Agenda packet — Woodland City Council, November 7, 2023 (part 2 of 6)

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Biological Resources 2.4-4 City of Woodland
the most common feature is an irrigation ditch. Most areas mapped were done so based on vegetation alone, although a few contained standing water at the time of the survey. The proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change. Therefore, there would be no potential for the annexations to have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, and there would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

It is likely that some wetlands and waterways in the proposed annexation areas would qualify as waters of the United States due to hydrological connectivity to navigable waters (e.g., the Sacramento River via Willow Slough, Cache Creek, and the Yolo Bypass) or adjacency to other waters of the United States; however, some wetlands may be disclaimed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as isolated waters or may be excluded from regulation under the Clean Water Act. Ditches, including agricultural ditches that were not constructed in streams, are not modified streams, do not drain wetlands, and have only ephemeral or intermittent flow are generally excluded from the Clean Water Act according to the Clean Water Rule issued July 13, 2015 (80 Federal Register [FR] 37053). As required, compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would reduce potential impacts on federally protected wetlands because it would require project applicants to obtain a permit from the USACE for any activity resulting in fill of wetlands and other waters of the United States. A wetland mitigation plan that satisfies USACE requirements will be needed as part of the permit application.

Project applicants that obtain a Section 404 permit would also be required to obtain water quality certification from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If the project involves work in areas containing waters disclaimed by the USACE, project applicants would be required to obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement permit from the Central Valley RWQCB pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act. In accordance with these state and federal regulations, mitigation resulting in no net loss of functions and values of affected wetlands and waters is required. General Plan Policy 7.B.11 requires that new development be sited to maximize the protection of native tree species and special-status plan and wildlife habitats and General Plan Implementation Programs 7.4 (as provided under item ‘a)’ above) and 7.5 minimize the loss and degradation of federally protected wetlands. Compliance with the policies would be required as Conditions of Approval of any future proposed development within the annexation areas, thereby reducing the potential direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other adverse effects on state or federally protected wetlands. In addition, in order to avoid loss or degradation of federally protected waters, Compliance Measure 2 would be required as a Condition of Approval of any future development within the proposed annexation areas, as applicable. These policies, implementation programs, and the compliance measure are identified in Appendix A, Table A-2.

Page 144 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.4-5 Biological Resources
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The City of Woodland is located within the Pacific flyway, which is a major north-south route for migratory birds along western North America. Large numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds may move through the area seasonally and may congregate and forage in wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural fields during winter or use them as resting grounds during longer migrations from the Arctic to Central or South America. There are no native wildlife nursery sites within the proposed annexation areas. The proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change. Therefore, there would be no potential for the annexations to have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, and there would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As detailed in Impact 4.4-5 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the City’s Planning Area and areas designated for development under the do not currently provide an important connection between any areas of natural habitat that would otherwise be isolated and the Planning Area is not located within any of the ecological corridors identified in the Yolo HCP/NCCP as important to maintaining connectivity between communities, habitat patches, species populations, or the Yolo HCP/NCCP proposed reserve system, and development envisioned under the 2035 General Plan would not cause any areas of natural habitat to become isolated. No native wildlife nursery sites have been identified in the City’s Planning Area. Potential future projects within the annexation areas would be consistent with that accounted for under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. Although a tree inventory has not been completed for the annexation areas, the reconnaissance surveys confirmed several trees are present in the annexation areas. The proposed annexations would not propose any development or physically alter the land in any way, and therefore would not have any effect on these resources and there would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 145 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Biological Resources 2.4-6 City of Woodland
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Annexation areas are within the Yolo HCP/NCCP, and any future development will be required to comply with all applicable AMMs as provided in Chapter 7 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). The proposed annexations would not propose any development or physically alter the land in any way, and therefore would not have any effect on these resources and there would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. The avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures included in Appendix A to address biological resources are consistent with the Yolo HCP/NCCP (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018), as well as the 2035 General Plan policies and implementation programs, which maintain consistency with the Yolo HCP/NCCP. General Plan General Plan Implementation Program 7.4 requires implementation of the Yolo HCP/NCCP to mitigate the impacts of growth projected under the General Plan on plant and wildlife habitats in the Woodland area. There are no sensitive habitats or other lands in the proposed annexation areas that are identified in the Yolo HCP/NCCP as a part of the future reserves system. Therefore, any potential future projects within the proposed annexation areas would not reduce the effectiveness of the Yolo HCP/NCCP conservation strategy and would not interfere with attaining the overall biological goals and objectives of the Yolo HCP/NCCP.

Furthermore, the Conditions of Approval identified to address impact questions a) and b) above would ensure consistency of future projects with the provisions of the Yolo County HCP/NCCP. The City of Woodland is a permittee and participant of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, and will avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on covered species and habitats consistent with the Yolo HCP/NCCP conservation strategy, as described above.

Page 146 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.5-1 Cultural Resources

2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact. As documented in support of the 2035 General Plan Update and CAP EIR, there are no California Register of Historical Resources eligible or otherwise resources within the City’s Planning Area, and a California Native American Heritage Commission review of the Sacred Lands File resulted in no identified resources of concern within the City’s Planning Area, inclusive of the proposed annexation areas. Furthermore, a reconnaissance pedestrian cultural resources survey of the proposed annexation areas was conducted on September 15, 16, 23, 30, and October 4, 2021. The detailed methodology and results are provided as a Cultural Resources Memorandum for the Woodland Annexations (AECOM 2021b). As detailed in this memorandum, no cultural resources either historic or prehistoric were observed during these surveys.

Though record searches and reconnaissance pedestrian cultural resources survey did not identify historical resources in the proposed annexation areas, the broader vicinity does have an elevated sensitivity for cultural resources, due to the long-standing Native American inhabitation and past historical agricultural and settlement uses. It is reasonable to assume that there could be unknown resources in the vicinity that could be historical resources under CEQA.

Land use modifications with intensive grading, trenching, excavation, soil stockpiling, and other earthmoving activities could impact previously unrecorded cultural resources, including the potential to damage or destroy unknown cultural resources that qualify as historical resources under CEQA. The significance of such resources could be materially impaired because their ability to convey significance could be destroyed or diminished. As the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physical alteration of the land in any way, they do not have the potential to change the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As noted above, no known historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 are present within the proposed annexation areas. However, the potential exists for previously undiscovered resources to occur within the proposed annexation areas. If previously undiscovered resources were to be found during construction of future projects within the proposed annexation areas, such activity could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuance to Section 15064.5. In order to minimize impacts associated with the potential occurrence and disturbance of previously undiscovered resources, any future proposed development within the annexation areas would be subject to 2035 General Plan Policy 7.E.2 and related Implementation Program 7.13 as Conditions of Approval to address the discovery of resources, including evaluation and protection, as appropriate, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. In addition, Compliance Measure Cultural 1 would be required as a Condition of Approval, to provide appropriate cultural resources sensitivity training to all on-site workers to identify potential resources and be informed of required actions in the case of discovery. These Conditions of Approval for future development projects within the proposed annexation areas are detailed in Appendix A, Table A-2.

