Agreement (the Effective Date ). B. Term This Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for a term of twelve (12) years after the Effective Date (the Term ), unless said Term is terminated, modified, or extended as expressly set forth in this Agreement, or by the mutual written agreement of the parties. Any period during any extension shall constitute part of the Term for purposes of this Agreement. 6

84 Exhibit A to Ordinance C. Termination Of Agreement (1) Expiration of Term. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the expiration of the Term of this Agreement as set forth in Subsection 1.B of this Agreement. (2) Survival of Obligations. Upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement as provided herein, neither party shall have any further right or obligation with respect to the Project Site under this Agreement except with respect to any obligation that is specifically set forth in this Agreement as surviving the termination or expiration of this Agreement or as having a term that is different from the term of this Agreement (see e.g., Section 1.D. below) or any Project Approval, the term of which is independent of this Agreement. Notwithstanding expiration or termination of this Agreement Developer shall continue to comply with the following obligations of this Agreement to the extent applicable: Sections 7.F. No Damages ; 11.E. Hold Harmless; Indemnification of City; 11.F. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge ; (3) Limit on Termination Remedy for Default. Provided Developer has satisfied the milestone set forth in Section 6.A(1), below, City shall not terminate this Agreement or the VTM, as defined herein, for any reason, except upon mutual written agreement of the Parties. D. Term Of Subdivision Maps And Other Project Approvals And Project-Related Agreements (1) Except as set forth in subsections 1.D.(2), D.(3), and D.(4) below, the term of any tentative subdivision map or Project Approval existing as of the effective date of this Agreement shall coincide with the Term of this Agreement. Upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement the term of such map or Project Approval shall expire. Should the Term of this Agreement be extended, the term of such map or Project Approval shall likewise be extended to coincide with the extended Term of this Agreement subject to any processing requirements required therefore. (2) The term of any subdivision improvement agreement related to development of the Project Site, or any portion thereof, shall be as set forth in the term of the particular agreement. (3) The term of any Subequent Approval shall have the life as set forth in the City of Vacaville Land Use and Developemnt Code ( LUDC ) or as stated in the particular approval, however, the term of any Subsequent Approval shall not extend past the term of this Agreement unless expressly provided for in the Subsequent Approval. Except as set forth in subsection (4) immediately below, if no term is set forth in the LUDC or in the specific approval then the term of the approval shall coincide with the Term. 7

85 Exhibit A to Ordinance (4) The following agreements or approvals shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement: the Settlement Agreement; the CH Settlement Agreement; the Obligations Agreement; the Developer Mirror Cooperative Agreement; the Indemnity and Responsibility Agreement if and when approved as a Subsequent Approval; the Master Final Map; all other final maps; conditional use permits; approvals that run with the land pursuant to the Vacaville Municipal Code or state law; and the Geologic Hazard Abatement District and any other financing or assessment districts. SECTION 2. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT All of the property shown in Exhibit A as the Project Site, and more particularly described in Exhibit A-1 entitled Legal Description of the Project Site shall be subject to this Agreement. Exhibits A and A-1 are made a part hereof and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. SECTION 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project covers an approximately 868-acre site and includes: (1) approximately 323 acres of residential development to include 1,025 homes with a variety of housing types, organized in three villages with an integrated golf course and club house with recreational amenities; (2) approximately 458 acres of open space and recreational uses including a golf course, neighborhood and linear parks, and riparian and hillside open space; (3) a Business Village and Town Center on approximately 60 acres and (4) approximately 23 acres of public uses and roadways including an approximately 1.5 acres fire station site. SECTION 4. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES A. The respective obligations of the parties are set forth in detail in the Project Approvals which remain in full force and effect except as deliberately and specifically modified herein. The full language of each is on file with the City s Community Development Department and is made a part hereof and incorporated herein by this reference. B. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Project Approvals set forth above specifically address (in addition to other items): (1) Detailed Project description, including permitted uses; (2) Provisions for financing districts; (3) Various fees, waivers and payment schedules. C. The Parties agree that following recordation of the initial residential final map, Developer shall proceed in good faith, given market conditions, to build-out the project in a consistent and expedient manner and in compliance with the phasing agreements in this 8

