Woodland Research & Technology Park community concerns discussed – Daily Democrat
The Woodland Planning Commission discussed the city Research & Technology Park’s specific plan and environmental impact report, which addressed issues with parking, affordability, a possible school site and other general community concerns.
City Manager Ken Hiatt said that the meeting was only about giving the commission and the public the opportunity to provide comments or ask questions about the plan and the report. No formal action was taken by the commission during Thursday’s meeting.
The possibility of zoning an area for the construction of a future school was one area of concern brought up by commissioners.
“We have received quite a few comments about the development of a school site in the project,” Erika Bumgardner, business development liaison for the city of Woodland, said. “The planned area does allow for a 10-acre elementary school site and goes so far as to identify the preferred location in the plan just north of the 11-acre linear park.”
Spring Lake community member Brian Coward sent in an email regarding his worries over the formal inclusion of a school in the land use and zoning maps of the specific plan. His concerns were read aloud during public comment.
“All efforts should be made to allow the district time to plan, finance and construct the school as it is critical to a healthy and vibrant community,” he stated in his email.
Coward explained that he’s been working with the city and Woodland School District staff since 2018 to raise awareness on the lack of planning that has been taken into consideration of elementary students in the Spring Lake area.
“We know through the district’s own study there will be 1,000 elementary-age students in the Spring Lake and tech park area that if there is no elementary school built will require a car in order to get to school across town or in Davis.”
Coward addressed how this would also go against the project’s attempt to be environmentally friendly because of the emissions created through the need to drive students to schools if a school is not built.
Planning commission member Fred Lopez said he believes Coward had a valid concern regarding the zoning of a school.
“I’ve seen a lot of times where plans have been laid out and something just never takes place or gets left out,” Lopez said. “It’s sometimes a park, a school or apartment complexes so [Coward] has a point writing that he wants that area designated.”
Bumgardner mentioned that the applicant team is supportive of a school site in the area and that they are looking to the school district to determine the need.
“City staff, the applicant team and the school district are currently in discussion to identify timing, need funding mechanisms and how the project can support the district in this area,” she assured.
However, the project’s draft land use map has not zoned any area for a school yet. All of the land on the map is designated as residential, greenbelt, open space or area for the Research & Technology Park itself.
Two other main issues Bumgardner addressed during the meeting were parking and the affordability of homes in the new project.
Parking has been a concern for neighboring residents who are worried about non-residential areas lacking enough parking, which would then result in a spillover into residential areas, according to Bumgardner.
“We took a look at parking standards and I’m confident that ample parking will be provided in both the private lots and street parking,” she stated.
Bumgardner also explained that over half of the residential area in the plan is currently zoned for medium and high-density housing. This would support smaller lot sizes and smaller housing units and allow for some affordable housing in the area.
“The project is subject to the city’s affordable housing ordinance, which requires a percentage of the units that be developed to be restricted at low and very low-income levels or that or that an in-lieu fee be paid to support low-income housing development either in the planned area or throughout the city,” she said.
Environmental impact report project manager Matthew Gerken pointed out several significant and unavoidable environmental effects created by this project as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirement.
Some things that might be affected include aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, air quality, cultural and tribal cultural resources, noise and vibration.
“With air quality for a plan of this size and scale, operational effects, ozone precursors and fine dust is pretty much unavoidable for a project that is this large,” Gerken emphasized. “It’s very difficult to mitigate short-term construction-related air quality effects for a project like this.”
“There are often effects among roadways that might have some noise-sensitive uses along with them. Most of the areas where transportation would increase are areas where there won’t be noise-sensitive uses, but there is that possibility.”
Public comment for the draft specific plan and EIR will be closing July 2 and an update on outreach and community feedback received will be given to the City Council on July 6, according to Bumgardner.
“If people have concerns or questions about the plan, I would encourage them to start at the FAQ page,” Bumgardner said.
Gloss