Page 147 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Cultural Resources 2.5-2 City of Woodland
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact. As documented in support of the 2035 General Plan Update and CAP EIR, there are no previously recorded archaeological resources within the City’s Planning Area. Furthermore, a reconnaissance pedestrian cultural resources survey of the proposed annexation areas was conducted on September 15, 16, 23, 30, and October 4, 2021, as detailed in Appendix C to this initial study; there were no signs of subsurface artifacts.

Nonetheless, projects involving intensive grading, trenching, excavation, soil stockpiling, and other earthmoving activities could impact previously unrecorded cultural resources including the potential to damage or destroy archaeological and historic architectural resources that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. The significance of such resources could be materially impaired because their ability to convey significance could be destroyed or diminished. However, as the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physical alteration of the land in any way, they do not have the potential to change the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As noted above, the potential exists for previously undiscovered archaeological resources to occur within the proposed annexation areas. If previously undiscovered resources were to be found during construction of future projects within the proposed annexation areas, such activity could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuance to Section 15064.5. As explained above under the discussion of Cultural Resources impact topic a), 2035 General Plan Policy 7.E.2 and related Implementation Program 7.13, as well as Compliance Measure Cultural 1, would be required as Conditions of Approval for future development projects within the proposed annexation areas, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-2.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. he proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physical alteration of the land in any way, they do not have the potential to change the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. While there is no indication that any particular area in the City’s Planning Area, including the proposed annexation areas, has been used for human burial purposes outside of designated cemeteries in the recent or distant past, there is nonetheless the potential for discovery during construction of development and infrastructure projects. To minimize this potential, 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 (incorporated into the final 2035 General Plan as Implementation Program 7.14) requires the City and any contractor take steps in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, Section 6050 through 7052 and Sections 8010 through 8030. Any potential future development within the annexation areas would be

Page 148 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.5-3 Cultural Resources
required to comply with these regulations, which would serve as uniformly applied development standards, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1.

Page 149 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Cultural Resources 2.5-4 City of Woodland

This page intentionally left blank

Page 150 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.6-1 Energy

2.6 ENERGY
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
No Impact. The proposed annexations would not include development or physically alter the land in any way.

Therefore, it would not result in the consumption of energy resources. There would be no impact. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Energy could be consumed during multiple phases of potential future development construction and operations.

Energy-requiring activities range from equipment operating during construction, to building operations, to transportation serving both construction and operational phases.

With regard to construction-related energy consumption, the 2035 General Plan and CAP determined that the Planning Area and anticipated development do not have any unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the City. With regard to operational transportation and building energy consumption, the General Plan contains several policies that promote mixed-use and infill development and site residents, jobs, and retail amenities in proximity of each other to reduce the need for motor vehicle travel, including within new growth areas and opportunities sites, which include land within the proposed annexation areas. Many policies through various mechanisms also support development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and encourage alternative transportation and transit that would promote non-vehicular modes of travel. General Plan policies also encourage minimizing energy and water demand and wastewater generation and encourage methods to minimize solid waste generation and increase waste diversion systems. Similarly, in addition to several City-led initiatives and programs, General Plan Policies 2.E.4, 3.F.4, and 5.H.9 require design features of new development to accommodate alternative modes of transportation and reduce water and wastewater demand and generation, further reducing associated energy consumption. These policies are consistent with components of the California Building Code, Title 20 and Title 24, respectively containing appliance and building energy efficiency standards, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Waters, Divisions 2 (the California Department of Water Resources, Chapter 2.7 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance). The City’s Municipal Code also contains provision for water conservation in landscaping water use and the City’s Interim Zoning Ordinance contains guidelines for new development within Community Commercial Zones to be designed to include connectivity for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access, to enhance opportunities for non-vehicular travel, provide for outdoor spaces and parking lot shading. In addition, Policy 2.C.2 also requires new development to be consistent with the objectives and targets of the City’s CAP, which specifically provides objectives, strategies, and implementation measures to reduce energy demand associated with the City’s Planning Area. The actions identified as required of new development and applicable to the land uses that would be consistent with the prezoning and future zoning of the proposed annexation areas would be achieved through compliance with the California Building Code, including Title 20 and 24. In addition, since the adoption of the General Plan and CAP, the City has implemented several actions to realize the goals of the CAP, including those related to energy conservation and efficiency; these action include, but are not limited to

Page 151 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Energy 2.6-2 City of Woodland
becoming a member of the Valley Clean Energy Alliance Join Powers Authority to offer increased options for renewable and carbon-free power sources to the community, incremental replacement of the City’s infrastructure with energy efficient technology, and conversion of gasoline and diesel-powered City vehicles with those powered by alternative fuel technology. Therefore, any future proposed development within the annexation areas would achieve energy efficiency and conservation through uniformly applied development standards, as included in Appendix A, Table A-1.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. As described in Section 2.6.1 above, the proposed annexations would result in any energy consumption. In addition, they would not include any land use change and would obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. There would be no impact. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Therefore, any future proposed development within the annexation areas would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Page 152 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.7-1 Geology and Soils

2.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
No Impact. The annexation areas are not located within or adjacent to a fault zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act. (California Geological Survey [CGS] 2015). As detailed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.7-5), the nearest fault zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act is the Green Valley Fault Zone, in the Howell Mountains (also called the Mt. George Range), approximately 29.5 miles to the southwest. Thus, there would be no impact.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact. There are no known fault traces within or adjacent to the annexation areas or the City’s Planning Area as a whole. However, segments 3 and 4 of the Great Valley Fault Zone (GVFZ), which is a blind-thrust fault belt located along the margin between the Central Valley and the Coast Ranges, is located approximately 6 miles to the west of the City’s border.

The intensity of ground shaking depends on the distance from the earthquake epicenter to the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, and site soil conditions. Peak horizontal ground acceleration, which is a measure of the projected intensity of ground shaking from seismic events, can be estimated by probabilistic method using a computer model. The CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment Model (CGS 2008) indicates that a minimum peak horizontal acceleration of 0.26 g (where g is the percentage of gravity) could be expected. This means there is a 1-in-10 probability that an earthquake will occur within 50 years that would result in a peak horizontal ground acceleration exceeding 0.26 g in the City’s SOI, which indicates that a moderate level of seismic ground shaking could occur. The 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2008) has projected that segments 3 and 4 of the GVFZ could produce an earthquake with a maximum moment magnitude of 6.6–6.8. An earthquake of this magnitude along the GVFZ or any of the other active faults in the Coast Ranges would result in strong seismic ground shaking within the city of Woodland.

The proposed annexations would not include any proposed development and therefore would not have the potential for any risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking . There would be no impact .

Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 153 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Geology and Soils 2.7-2 City of Woodland
Division, Chapter 14, Sections 14001–14036, which require preparation of a site-specific geotechnical and engineering report that contains recommendations to reduce seismic, geologic, and soils hazards. Furthermore, any potential future development would be required by law to be designed and constructed in accordance with the current edition of the California Building Code, which contains engineering and design requirements (including preparation of a geotechnical report) that are specifically intended to reduce the loss of life and property from seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking. Any future development within the proposed annexation areas would be consistent with that anticipated under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and the potential for substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking would be addressed through compliance with regulatory compliance, including design standards, where applicable, as uniformly applied development standards, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Soil liquefaction occurs when ground shaking from an earthquake causes a sediment layer saturated with groundwater to lose strength and take on the characteristics of a fluid, becoming similar to quicksand.

Factors determining liquefaction potential are soil type, level, and duration of ground motions, and depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is most likely to occur in low-lying areas where the substrate consists of poorly consolidated to unconsolidated water-saturated sediments, recent Holocene-age sediments, or deposits of artificial fill. The locations that are most susceptible to liquefaction-induced damage have loose, water-saturated, granular sediment that is within 40 feet of the ground surface. However, where this condition is known to exist, proper structural and foundation design can usually minimize or eliminate liquefaction hazards to new construction.

Groundwater elevations in the Woodland area have varied over time depending on the amount of precipitation and the amount of groundwater pumping. Historically, groundwater elevations in the region have ranged from approximately 20 feet to 50 feet mean sea level (msl) (City of Woodland 2011). Furthermore, portions of the city, including within the annexation areas, are composed of unconsolidated Holocene-age alluvial deposits, and an active seismic source (the GFVZ) is located nearby. Therefore, these areas could be subject to liquefaction in the event of a large magnitude earthquake. However, the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development and therefore would not have the potential for any risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, there would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 154 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.7-3 Geology and Soils
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslide susceptibility is based on various combinations of factors such as rainfall, rock and soil types, slope, vegetation, seismic conditions, and human construction activities. Generally, landslides are expected to occur most often on slopes steeper than 15 percent, in areas with a history of landslides, and in areas underlain by geologic units that are weakly cemented. The proposed annexation areas are located on a nearly flat alluvial plain in the central Sacramento Valley. There are no steep slopes within the annexation areas or in the vicinity where landslides could occur. Thus, there would be no impact. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.7-2 (pages 4.7-27 through 4.7-29), construction projects have the potential to cause an increase in soil erosion due to increased grading, excavation, movement of construction vehicles, and other development-related construction activities. However, the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, and therefore would not have the potential to cause an increase in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. There would be no impact. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. Potential future development within the annexation areas would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and City permitting requirements, which are specifically designed to minimize constructed-related soil erosion to the maximum extent feasible. Chapter 15.12 of the City of Woodland Municipal Code addresses erosion and sediment control under the City’s Grading Ordinance. Proposed development within the city must obtain a grading permit that includes submittal of a soils engineering report and an engineering geology report specific to the project site, as required by Appendix Chapter 33 of the CBC, Section 3309. Chapter 8.08 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates discharges into the municipal storm drain system, including compliance with applicable provisions of construction National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Furthermore, projects that would disturb more than 1 acre of land, must comply with the requirements in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-009-Division of Water Quality [DWQ] as amended by Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWRCB general permit contains a numeric, two-part, risk-based analysis process and requires development of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The SWPPP must include a site map and a description of construction activities, and must identify the BMPs that will be employed to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction- related pollutants. Project applicants for any potential future projects would be required to comply with the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016b). These standards apply to transportation, storm drainage, sewer, wastewater pumping, water distribution, graywater distribution, underground pipelines, and other improvements, and are designed, in part, to avoid impacts related to geologic and seismic constraints. In addition, General Plan Policy 5.I.4 requires new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate site design and low impact development runoff requirements, in accordance with the Municipal Code, and Policy 5.I.5 prohibits grading activities during the rainy season, unless adequately mitigated, such as through implementation of BMPs and the SWPPP consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 8.08, as detailed above, to avoid sedimentation of storm drainage facilities. These

Page 155 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Geology and Soils 2.7-4 City of Woodland
General Plan policies would be achieved through the above noted City Municipal Code and State regulations, that would serve as uniformly applied development standards applicable to future proposed development within the annexation areas and are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.7-3 (pages 4.7-30 and 4.7-31), construction in unstable and expansive soils could result in structural damage to buildings, roads, and bridges.

Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture change. These volume changes can result in damage over time to building foundations, underground utilities, and other subsurface facilities and infrastructure if they are not designed and constructed appropriately to resist the damage associated with changing soil conditions. Low soil bearing strength and long periods of soil saturation can result in subsidence from the weight of overlying structures. The proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physically alter the land in any way, and therefore would not have the potential to cause an increase in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. There would be no impact. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As discussed in Section 2.7.a (iv), there are no slopes within the annexation areas or in the vicinity where landslides would be likely to occur. However, as discussed in Section 2.7.a (iii) above, groundwater elevations in the region have historically ranged from approximately 20 feet to 50 feet msl (City of Woodland 2011) and active seismic sources are located nearby, making these areas reasonably subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence in the event of a large magnitude earthquake. Future development within the annexation areas would be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and City permitting requirements, which contain engineering and design requirements (including preparation of a geotechnical report) that are specifically intended to reduce the loss of life and property from geologic hazards, including unstable soils. Any future development within the annexation areas would be consistent with that anticipated under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and the potential for on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse would be addressed through compliance with regulatory compliance, including design standards, where applicable.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. Expansive soils are composed largely of clays, which greatly increase in volume when saturated with water and shrink when dried. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture change. These volume changes can result in damage over time to building foundations, underground utilities, and other subsurface facilities and infrastructure if they are not designed and constructed appropriately to resist the damage associated with changing soil conditions. Based on a review of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (2015) soil survey data, most of the soil types in the City, including the annexation areas (as shown in General Plan Figure

4.7-3, page 4.7-11), have a moderate to very high shrink-swell potential, indicating that the soils are expansive.