86 Exhibit A to Ordinance Agreement and in various Project Approvals, including, but not limited to the Obligations Agreement, Settlement Agreement, Final Master Phasing Plan dated September 17, 2014, and the Director s Letter. SECTION 5. VESTED ELEMENTS A. Certain actions of City identified below (the full enactments of which are incorporated herein by reference thereto), are declared binding and not subject to change except if specifically stated to the contrary elsewhere in this Agreement. Such actions are hereinafter referred to herein as the Vested Elements. No part of the Vested Elements may be revised or changed during the Term hereof without the consent of the owner of the portion of the Project Site to which the change applies (or that would be affected by any reduction or decrease in rights or increase in burdens caused by such change), unless expressly stated to the contrary elsewhere in this Agreement. The foregoing notwithstanding, applications for permits, entitlements, and other approvals shall be subject to such changes in the General Plan, the Vacaville Municipal Code, City s zoning code, and other rules, regulations, ordinances and official policies hereinafter adopted (and in effect at the time of the application) that do not conflict with the Vested Elements or materially deprive Developer of the benefits thereof. The Vested Elements shall be effective against, and shall not be amended by, any subsequent ordinance or regulation, whether adopted or imposed by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process. The Vested Elements are: (1) The General Plan, approved by the City Council on August 11, 2015, by Resolution # , including any amendment thereto enacted prior to the execution of this Agreement; (2) The Project Approvals; and (3) The Subsequent Approvals. B. Subdivision And Parcel Maps Developer shall have the right from time to time to file applications for subdivision maps, parcel map waivers and/or parcel maps with respect to some or all of the Project Site to re-configure the parcels comprising the Project Site as may be necessary or desirable to develop a particular phase of the Project Site or to lease, mortgage or sell a portion of the Project Site. Nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize Developer to subdivide or use the Project Site, or any portion thereof, for purposes of sale, lease or financing in any manner that conflicts with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Sections et seq., or with the Vacaville Municipal Code; nor shall this Agreement prevent City from enacting or adopting changes in the methods and procedures for processing subdivision and parcel maps so long as such changes do not preclude or materially burden or delay Developer s realization of the rights conferred under the Vested Elements. 9

87 Exhibit A to Ordinance Any tentative map prepared for the Project pursuant to this Agreement will comply with California Government Code Section C. Applicable Subdivision And Safety Regulations; No Conflicting Enactments Nothing herein shall be deemed to prevent City from amending the laws, ordinances, uniform codes, rules or regulations pertaining to or imposing health and safety, fire protection, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, grading and/or building requirements or other requirements that would be defined as ministerial under CEQA pertaining to new construction or development in the city, including the Project, when such amendments are enacted or adopted prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project (or portion thereof), in which case such amendments shall apply to the Project (or portion thereof). Except as set forth above, any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, standard, directive, condition or other measure adopted or amended subsequently to the Effective Date (each individually referred to as a City Law ), whether approved by Subsequent Approval or other action by City or by initiative, referendum or other means, that reduces the development rights granted to Developer by this Agreement shall not apply to the Project Site. For the purpose of this Agreement, any City Law shall be deemed to reduce the development rights provided hereby if such City Law would accomplish one or more of the following either by specific reference to the Project or as part of a general enactment that applies to or affects construction or development in the city: (1) Limit or reduce the density or intensity of the Project, or any part thereof, or otherwise require any reduction in the square footage or number of proposed buildings or other improvements. However, this provision shall not require City to increase the density of allowable development on the Project Site to offset or compensate for a reduction in density resulting from state or federal laws including, but not limited to, laws relating to airport safety or wetlands, species or habitat protection, preservation or restoration. The foregoing provision is not intended to limit Developer s legal rights against state or federal authorities imposing such laws, but is intended to disallow suit against City due to the impact of such state or federal laws upon the Project and to free City from any obligation to increase the density of development, whether commercial or residential or otherwise, in one area of the Project Site due to reduction in available, developable lands in other areas of the Project Site other than as set forth in the Policy Plan and the Vesting Tentative Map, provided, however, that nothing in this subsection 5.C. shall prohibit City from increasing the density of development on the Project Site to the extent the Project Approvals permit. City agrees to cooperate with Developer in Developer s attempt to mitigate or minimize the impacts from such reductions in density on the overall development of the Project Site. As used in the preceding sentence, City s duty to cooperate with Developer does not include the obligation to contribute financially to such attempts by Developer. (2) Change any land uses or other permitted uses of the Project Site until the Project, or portion thereof, has been completed as evidenced by issuance of a 10

88 Exhibit A to Ordinance certificate of occupancy by City s Building Division (or completion of final inspection if no certificate of occupancy is required). (3) Limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval, development or construction of all or any part of the Project in any manner so long as all necessary infrastructure adequate to serve such development or construction is constructed or provided by Developer, unless otherwise expressly provided for in this Agreement, the Project Approvals or Other Project Agreements and Approvals. (4) Except as otherwise permitted by this Agreement, enforce or apply any City Law to the Project that is not uniformly applied on a city-wide basis to substantially similar types of development projects and project sites with similar land use designations. The foregoing notwithstanding, City shall be allowed to establish zones of benefit, rate zones, benefit districts, assessment districts, geologic hazard abatement districts, or similar financing mechanisms, which may apply to the Project Site, so long as the costs associated with such zones, districts or mechanisms are uniformly applied to all similar uses within the affected zone, district or area. (5) Require the obtainment of additional discretionary permits or approvals by City other than those required by applicable law or which City is required to impose by the authority of the state or federal government or of special districts or agencies that are not subject to the authority of City and whose jurisdiction extends to the Project Site. SECTION 6. PROJECT PHASING; PARK FEE CREDIT; DEFAULT; PLANNED GROWTH ORDINANCE A. Phasing Schedule Developer shall comply with the following phasing schedule milestones: (1) No later than July 1, 2017, Developer shall commence construction of all of the following projects: Lagoon Valley Lift Station, Lagoon Valley Water Storage Reservoir, and the Lagoon Valley Booster Pump Station. (2) No later than December 1, 2018, Developer shall record the initial residential final map. (3) No later than April 1, 2023, Developer shall submit a performance bond or other form of security acceptable to the Community Development Director for the completion of the golf course, and submit preliminary design and preliminary specifications for the golf course, as set forth more specifically in the Director s Letter, Item 9.D. The milestones set forth in this phasing schedule are in addition to and shall not supersede any other phasing plan(s), including, but not limited to, the Final Master Phasing Plan dated September 17, 2014, submitted in conjunction with the Master Final Map, the golf 11