Page 156 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.7-5 Geology and Soils
Because of this shrink-swell effect, structural foundations may rise during the rainy season and fall during the dry season. If this expansive movement varies beneath different parts of a structure, the foundation may crack and portions of the structure may become distorted. Retaining walls and underground utilities may be damaged for the same reasons. However, the proposed annexations do not include any development and therefore would not have the potential to create a direct or indirect substantial risk to life or property due to structures or infrastructure located on expansive soil. There would be no impact. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physically alter the land in any way, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. Future development within the annexation areas would be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls. This chapter regulates the preparation of a preliminary soil report, engineering geologic report, geotechnical report, and supplemental ground-response report. Chapter 18 also regulates analysis of expansive soils and the determination of the depth to groundwater table. Compliance with the CBC is required by law. The CBC requires preparation of geotechnical engineering reports that include specific recommendations for construction in expansive soil, which would ensure that buildings, roads, and parking lots are designed appropriately based on site-specific conditions. In addition, future development within the proposed annexation areas would be subject to General Plan Policy 8.A.3, requiring the evaluation and avoidance of siting structures across soil materials of substantially different expansive properties, as well as appropriate design specification in areas of expansive soils. This General Plan policy is detailed in Appendix A and would serve as a Condition of Approval of future proposed development within the annexation areas in areas of expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. Based on a review of Natural Resources Conservation Service (2015) soil data, the soils within Woodland are rated with moderate limitations for construction of buildings and roads because of low soil strength, subsidence potential, and ponding and soil saturation, as well as a moderate to very high shrink-swell potential, indicating that the soils are expansive. Construction in unstable soils could result in structural damage to buildings, roads, and bridges. Soils within Woodland have a low permeability rate and a high water holding capacity and thus tend to “perc” too slowly, rendering them unsuitable for conventional septic systems. Based on a review of Natural Resources Conservation Service (2015) soil data, the soils are generally unsuitable for conventional septic systems. However, the proposed annexations do not include any development and therefore there would be no use of septic tanks or alterative wastewater disposal systems. There would be no impact.

Page 157 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Geology and Soils 2.7-6 City of Woodland
unstable soils and on-site wastewater treatment for any future proposed development. Policy 5.H.6 requires that all sewage generators within its service area to connect to the City’s system, except those areas where the City has determined a connection to the City’s sewage collection system would be infeasible. In addition, in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-3a of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was incorporated as part of the Final General Plan (Implementation Program 5.14) to require site-specific evaluation where soils are proposed for use as leach fields associated with wastewater treatment and require that all septic systems or other forms of on-site wastewater treatment and disposal facilities by design to meet specific criteria. This General Plan policy and mitigation measure are detailed in Appendix A and would serve as conditions of approval of any future proposed development within the annexation areas.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Impact. Geologic units that are exposed at the surface in the Woodland area consist of levee, channel, and basin deposits, and the Modesto and Riverbank Formations (see Exhibit 4.7-1 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR). These deposits are underlain by the Pleistocene-age Red Bluff Formation, and the Plio-Pleistocene-age Tehama Formation. Collectively, the thickness of the Holocene deposits and the Modesto, Riverbank, and Red Bluff Formations is approximately 100–200 feet (City of Woodland 2011: Appendix C). As a common industry threshold, a fossil is typically considered a unique paleontological resource if it is more than 11,700 years old (i.e., the generally accepted end of the last glacial period of the Pleistocene Epoch). The levee, channel, and basin deposits in the Woodland Area are of the Holocene age (i.e., 11,700 years Before Present to present day), and contain only the remains of extant, modern taxa, if any resources are present; therefore these formations are not considered “unique” paleontological resources. The Modesto Formation and Riverbank Formation deposits are of the Pleistocene age and more likely to contain a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. In addition, a records search conduced in support of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.7-17) identified several vertebrate fossil localities referable to either the Modesto or the Riverbank Formations in the region. Because of the age and number of vertebrate fossils that have been recovered from the Modesto and Riverbank Formations, they are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity. The proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physically alter the land in anyway and therefore would not have the potential to, directly or indirectly, destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

There would be no impact. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 158 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.7-7 Geology and Soils
Implementation Program are detailed in Appendix A; Implementation Program 7.15 would serve as a Conditions of Approval of any future proposed development within the annexation areas to ensure the appropriate handling of such resources in the case of unanticipated discovery, even in areas of low potential for unique paleontological resources.

Page 159 ends

Page 160 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.8-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a, b) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purposes of Reducing Emissions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
No Impact. The proposed annexations do not include development or any physical change. Therefore, it would not result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. There would be no impact. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR assumes development within the annexation areas, with the exception of the areas designated as Flood Study Area (i.e., within the Barnard Street Annexation Area, Pirmi Annexation Area, and Northeast Annexation Area), based upon the 2035 General Plan land use designations and development density assumptions. While, as explained above, the proposed annexations do not include any development, any future development within the annexation areas could result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions during multiple phases of potential future development construction and operations. Greenhouse gas-generating activities range from equipment operating during construction, to building operations, to transportation serving both construction and operational phases.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.5-1 (pages 4.5-20 to 4.5-41) discusses potential impacts related to generation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP. The EIR estimates the maximum annual and total GHG emissions from development throughout the City’s Planning Area anticipated under the 2035 General Plan, in addition to short-term emissions associated with equipment upgrades, renewable energy facility installations, energy efficiency building upgrades, tree planting, and other measures included in the City’s 2035 CAP. Maximum annual emissions (operations plus amortized annual construction emissions) and the projected service population within the City’s Planning Area for the year 2035 were used to estimate the GHG efficiency rate for implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP.

The General Plan contains several policies that promote mixed-use and infill development and site residents, jobs, and retail amenities in proximity of each other to reduce the need for motor vehicle travel, which is a primary source of greenhouse gas emissions from implementation of the 2035 General Plan. Many policies through various mechanisms also support development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and encourage alternative transportation and transit that would promote non-vehicular modes of travel. General Plan policies also encourage minimizing water use and wastewater generation and encourage methods to minimize solid waste generation and increase waste diversion systems. Policy 2.C.2 requires new development to be consistent with the objectives and targets of the City’s CAP3, and Policy 7.F.9 requires the CAP be implemented to achieve the City’s GHG reduction targets by 2020, 2035, and 2050. In addition, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a to ensure that the City maintain and update its GHG inventory and CAP as new information becomes available and to ensure the City stays on target to achieve is GHG emissions targets for future years.

3 The City of Woodland 2035 CAP establishes GHG emissions targets for the years 2020 and 2035 for the City’s Planning Area. The 2020 target of the 2035 CAP was set to achieve emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels. The 2035 target of the 2035 CAP was developed to achieve an emissions efficiency level of 2.25 MT CO2e per service population (residents + employees).

Page 161 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2.8-2 City of Woodland
Ultimately, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that implementation of the CAP would achieve local annual reductions that, when combined with estimated future anticipated statewide reductions, would achieve a GHG efficiency per service population that would contribute a fair share of the emissions reductions required by the State’s emissions reductions consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 (since signed into law via SB 32), and Executive Order S-3-05 emissions reductions, based on the contemplated land use within the 2035 General Plan. Achieving this level of GHG emissions efficiency in Woodland for the 2035 General Plan horizon year demonstrates the City’s share of the State’s emissions targets for 2020, 2035, and 2050.

The proposed annexations do not propose any change in land use designation from what was analyzed under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and the prezoning for each annexation area would be consistent with the General Plan land use designations within each of the proposed annexation areas.