89 Exhibit A to Ordinance course and fire station phasing plans set forth in the Director s Letter, and any phasing obligations in the Obligations Agreement and/or Conditions of Approval, to the extent they have not been modified by later Project Approvals. B. Park Fee Credit Pursuant to Section II.A.2. of the Obligations Agreement, Developer is entitled to a two million dollar ($2,000,000) credit against the portion of the building permit fees attributable to park and recreation in connection with Developer s dedication to the City of the approximately 71-acre area north of Lagoon Valley Road ( 71-Acre PR Fee Credit ). The Obligations Agreement anticipates that Developer shall receive the 71-Acre PR Fee Credit in the full amount of the park and recreation fees due with each building permit until the total amount is reached, rather than on a pro-rata basis. This Phasing and Development Agreement specifically amends section II.A.2. of the Obligations Agreement, and any other section of the Obligations Agreement or any of the other Project Approvals that relate to allocation of the 71-Acre PR Fee Credit as follows: Developer shall be entitled to begin receiving the 71-Acre PR Fee Credit against the full amount of the park and recreation fees due with each building permit upon submitting the required performance bond or other security for the completion of the golf course, as contemplated in Item 9.D of the Director s Letter, and shall continue receiving the PR fee credit against the full amount of the park and recreation fees due with each building permit until the total amount of the fee credit is reached. In the event the PR Fee Credit (or any reduced PR Fee Credit as set forth herein) is not exhausted by the time the Project has been issued permits for all one thousand fifteen (1015) residential units, City will reimburse Developer the outstanding balance of the PR Fee Credit within sixty (60) days of receipt of Developer s written request. This subsection 6.B. specifically addresses the 71-Acre PR Fee Credit. Nothing in this subsection 6.B. shall affect Developer s right to receive any other fee credit or similar benefit provided pursuant to the Project Approvals, including, but not limited to, the park and recreation fee credit for Developer s anticipated dedication and construction of the approximately eight-acre Village Green public park near the Business Village. C. Default (1) Default If Developer fails to meet any of the milestones set forth in subsection 6.A.(1) through 6.A.(3) above as a result of Developer s action or inaction, and such failure is not excused by the Excusable Delay provisions herein, the following cure and remedy provisions shall apply: (2) Cure Upon the occurrence of default under this Section, City shall give Developer written notice thereof, specifically stating that it is a notice of default under this Section and giving Developer no less than thirty (30) days to cure the default 12

90 Exhibit A to Ordinance measured from the date of personal service or delivery by certified or overnight mail of the written notice of default. Developer is entitled to only one cure period for each milestone in subsection 6.A.(1) through 6.A.(3), notwithstanding any post-default extension the parties may agree to. (3) Remedies For each milestone set forth in Section 6.A.(1) through 6.A.(3) that Developer fails to meet and fails to cure the failure to meet the milestone as allowed under this Agreement, City shall reduce the PR Fee Credit by six hundred sixty-seven thousand dollars ($667,000). Provided Developer has satisfied the milestone in Section 6.A(1), City shall have no remedy of termination of this Agreement or termination of the VTM for any reason, including, but not limited to breach or default hereunder, unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to terminate this Agreement. City shall provide written notice to Developer of imposition of the PR Fee Credit reduction and the notice may provide a reasonable date for compliance with the milestone, following consultation with Developer. (4) Extension of Time If Developer fails to meet a milestone, either due to an Excusable Delay or to a default, the parties to this Agreement shall meet and confer in good faith to determine if an adjustment to the date of performance of any future milestone is warranted. If after conferring with Developer, City approves an extension of any milestone(s), the parties may enter into an Administrative Amendment to this Agreement. If the parties cannot mutually agree upon the extension of any milestone(s) the current milestone(s) shall remain in effect. The default and remedy provisions in this Section 6.C. are in addition to the remedies set forth in Section 7 and are limited by any applicable limitation on the remedies set forth in Section 7. D. Relationship And Integration With City s Planned Growth Ordinance; Building Permit Allocations This Section shall be considered an approved Phasing Plan that satisfies Vacaville Municipal Code A.5 and modifies the Lower Lagoon Valley Policy Plan Implementation Project Residential Phasing Plan adopted City Council Resolution City hereby exempts one thousand fifteen (1,015) building permits for the Project from the building permit allocation process of City s Planned Growth Ordinance (Vacaville Municipal Code, Division 14.05), as follows: (1) Commencing in the calendar year in which the Initial Final Map (also referred to in various Project Approvals as the Initial Residential Final Map ) for the Project, or any portion thereof, is approved by City, and for each calendar year thereafter (effective on January 1 of each such year) during the Term of this 13

91 Exhibit A to Ordinance Agreement, City shall allocate two hundred fifty (250) assignable residential building permits for the Project to Developer as necessary until the Project is completed. Completion of the Project requires at least 838 total allocations. There shall be no carryover of any unused allocations. The allocations provided for in this Subsection shall automatically apply and shall not require any formal application or request by Developer for such annual reservation of building permits. (2) For each calendar year in which Developer anticipates using all two-hundred fifty (250) residential building permit allocations, Developer may request from City s Director of Community Development up to one hundred (100) additional residential building permit allocations. Upon making the request Developer shall submit a progress report detailing the Project status, compliance with this Agreement and anticipated progress. Upon Director s request, Developer shall consult with Director regarding the progress report and address any areas of concern. Thereafter, upon Director s determination that Developer is in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement and the Project Approvals, or is addressing any areas of non-conformance, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed, Director shall grant the requested additional allocations. For purposes of this subsection 6.D.(1), a finding of Default as set forth in Sections 6 and 7 herein, is not required for the Director to determine that Developer is not in compliance and therefore to deny a request for additional building permit allocations. If Director denies such request Developer may appeal the denial to the City Council. (3) Up to a total of thirty (30) building permits for model homes and all building permits for the age-restricted and custom homes are exempt from the Phasing Plan allocation limits and building permits may be issued at any time for such units. (4) Should Developer propose to assign the allocation, or any portion thereof, to a project builder other than Developer, Developer shall submit to City s Director of Community Development an application for assignment identifying such other builder(s) and the number(s) of permits proposed to be allocated. The application shall be submitted to the Director within the time period specified by and approved by the Director and shall not be unreasonably denied, conditioned or delayed. If multiple project builders apply for building permits for the project in the same calendar year, the building permits will be issued on a first come-first served basis. SECTION 7. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES In addition to the default and remedies specifically set forth in Section 6 above, the following default and remedy provisions shall apply to any material default of this Agreement. 14

92 Exhibit A to Ordinance A. Notice Of Default And Liability Subject to extensions of time mutually agreed to in writing by the parties or as otherwise provided herein, material failure or delay by any party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default hereunder. Upon the occurrence of such default, the party alleging such default shall give the other party written notice thereof, specifically stating that it is a notice of default under this Agreement, specifying in detail the nature of the alleged default and, when appropriate, the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured, and giving a reasonable time in which to cure said default, which shall be not less than sixty (60) days measured from the date of personal service or delivery by certified mail of the written notice of default. During any such cure period or during any period prior to notice of default, the party charged with default shall not be considered in default for the purpose of terminating this Agreement or instituting legal proceedings. If a dispute arises regarding any claim of default under this Agreement, the parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations hereunder, to the maximum extent practicable irrespective of such dispute. B. Remedies Upon expiration of the cure period referenced above, if the default remains uncured, or if such cure cannot be accomplished within such cure period and the defaulting party has not commenced such cure during such period and diligently prosecuted such cure thereafter, the non-defaulting party may, at its option, give notice of intent to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65868, or pursue such other legal or equitable remedies as may be available to such party, including, but not limited to specific performance, provided, however, that if Developer has satisfied the milestone set forth in Section 6.A(1), above, City shall not terminate this Agreement or the VTM. Any such notice of intent to terminate shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the notice of intent to terminate is given by City, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council within sixty days in accordance with Government Code Sections and and Vacaville Municipal Code Chapter After considering the evidence presented, the City Council shall render its decision to terminate or not terminate this Agreement. If the City Council decides to terminate this Agreement, City shall give written notice thereof to the defaulting party. Evidence of default of this Agreement may also be taken during the regular Annual Review of this Agreement as described in Section 9 below. Any determination of default (or any determination of failure to demonstrate good faith compliance as a part of the Annual Review) made by City against Developer or Developer s successor(s) with respect to any portion of the Project Site, shall be based upon written findings supported by evidence in the record as provided by Vacaville Municipal Code Chapter Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, remedies for a default by Developer or its successor(s) of any of its obligations hereunder shall not be limited and City shall have the right to institute legal proceedings to enforce such obligations as set forth herein and in the Vested Elements and Project Approvals, including, but not limited to, the obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, provided, however, that if 15