CEQA Guidelines 15183.5(b) states “a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under specified circumstances.” As noted above, General Plan Policy 2.C.2 requires that new development, including that which could be proposed in the future within the proposed annexation areas, be consist with the objectives and targets of the City’s CAP4, which specifically provides objectives, strategies, and implementation measures to reduce GHG emissions so that such development would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change. Since the adoption of the 2035 General Plan and CAP, the City has implemented several actions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the City’s Planning Area, including establishing a CAP Consistency Checklist for proposed development, subject to CEQA, to demonstrate consistency with the City’s CAP; those strategies identified as required of land uses consistent with the zoning of the proposed annexation areas would be achieved through compliance with the California Building Code, including Title 20 and 24. In addition, as described in Section 2.17, “Transportation,” of this Initial Study, General Plan Policy 3.A.4 is required as a Condition of Approval of any future proposed development within the annexation areas, thereby achieving GHG emissions reductions from vehicle travel consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. However, the City’s CAP is required to be reviewed and revised periodically to reflect the evolving state targets and regulatory framework for GHG reductions over time. Therefore, General Plan Policy 2.C.2 would serve as a Condition of Approval required of any future proposed development within the annexation areas to ensure such development is consistent with the City’s then-current CAP and state targets, plans and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions.

4 The City of Woodland 2035 CAP establishes GHG emissions targets for the years 2020 and 2035 for the City’s Planning Area. The 2020 target of the 2035 CAP was set to achieve emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels. The 2035 target of the 2035 CAP was developed to achieve an emissions efficiency level of 2.25 MT CO2e per service population (residents + employees).

Page 162 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.9-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.8-2), major transportation routes within Woodland include Interstate 5 and State Route 113, surface streets, the California Northern Railroad, and the Sierra Northern Railway. Natural gas pipelines also extend throughout Woodland, roughly following Interstate 5 to the northwest and Farnham Avenue to the southeast; along North Pioneer Avenue and Bourn Drive from East Beamer Street to the southern City limits; Main Street and East Gibson Road between Bourn Drive and East Street; and County Road 98 from Interstate 5 to West Main Street. Transportation accidents involving hazardous materials could occur on any of the routes, potentially resulting in explosions, physical contact by emergency response personnel, environmental degradation, and exposure to the public.

New land uses may require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous material and waste and may increase exposure to risk of hazards. Construction activities may also generate hazardous materials and waste, such as fuels and oils from construction equipment and vehicles. However, the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or related transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, there would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR assumes development within the annexation areas, with the exception of the areas designated as Flood Study Area (i.e., within the Barnard Street Annexation Area, Pirmi Annexation Area, and Northeast Annexation Area), based upon the 2035 General Plan land use designations and development density assumptions. While, as explained above, the proposed annexations do not include any development, any potential future development within the annexation areas could include the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction or operational phases.

Federal and State regulations require adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transportation, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials. The U.S. EPA is responsible for administering the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The Yolo County Department of Community Services Environmental Health Services Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency for the County and responsible for implementing hazardous waste and materials State standards, including a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, California Accidental Release Prevention Program, and managing fuel storage tanks. The U.S.

Department of Transportation, Caltrans, and the California Highway Patrol regulate and manage routine transport of hazardous materials on Interstate 5 and State Route 113. The Yolo County Environmental Health HazMat Unit and Multi-Agency Emergency Response Team, which includes the City of Woodland, respond to local hazardous materials emergencies. The City’s General Plan Policies 8.E.2 and 8.E.3 are designed to reduce the potential for adverse impacts from hazardous materials and would be achieved, as applicable, through compliance with requirements administered by the Yolo County Department of Community Services Environmental Health Division. Furthermore, the City of Woodland Building Division, as the City’s responsible division for coordinating the enforcement of the City’s Building Code and related policies concerning constriction within the City, provides oversight through a “plan check” and “inspection” process that ensures projects are designed and constructed according to the state and local codes. The City includes a Hazardous Materials Survey, as a part of

Page 163 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2.9-2 City of Woodland
this process, to identify applicable measures with regard to hazardous materials prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition, City of Woodland Municipal Code 8.20.010 prescribes regulations of state codes governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire, explosion, or hazardous materials. Any impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with future potential development within the annexation areas would be mitigated through compliance with the aforementioned local and regional uniformly applied development policies, and consistent with those impact identified under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
No Impact. Releases, leaks, or disposal of chemical compounds, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, on or below the ground surface, can lead to contamination of underlying soil and groundwater. Disturbance of a previously contaminated area through grading or excavation operations could expose the public to health hazards from physical contact with contaminated materials or hazardous vapors. Improper handling or storage of contaminated soil and groundwater can further expose the public to these hazards, or potentially spread contamination through surface water runoff or air-borne dust. However, the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physically alter the land in any way, and therefore would not have the potential for upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR assumes development within the annexation areas, with the exception of the areas designated as Flood Study Area (i.e., within Annexation Areas 1, 3, and the Northeast Annexation Area), based upon the 2035 General Plan land use designations and development density assumptions. While, as explained above, the proposed annexations do not include any development, certain land uses under any future proposed development within the annexation areas could result in upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Currently, there are no reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment within the proposed annexation areas. As detailed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.8-1 to 4.8-3) and based upon the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor hazardous waste facility and cleanup sites databases (DTSC 2016), as well as the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker permitted Underground Storage Tanks and cleanup sites databases (SWRCB 2016), there are no sites with known or suspected release of hazardous materials to soil and groundwater, and where current cleanup activities monitored by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Department of Toxic Substances Control are active, within the proposed annexation areas. The nearest open cleanup sites to the proposed annexation areas identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR are one at Kentucky Avenue at the southwest corner of the Westucky Annexation Area, and one at East Beamer Street just west of the Northeast Annexation Area.

Although the risk of upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment cannot be completely eliminated, it can be reduced to a manageable level. Any potential future development would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations, as detailed under impact discussion a)