93 Exhibit A to Ordinance Developer has satisfied the milestone set forth in Section 6.A(1), above, City shall not terminate this Agreement or the VTM. Such remedies shall include those available at law or in equity as may be needed to enforce defaults such as the failure to pay fees, taxes, monetary exactions or assessments levied against the Project Site to pay for the cost of improvements, whether levied pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise stated in a separate agreement or undertaking under the Vested Elements or which is entered into in support of any community facilities or assessment district or other related financing. Subject to the limitation on termination of this Agreement set forth in the preceeding paragraph, City shall have the right to exercise such remedies as may be available at law or in equity to enforce the conditions stated in any conditional use permit, design review approval, zoning approval, entitlements for use or entitlements for construction of specific improvements on a specific parcel, or as are provided in the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections et seq.) or City s subdivision ordinance as applied to subdivision improvement agreements. In addition to the right to give notice of intent to terminate this Agreement, Developer shall have the right to institute legal proceedings to enforce this Agreement in the event of a default by City. C. No Waiver Failure or delay in giving notice of default shall not constitute a waiver of default, nor shall it change the time of default. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any failure or delay by a party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default by the other party shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies of such party, nor shall it deprive such party of its right to institute and maintain any action or proceeding it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. D. Judicial Review Of Termination Any purported termination by City of this Agreement for alleged default by Developer shall be subject to review in the Superior Court of the County of Solano pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section (c). During the pendency of any such judicial review the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine whether the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect except that in any case, if the Term expires during such period this Agreement shall terminate unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties. E. Defaults By City If City does not accept, review, approve or issue development permits, entitlements or other land use or building approvals, if any, for use in a timely fashion as provided in this Agreement or defaults in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, Developer shall have the rights and remedies provided herein or available in law or in equity, including, without limitation, the right to seek specific performance. F. No Damages Unless specifically set forth herein, in no event shall either party, or its boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages for any default under this 16

94 Exhibit A to Ordinance Agreement, it being expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to either party for a breach or violation of this Agreement by the other party shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or to terminate this Agreement. This limitation on damages shall not preclude actions by a party to enforce payments of monies or the performance of obligations requiring an obligation of money from the other party under the terms of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, including, but not limited to, obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with the foregoing provisions, each party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully advised by counsel of such party s choice with respect to the rights and remedies of such party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and that after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such party s rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely to the extent herein specified solely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Agreement by the other party. SECTION 8. ANNUAL REVIEW Good faith compliance by Developer with the provisions of this Agreement shall be subject to annual review ( Annual Review ) pursuant to Government Code and Chapter of the Vacaville Municipal Code. The Annual Review shall include a review of compliance with this Agreement, approved mitigation measures, and all of the Developer s obligations as set forth in the Project Approvals. Notwithstanding the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Annual Review shall take place between August 1 and October 31 of each year during the Term. SECTION 9. APPLICABLE LAWS; ATTORNEYS FEES; PERMITTED DELAYS; EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT LAWS A. Applicable Law This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. B. Attorney Fees Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and other costs in connection with any action or proceeding brought to enforce this Agreement. The prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall not be entitled to recover its attorney fees and other costs from the other party. C. Permitted Delays Performance by any party of its obligations hereunder (other than for payment of money) shall be excused during any period of Excusable Delay as hereinafter defined to include delay beyond the reasonable control of the party claiming the delay (despite the party s good faith efforts to avoid or mitigate the delay) including, but not limited to: (i) acts of 17

95 Exhibit A to Ordinance God; (ii) civil commotion; (iii) riots; (iv) strikes, picketing or other labor disputes; (v) shortages of materials or supplies; (vi) damage to work in progress by reason of fire, floods, earthquake or other catastrophes; (vii) failure, delay or inability of the other party to act; (viii) as to Developer only, the failure, delay or inability of City to provide adequate levels of public services, facilities or infrastructure to the Project Site including, by way of example only, the lack of water to serve the Project Site, or any part thereof due to drought; (ix) delay caused by a decline in the housing market as defined by a fifteen percent (15%) or greater decline in average home prices in the Vacaville, California residential real-estate market over the immediately previous two-year period; (x) discovery of Native American artifacts or remains resulting in a delay or cessation of construction-related activities; (xi) delay caused by governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental entities; (xii) enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations; (xiv) judicial decisions excusing performance; and (xiii) litigation brought by a third party attacking the validity of this Agreement or any of the approvals, permits, ordinances, entitlements or other actions necessary for development of the Project Site or any portion thereof, which delay a party s performance hereunder; provided, however, that any party claiming an Excusable Delay shall promptly notify the other party of any such delay and the reason therefor as soon as possible after the same has been ascertained by the party delayed. D. Effect Of Subsequent Laws In accordance with California Government Code Section , if any governmental or quasi-governmental agency other than City adopts any law, statute, or regulation or imposes any condition (collectively Law ) after the date of execution of this Agreement that prevents or precludes a party from complying with one or more provisions of this Agreement, and such provision is not entitled to the status of a vested right against such new Law, then the parties shall meet in good faith to determine the feasibility of any such modification or suspension based on the effect such Law would have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement and the Vested Elements. Following such meeting between the parties, the provisions of this Agreement may, to the extent feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the parties, be modified or suspended, but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such Law. In such an event, this Agreement together with any required modifications shall continue in full force and effect. In the event that the Law operates to frustrate irremediably and materially the vesting of development rights to the Project as set forth in this Agreement, Developer and City may mutually agree in writing to terminate this Agreement. In addition, Developer shall have the right to challenge (by any method, including litigation) the Law preventing compliance with, or performance of, the terms of this Agreement and, in the event that such challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise in writing, except that if the Term of this Agreement would otherwise terminate during the period of any such challenge and Developer has not commenced with the development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement as a result of such challenge, the Term shall be extended for the period of any such challenge. 18

96 Exhibit A to Ordinance E. Building Regulations Building Regulations consist of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 and amendments to Title 24 ( Title 24 ) as found in the Vacaville Municipal Code and any Public Works Standards as adopted in the Vacaville Municipal Code or any ordinances that interpret these codes where such ordinances establish construction and building standards that are intended to be applied ministerially to the construction of improvements on private property and public infrastructure. Building Regulations applicable to building and construction throughout the city at the time Developer applies for the applicable permits for construction of any portion of the Project shall be applicable to the building and construction authorized by such permit, except if such Building Regulations conflict in any manner with the Vested Elements. In the event of such conflict, the particular Building Regulation which is in conflict with the Vested Elements shall not apply to or govern development or construction of the Project unless it is determined by City to be required by Title 24 regulations in effect at the time of building permit application. In the event of a dispute as to City s determination that a particular Building Regulation in conflict with the Vested Elements is required by Title 24, Developer shall have the right to have the City Council hear such dispute and make a determination and findings of fact based on substantial evidence as to whether such Building Regulation is so required by Title 24. Developer shall have no right to appeal any applicable Title 24 regulations adopted by the State of California in effect at the time of building permit application that may conflict with the Vested Elements except as permitted in this Subsection. F. Written Verification Of Sufficient Water Supply The Vesting Tentative Map approved for the Project on February 22, 2005, is in compliance with Government Code Sections (c) requiring written verification of the applicable public water system s ability to provide a sufficient water supply that will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivisions. SECTION 10. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS: COOPERATION OF CITY Developer understands and acknowledges that development of the Project and performance under this Agreement may require permits, licenses, and/or other approvals from other governmental agencies that are out of City s jurisdiction and control ( Outside Approvals ). City shall cooperate with Developer in its efforts to obtain other permits and approvals as may be required from other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project Site or portions thereof (such as, for example, but not by way of limitation, public utilities or utility districts and agencies having jurisdiction over wetlands and air quality), so long as such cooperation will not involve the expenditure of City funds or the use of extensive staff time or expose City, in its sole judgment, to any legal liability. However, Developer is solely responsible for obtaining such Outside Approvals, and City shall have no obligation, responsibility or liability to Developer, nor shall City be compelled to allow Developer to proceed under this Agreement, if Developer is unable for any reason to secure the necessary Outside Approvals to perform this Agreement. 19

97 Exhibit A to Ordinance SECTION 11. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS A. Right To Assign Developer shall have the right to sell, convey, transfer, or assign all or any portion of its rights to any portion of the Project Site subject to providing thirty (30) days prior written notice to City. Its rights, duties and obligations under this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Project Site so sold, conveyed, transferred or assigned shall pass to the party acquiring fee simple title to such portion of the Project Site so transferred for the development thereof. Developer shall mean the entities so identified herein and such successors thereto as may be identified as being entitled to such designation in a notice of transfer provided for below. Reference to successors from time to time herein shall not imply that the word Developer does not include such designated successors in other instances. B. Release Upon Transfer Upon sale, conveyance, transfer or assignment, in whole or in part, of Developer s right and interest to all or any portion of the Project Site (hereinafter collectively referred to as transfer ), Developer shall be released from its obligations hereunder with respect to the portion so transferred provided: (i) Developer (or transferee) was not in default of this Agreement at the time of transfer, (ii) Developer provided to City prior written notice of such transfer, and (iii) with respect to the transfer of any lot that has not been fully improved, the transferee executes and delivers to City a written assumption agreement in which: (a) the name and address of the transferee is set forth, and (b) the transferee expressly assumes the obligations of Developer under this Agreement as to the portion of the Project Site transferred; provided, however, that Developer shall not be relieved of any obligation for the dedication or conveyance of land required to be conveyed or dedicated pursuant to the Vested Elements or any obligations related to maintaining an endowment for maintenance of the conservation easement areas. Failure to deliver a written assumption agreement hereunder shall not negate, modify or otherwise affect the liability of any transferee pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. In the case of the sale of an individual improved residential lot that has received its final inspection Developer shall be released from its obligations hereunder with respect to the lot so transferred and this Agreement shall have no further effect as to the particular improved lot. C. Approvals; Right of Amendment; City s grant of the various approvals and consents referred to herein shall not constitute amendment hereof, nor shall the actions taken by City staff to implement the provisions hereof (e.g. the granting of minor modifications to approved plans, the Vested Elements, Project Approvals, or any other approval granted hereunder) constitute an amendment hereof. No party other than Developer or its express assignee for this purpose, shall have the right to seek or consent to the amendment of the provisions hereof, to make an election 20