Page 164 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.9-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
above. These regulations and policies are designed to reduce the potential for adverse impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials, including risks associated with future operation of the various types of land uses that would be allowable under the existing land use designations for the proposed annexation areas, and would serve as uniformly applied development standards for any discretionary development project or new development that will generate hazardous wastes or utilize hazardous materials within the proposed annexation areas, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less-than-Significant Level. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the proposed annexation areas. There would be no impact.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. In October 2021, AECOM performed a search of publicly available databases maintained under Public Resources Code Section 65962.5 (i.e., the “Cortese List”) to determine whether any known hazardous materials are present either on or within 0.25 mile of the project site. The results of these records searches indicated that the proposed annexation areas do not include a known hazardous materials site (DTSC 2021, SWRCB 2021, EPA 2021). Therefore, the proposed annexation areas would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and there would be no impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The nearest public use airport is the Yolo County Airport located at 25170 Aviation Avenue in Davis, approximately 6.2 miles southwest of the City’s boundaries. The nearest Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area is that of the Sacramento International Airport; the plan area extends within the eastern extent of the City’s boundaries, but not to the proposed annexation areas. The proposed annexation areas are not located within an Airport Land Use Plan area nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. There would be no impact.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The adopted Yolo County Emergency Operations Plan (in which the City is a participant) addresses the County and incorporated Cities’ planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with any type of natural disaster, technological incident, or state of war emergency. General Plan Policy 8.F.2 supports the continued coordination between the City and relevant agencies in preparing for and operating during an emergency. The proposed annexations do not propose any development nor any physical change, and therefore would not have the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 165 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2.9-4 City of Woodland
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR assumes development within the annexation areas, with the exception of the areas designated as Flood Study Area (i.e., within the Barnard Street Annexation Area, Pirmi Annexation Area, and Northeast Annexation Area), based upon the 2035 General Plan land use designations and development density assumptions. While, as explained above, the proposed annexations do not include any development, potential future development within the proposed annexation areas could result in an increased population that may require emergency response services or evacuation. However, any proposed development would subject to design review by the City, and are required to comply with City standards relating to appropriate street design to accommodate emergency vehicles and emergency evacuation thoroughfares to ensure that emergency response or evacuation would not be impaired.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. As shown on General Plan Figure 8-7, “Fire Hazards,” and Exhibit 4.8-4 in the 2035 General Plan CAP EIR, the proposed annexation areas are not located in or near a State Responsibility Area, but are located in a Local Responsibility Area. Furthermore, the proposed annexation areas are not located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone and are not located in a wildland-urban interface fire area. As a result, the wildland fire threat is considered low by the local agency responsible for fire protection services (i.e., the City of Woodland).

Therefore, there would be no impact related to wildland fire hazards.

Page 166 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.10-1 Hydrology and Water Quality

2.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-1 (pages 4.9-33 through 4.9-38), land use changes have the potential to alter the types, quantities, and timing of contaminant discharges in stormwater runoff. Sediment, trash, organic contaminants, nutrients, trace metals, pathogens (e.g., bacteria and viruses), and oil and grease compounds are common urban runoff pollutants that can affect receiving water quality. In addition, agricultural runoff commonly contains elevated levels of nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides.

As the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physical alteration of the land in any way, they do not have the potential to degrade surface or ground water quality in any way. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Industrial and commercial facilities require appropriate NPDES permits/waste discharge requirements, and implementation of BMPs consistent with the California Stormwater Quality Association Industrial/Commercial BMP Handbook (2019) or its equivalent, including annual reporting of any structural control measures and treatment systems. Urban development projects must also comply with the requirements in the SWRCB’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order 2009-009-DWQ as amended by Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) with requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs designed to reduce erosion and pollutant transport. General Plan Policies

5.I.3, 5.I.4, 5.I.5, and 7.A.4 were designed to reduce the potential for violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and are implemented through the above noted regulations and permit requirements as uniformly applied development standards, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-4 (page 4.9-48), an increase in water demands and associated depletion of groundwater supplies could result from the land use changes throughout the City’s Planning Area. The proposed annexations do not propose any new development or otherwise result in an increase in water demand or otherwise deplete groundwater supplies. Therefore, there would be no impact.

There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 167 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Hydrology and Water Quality 2.10-2 City of Woodland
While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physically alter the land in any way, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As noted above, new development could generate an increased demand and associated depletion of groundwater supplies. In a partnership with the City of Davis, Woodland has secured water rights on the Sacramento River and the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency Regional Water Treatment Facility was designed to provide up to 18 million gallons per day (55 acre-feet per day) of surface water to Woodland. As part of the Woodland-Davis Regional Water Supply Project (which was completed in 2016), Woodland now has direct use of surface water, as well as the ability to store some of the treated surface water in the aquifer during low water demand months to be recovered and distributed to customers during high water demand months, under the City’s aquifer storage and recovery program. The City also maintains wells for emergency use and for landscape irrigation in City parks. A limited amount of groundwater from three existing City wells is blended with the surface water; by adding surface water as well as recycled water (for industrial use) to the water supply that has previously been entirely dependent on groundwater, the potential for groundwater depletion is decreased even though implementation of the 2035 General Plan would involve projects that could increase water demand. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan projects zero retail water to come from groundwater sources between 2020 and 2040; 100 percent of water supplies would come from surface water and recycled water supplies. Thus, the addition of surface water to Woodland’s water supply portfolio will substantially reduce groundwater extractions, reduce reliance on groundwater resources, as well as improved water quality.

The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin – Yolo Subbasin is a high priority basin as designated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), but is not in a state of critical overdraft (DWR 2019). The Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency responsible for preparation of the required groundwater sustainability plan. The Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan is in process and will be completed by January 1, 2022, as required by DWR (Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency 2020).

As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-4 (pages 4.9-47 through 4.9-50), the primary areas of groundwater recharge in the Woodland area are the Sacramento River and other active stream channels.

There are no major groundwater recharge areas in the city. Groundwater recharge also occurs as rainfall infiltrating through the soil to the aquifer, particularly in agricultural and open space areas. When impervious surfaces associated with new urban development are constructed on soils with a high water infiltration rate, a localized reduction in groundwater recharge can occur. However, most soils in the city are composed of loams and clays, which typically have low infiltration rates. Although potential future development within the proposed annexation areas could generate an increased demand for water supply, the proposed annexations do not propose any change in land use designation from that under the 2035 General Plan and accounted for in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Furthermore, any potential future development would be required to comply with the City’s Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures (2006) and Post Construction Standard Plan (2015) and incorporate BMPs, such as conserving natural areas and minimizing impervious area, which would reduce potential project interference with groundwater recharge. General Plan Policy 5.I.4 requires the implementation of low impact development features, which could have the potential to locally, and likely minimally, increase groundwater recharge through the construction of infiltrative storm drainage facilities, and would be achieved by any future development within the annexation areas through compliance with the aforementioned state and local regulations and Municipal Code. Therefore, substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge that would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin as a result of potential future development within the proposed annexation areas would

Page 168 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.10-3 Hydrology and Water Quality
be substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-2 (pages 4.9-40 through 4.9-43), earth-moving activities associated with construction of new urban development would result in increased erosion and sedimentation, that could in turn result in degradation of waterways and conflict with beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and standards established in the as set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWQCB 2018). In addition, accidental spills of construction- related contaminants (e.g., fuels, oils, paints, solvents, cleaners, concrete) could also occur during construction, thereby degrading water quality. Construction dewatering also has the potential to degrade water quality if proper dewatering procedures are not followed and water is not properly stored and disposed of. As the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physical alteration of the land in any way, they do not have the potential to result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physically alter the land in any way, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. General Plan Policies such as 5.I.3, 5.I.4, 5.I.5, and 7.A.4 were developed to minimize potential erosion impacts from potential development throughout the City’s Planning Area. Consistent within these policies and as required by the City’s Municipal Code, before new urban development can proceed, project applicants must comply with Chapter 15.12 of the City’s Municipal Code, which addresses erosion and sediment control under the City’s Grading Ordinance, and Chapter 8.08 of the City’s Municipal Code, which regulates discharges into the municipal storm drain system including compliance with applicable provisions of construction NPDES permit requirements. Furthermore, projects applicants must obtain grading permits that include submittal of a soils engineering report and an engineering geology report specific to the project site, as required by Appendix Chapter 33 of the CBC, Section 3309. Projects that disturb more than 1 acre of land must comply with the requirements in the SWRCB General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-009-DWQ as amended by Order No. 2012-0006- DWQ). The SWRCB general permit contains a numeric, two-part, risk-based analysis process and requires development of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs. The SWPPP must include a site map and a description of construction activities, and must identify the BMPs that will be employed to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants. Finally, project applicants for future projects proposed must comply with the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016b).