98 Exhibit A to Ordinance hereunder, to terminate this Agreement or to enter into an agreement to rescind any provisions hereof. Any parcel or property that is not part of the Project Site and that might, at the parties option, become subject to this Agreement through an amendment hereof may, as a condition thereof and at City s option, be required to become a part of any community facilities district, geologic hazard abatement district, or assessment district created to fund the design, construction and maintenance of the infrastructure, landscape, open space, mitigation areas and other improvements funded by such district to the same extent as if said parcel or property had been part of the Project Site at the time of commencement of the Term of this Agreement. In becoming a part of such district, the owner of said parcel or property may, at City s option, be assessed an additional amount as set by City to compensate for the costs previously borne by other owners within the district so that the added parcel or property is in the position it would have been in had it been part of the district (and the planning for initiation and formation thereof) from the district s inception. D. No Third Parties Benefited No third party who is not a successor or permitted assign of a party hereto or who has not become a party by a duly-adopted amendment hereof may claim the benefits of any provision hereof. E. Covenants Run With The Land All of the terms, provisions, covenants, conditions, rights, powers, duties and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all other persons or entities acquiring the Project Site or any portion thereof or interest therein,whether by sale, operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. All other provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable during the Term hereof as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including, but not limited to Section 1468 of the California Civil Code. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act on the Project Site hereunder or with respect to any City-owned property or property interest: (i) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such property, (ii) runs with such properties, (iii) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and each person or entity having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such properties, or any portion thereof, and (iv) shall benefit each party and its property hereunder and each other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such properties. Except that the provisions of this Agreement shall not run with the land, or be enforceable against, developed residential lots purchased or available for purchase by individual homeowners. 21

99 Exhibit A to Ordinance SECTION 12. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Incorporation Of Recitals The recitals set forth above, and all defined terms set forth in such recitals and in the introductory paragraph preceding the recitals, are incorporated herein as though set forth in full. B. Limitation On Effect Of Agreement Except as expressly provided for in this Agreement to the contrary, Developer and the Project Site are subject to all rules, regulations, ordinances, procedures, standards, uniform codes, requirements, costs, exactions and processes of City applicable to development of property within the city as the same are in effect at the time Developer seeks any land development approval or entitlement including, but not limited to, subdivision of the Project Site, design review, zoning changes, building permits, or construction of on or off-site improvements or infrastructure. C. Amendment And Termination Of Agreement City s grant of the various approvals and consents referred to herein shall not constitute amendment hereof, nor shall the actions taken by City staff to implement the provisions hereof (e.g. the granting of minor modifications to approved plans, the Vested Elements, the Project Approvals, or any other approval granted hereunder) constitute an amendment hereof. Nothing in this Agreement limits or alters the City s right to administratively approve changes in the Project or any Prior Approvals as set forth in the Director s Letter, the Obligations Agreement, and the Settlement Agreement. No owner of less than all of the Project Site shall have the right to seek or consent to the amendment of the provisions hereof, to make an election hereunder, to terminate this Agreement or to enter into an agreement to rescind any provisions hereof in a manner that is binding upon, increases the burdens upon or reduces the rights of the owners of other portions of the Project Site, save and except for that portion that is owned in fee simple by said owner. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections and 65688, and Division of the Vacaville Municipal Code, and all amendments to this Agreement shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals, provided that any amendment to this Agreement which does not relate to the Term of this Agreement, permitted uses of the Project Site, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, the conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements relating to subsequent discretionary approvals of City, or monetary exactions of Developer, shall be considered an Administrative Amendment. The Director of Community Development is authorized to execute Administrative Amendments on behalf of City and no action by the City Council (e.g. noticed public hearing) shall be required before the parties may enter into an 22

100 Exhibit A to Ordinance Administrative Amendment. However, if in the judgment of the Director or any member of the City Council that a noticed public hearing on a proposed Administrative Amendment would be appropriate, City s Planning Commission shall conduct a noticed public hearing to consider whether the proposed Administrative Amendment should be approved or denied and/or referred to the City Council. No part of the Vested Elements may be revised or changed during the Term hereof without the consent of the owner of the portion of the Project Site to which the change applies (or that would be affected by any reduction or decrease in rights or increase in burdens caused by such change), unless expressly stated to the contrary elsewhere in this Agreement. Any amendment to a Vested Element that, in the opinion of the parties, substantially deviates from the development contemplated by this Agreement shall require an amendment to this Agreement. However, any amendment of City land use regulations including, but not limited to, the General Plan, the Policy Plan, and City s zoning ordinance, shall not require amendment of this Agreement. Instead, any such amendment shall be deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement at the time that such amendment is approved by the appropriate City decision maker, so long as such amendment does not reduce the development rights granted to Developer by this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement limits or alters the Parties ability to mutually agree to terminate this Agreement in writing. D. Project Is A Private Undertaking The development proposed to be undertaken by Developer on the Project Site is a private development. Except for that portion thereof to be devoted to public improvements to be constructed by Developer in accordance with the Vested Elements, City shall have no interest in, responsibility for or duty to third persons concerning any of said improvements, and Developer shall exercise full dominion and control over the Project Site, subject only to the limitations and obligations of Developer contained in this Agreement. E. Hold Harmless; Indemnification of City Developer shall hold and save City, its officers and employees, harmless and indemnify and defend them of and from any and all claims, losses, costs, damages, injuries or expenses (including, but not limited to, attorney fees, expert witness and consultant fees, and other costs of litigation) arising out of or in any way related to (i) the approval, validity and/or implementation of this Agreement, (ii) injury to or death of persons or damage to property that may arise by reason of development or use of those portions of the Project Site owned by Developer pursuant to this Agreement or (iii) by any action or activity by City, whether caused by joint negligence of the City, its officers or employees; provided, however, that the foregoing hold harmless and indemnity shall not include indemnification against: (i) suits and actions brought by Developer by reason of City s default or alleged default hereunder, or (ii) suits and actions arising from the willful misconduct of City, its officers and employees. 23

101 Exhibit A to Ordinance This provision shall operate in addition to and shall not supersede or otherwise alter or decrease any hold harmless, indemnification or defense provisions set forth in the Project Approvals. F. Cooperation In The Event Of Legal Challenge In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person not a party to this Agreement challenging the validity of this Agreement or any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. City shall promptly notify Developer of any such action against City. If City fails to cooperate with Developer in the defense of such action, Developer shall not thereafter be responsible for City s defense. The parties shall use their best efforts to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action, and Developer shall pay the fees and expenses for such legal counsel, any expert witnesses, and other costs related to the action or proceeding. Developer s obligation to pay for legal counsel and other fees and costs shall not extend to fees incurred on appeal unless otherwise authorized by Developer. In the event City and Developer are unable to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action or proceeding, each party may select its own legal counsel at its own expense. G. Notices Any notice or communication required hereunder between the parties shall be in writing, and shall be given by overnight (with tracking), registered or certified mail (return receipt requested). If given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of: (i) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) two business days after such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited with the overnight carrier, or (iii) five days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States Mail. Any party hereto, may at any time, by giving ten days written notice to the other party hereto, designate a different address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their respective addresses set forth below: If to City: With a copy to: If to Developer: Community Development Director City of Vacaville 650 Merchant Street Vacaville, California City Attorney City of Vacaville 650 Merchant Street Vacaville, California Lagoon Valley Residential, LLC c/o CalAtlantic Homes, East Bay Division 24

102 Exhibit A to Ordinance Attention: Division President 4750 Willow Road, Suite 150 Pleasanton, California With a copy to: Lagoon Valley Residential, LLC c/o CalAtlantic Group, Inc. Attention: General Counsel Barranca Parkway Irvine, California H. No Joint Venture Or Partnership Nothing contained in this Agreement or in any document executed in connection with this Agreement shall be construed as creating any joint venture or partnership between City and Developer. I. Severability If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable by a court of law but the remainder of this Agreement can be enforced without failure of material consideration to any party, then this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unless amended or modified in writing by mutual consent of the parties. J. Interpretation To the maximum extent possible, this Agreement shall be construed to provide binding effect to the Vested Elements, to facilitate use of the Project Site as therein contemplated and to allow development to proceed upon all of the terms and conditions applicable thereto, including, without limitation, public improvements to be constructed and public areas to be dedicated. K. Completion Or Revocation Upon completion of performance by the parties or termination of this Agreement, a written statement acknowledging such completion or termination, signed by the appropriate agents of City and Developer, shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Solano, California. L. Construction All parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and review of this Agreement and no presumption or rule that ambiguity shall be construed against a drafting party shall apply to interpretation or enforcement hereof. Captions and section headings are provided for convenience only and shall not be deemed to limit, amend or affect the meaning of the provision to which they apply. M. Counterpart Execution 25

103 Exhibit A to Ordinance This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and shall be deemed duly executed when each of the parties has executed such a counterpart. N. Time Time is of the essence of each and every provision hereof. Signatures on following page. 26

104 Exhibit A to Ordinance IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY CITY OF VACAVILLE, a municipal corporation Approved as to form: Leonard J. Augustine, Mayor Melinda C. H. Stewart, Assistant City Attorney DEVELOPER Lagoon Valley Residential, LLC, a California limited liability company By: CalAtlantic Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation Its: Member By: Its: Operational Vice-President [ADD NOTARY CERTIFICATES] 27

105 Exhibit A to Exhibit Ordinance A

106 Exhibit A to Ordinance

107 Attachment 1

108 Attachment 1

109 Attachment 2