Any future development within the proposed annexation areas would be required to occur in compliance with the existing land use, stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations described above. Project applicants for future projects proposed within the proposed annexation areas would be required to implement BMPs and develop and implement SWPPPs as required by CVRWQCB, and obtain grading permits from the City, all of which are

Page 169 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Hydrology and Water Quality 2.10-4 City of Woodland
specifically designed to minimize erosion and siltation on- and off-site to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site as a result of potential future development within the proposed annexation areas would be substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1.
ii, iii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; No Impact. Land use changes contribute different relative amounts of stormwater runoff corresponding to the percentage of impervious surface added. The relative amount of impervious surface associated with development ranges from low (e.g., open space) to high (e.g., large commercial projects with large parking areas, major roads, etc.). The proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physical alteration of the land in any way and, therefore, would not change the rate or amount of surface runoff. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physically alter the land in any way, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-3 (pages 4.9-43 through 4.9-45), potential future development, including that which could occur within the proposed annexation areas, could increase the rate and amount of surface water runoff (primarily from construction of new impervious surfaces), which could exceed the capacity of stormwater conveyance systems, result in on-site or off-site flooding, and result in additional sources of polluted runoff. However, the proposed annexation areas are identified within the 2035 General Plan as opportunity areas and anticipated for potential development within the City’s Planning Area, and prezoning for each annexation area would be consistent with the land use designations for these areas within the 2035 General Plan. In addition, all projects within the City of Woodland are required to comply with City’s Post Construction Standard Plan to reduce post-runoff in compliance with the City’s Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit with the State Water Resources Control Board through the incorporation of BMPs, low impact development features, and hydromodification management techniques. In addition to the above-described requirement, all development projects disturbing more than an acre of soil are required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared per the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit, prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. Projects smaller than one acre shall meet all requirements to prevent storm water runoff from entering the City’s storm system per the City’s Stormwater Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 8.08), and may be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications (City of Woodland 2016b) include design capacities for storm drains, open channels, bridges, culverts, regional storage facilities, and drains, as well as requirements to ensure access for maintenance and operation of drainage systems. These permit requirements and design standards implement General Plan Policies such as 5.I.3, 5.I.4, 5.I.5, and 7.A.4, which are designed to reduce the alteration of drainage patterns.

Any future development within the proposed annexation areas would be required to occur in compliance with the existing land use, stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations described above. Project applicants for any future proposed projects proposed within the proposed annexation areas would be required to implement BMPs

Page 170 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.10-5 Hydrology and Water Quality
and develop and implement SWPPPs as required by Central Valley RWQCB, and obtain grading permits from the City, all of which are specifically designed to maintain or improve current rate and amount of surface runoff.

Therefore, changes in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff as a result of potential future development within the proposed annexation areas would be substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.

No Impact. Portions of the Barnard, Pirmi, and Northeast Annexation Areas are within the lands designated Flood Study Area under the 2035 General Plan. In addition, the entirety of these annexation areas and the Water Plant Annexation Area are within the 200-year flood hazard area. The Flood Study Area land use designation was developed under the 2035 General Plan for areas that may be needed to support future flood infrastructure. The Flood Study Area designation is applied to areas restricted from urban development due to health and safety concerns related to flood risk or because the property falls within a likely future flood project improvement area.

Only agriculture, recreation, and open space uses are permitted in the Flood Study Area, although existing structures and business operations in areas designated as Flood Study Area may remain but may not expand. Until a comprehensive flood solution is implemented, infill development in the flood hazard area is permitted to proceed provided that it mitigates risk from flooding to an urban flood level of protection, consistent with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and State requirements, and does not create flood impacts on other properties. The proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physical alteration of the land in any way and, therefore, would not change the rate or amount of surface runoff. There would be no impact.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physically alter the land in any way, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. 2035 General Plan Policies 8.B.2, 8.B.3, 8.B.5, 8.B.7, and 8.B.11 establish requirements for approval of new development to ensure the project approvals are based on thorough evaluations and that projects are in compliance with existing regulations and protected from the effects of flooding. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.9-5 (pages 4.9-50 through 4.9-58), potential future development within the flood hazard zone could impede or redirect flood flows. Specifically, potential future development within a designated flood hazard zone could require soil cut and fill to raise the site’s ground elevation or other protective design features, which could create an obstruction to overland flow within the floodplain and increase maximum flood elevations in a project’s vicinity. As described in impact discussions

2.10.c.i and 2.10.ii, iii above, development within the City’s jurisdiction would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Chapters 8.08 and 15.12, as well as described state regulations, for the purpose of managing surface water runoff and discharges into the municipal storm drain system. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.96 provides protection against flood damage for uses and service facilities in designated flood prone areas by requiring proper design at the time of initial construction. Therefore, the potential for any potential future development within the flood hazard areas of the proposed annexation areas to impede or redirect flood flows would be substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1.

Page 171 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Hydrology and Water Quality 2.10-6 City of Woodland
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. See impact discussion c.iv) above for the discussion of potential hazards related to development within a flood zone.

Tsunamis ae defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement or other underwater disturbance that displace a large volume of water, resulting in flooding hazards to coastal development. A seiche is a long- wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. The proposed annexation areas are not located in proximity to a coastline, nor adjacent to or within close proximity to a large, closed body of water, and would not be potentially affected by flooding risks associated with tsunamis or seiches.

There would be no impact.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. For the reasons described in impact discussions a) and b) above, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWQCB 2018), and would not interfere with planning efforts for the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan that is in process and will be completed by January 1, 2022. There would be no impact associated with implementation of the proposed annexations. Any potential future development within the proposed annexation areas would be consistent with the anticipated development under the 2035 General Plan and subject to the uniformly applied development standards, as described in impact discussions a) and b) above.

Page 172 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.11-1 Land Use and Planning

2.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed annexation areas would not result in impacts that would physically divide any of Woodland’s established communities. The type of linear project most likely to have this effect would be a major new road, highway, or similar infrastructure. The proposed annexations do not propose any development or physically alter the land in any way, and therefore would not have any effect on these resources and there would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Yolo County has jurisdiction over unincorporated land in the county and while some of the City’s proposed land use designations are consistent with those of the County, including portions of Annexation Area 3 and the Northeast Annexation Area, other land use designations in the 2035 General Plan differ from the County’s current zoning, as noted in Table 1-1. For example, there is a large parcel west of County Road 102 and north of Beamer Street within the Northeast Annexation Area, for which the County zoning is Public/Quasi-Public and the 2035 General Plan designates Industrial.

Land use inconsistencies between the City’s land use designations for the proposed annexation areas under the 2035 General Plan and Yolo County’s zoning requirements are not physical effects on the environment under CEQA unless the inconsistency would cause a physical impact on the environment. Each technical section of this Initial Study provides a detailed analysis of relevant physical environmental effects, as appropriate. The proposed annexations would not conflict with the land use designation or zoning in a way that would generate any adverse physical impacts beyond those addressed in detail in the environmental sections of this Initial Study (air quality, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, etc.). In addition, the proposed annexation areas

Page 173 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Land Use and Planning 2.11-2 City of Woodland
are outside of the Yolo County Airport and Sacramento International Airport Influence Areas.5 Issues relating to potential conflicts with an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are discussed in Section 2.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” of this Initial Study. There would be no impact.

5 Airport Influence Areas are defined as the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses.

Page 174 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.12-1 Mineral Resources

2.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. Under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, the State Mining and Geology Board may designate certain mineral deposits as being regionally significant to satisfy future needs. The Board’s decision to designate an area is based on a classification report prepared by the California Geological Survey and on input from agencies and the public. The City of Woodland lies within the designated Sacramento-Fairfield Production- Consumption Region for Portland cement concrete aggregate. The largest and one of the most important mineral resource sectors within the Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region is located along Cache Creek between the towns of Capay and Yolo. Mining and other environmental resource issues for this area are guided by the Cache Creek Resources Management Plan (Yolo County 2002) and the Off-Channel Mining Plan (Yolo County 1996). As detailed in the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.7-13 and Exhibit 4.7-4), the City’s Urban Limit Line is approximately 0.25 mile (1,300 feet) southeast of the Cache Creek resource sector and the Cache Creek Resources Management Plan boundaries; the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that there would be no impact related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state from implementation of the General Plan, which included consideration of development within the annexation areas as part of the City’s Planning Area. Furthermore, there are no areas of known mineral resources within or immediately adjacent to the proposed annexation areas (i.e., areas that have been classified as mineral resource zone [MRZ]-2 by CGS), and the nearest annexation areas to the designated Cache Creek mineral resource sector are Annexation Area 1 and Annexation Area 2, which are each more than 1 mile west of the Cache Creek mineral resource sector. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the loss of availability of mineral resources.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The City’s 2035 General Plan indicates that the only locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the county are those designated by CGS as MRZ-2. As described in item a) above, these MRZ-2 areas are outside of the City’s Urban Limit Line. There are no mineral resources within the annexation areas or in the immediate vicinity. Thus, there would be no impact.

Page 175 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Mineral Resources 2.12-2 City of Woodland

This page intentionally left blank

Page 176 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.13-1 Noise

2.13 NOISE AND VIBRATION
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact. The proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change.

Therefore, the proposed annexations would not include any temporary or permanent noise-generating sources, nor have the potential to increase ambient noise levels temporarily or permanently. There would be no impact.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any other physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential future proposed development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. Future development or other infrastructure within the annexation areas could generate a temporary increase in ambient noise from construction-related activities, including use of equipment and construction-related traffic, and a long-term (or permanent) increase in ambient noise from operational activities including area noise sources (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC], landscape, parking lot, commercial and industrial cavities, and recreation activities and events, agricultural activities) and traffic noise.

As detailed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.11-48-49), noise levels anticipated over temporary periods of time as a result of construction for buildout of the General Plan could expose sensitive receptors to noise levels that would exceed the City’s noise standards. In accordance with General Plan Policy 8.G 11, the City considers construction noise an acceptable impact that is an expected byproduct of planned growth, so long as the land use is consistent with the General Plan, and noise levels are consistent with the General Plan and Construction Noise Ordinance. In addition, the City has established guidelines for construction noise within or near residential areas limiting noisy construction activities to weekdays and Saturdays between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. and Sundays between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.6 The City incorporated this construction noise guideline into the Final General Plan as Implementation Program 8.13, implemented through Municipal Code Chapter 9.28.

Similarly, as detailed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.11-51 to 55), noise-sensitive uses that exist or are developed near noise-generating commercial, industrial, or agricultural uses with outdoor operations and noise-sensitive uses near higher-volume roadways could experience noise levels in excess of the General Plan noise standards. General Plan Policy 8.G addresses noise compatibility for residential uses, as a noise-sensitive land use, to ensure that existing and planned land uses are compatible with the current and projected noise environment. However, the policy also acknowledges that urban development and increased density, as supported by the City in the General Plan, generally results in greater ambient (background) noise than lower density areas.

It is the City’s intent to meet specified indoor noise thresholds, and to create peaceful backyard living spaces where possible, but ambient outdoor thresholds may not always be achievable. Where residential development is allowed pursuant to the General Plan, these greater noise levels are acknowledged and accepted, notwithstanding the guidelines in Table 8-5 of the General Plan. General Plan Policy 8.G.2 requires that the General Plan’s Land Use Noise Compatibility Standards (Table 8-5 of the General Plan) be used as a review criteria for new land uses, as implemented through Municipal Code Chapter 9.28, Chapter 17.92 for Industrial Uses, and Interim Zoning

6 Please see the Code Compliance Division of the Community Development Department website for more details:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/gov/depts/cd/divisions/code/cng.asp.

Page 177 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Noise 2.13-2 City of Woodland
Ordinance Section 3.11.B.7.g (Noise Standards, applicable to Industrial/Light Industrial Flex Overlay land uses, and in the process of being revised to require General Plan Noise standards of all land use zones) and the City’s Community Design Standards; where it is not possible to reduce noise levels to the “normally acceptable” range using practical application of the best-available noise reduction measures, greater exterior noise levels may be allowed, provided that all available reasonable and feasible exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented. General Plan Policies 8.G.3, 8.G.5, 8.G.6, 8.G.7, 8.G.8, 8.G.10, 8.G.13, 8.G.14, and 8.G.15 were developed for the purpose of minimizing impacts associated with new development and infrastructure generating an increase in ambient noise levels, particularly in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses. Compliance with these General Plan polices, as well as General Plan Implementation Program 8.13, for any potential future development within the proposed annexation areas would be achieved through compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, as detailed above. Therefore, the potential for any future development within the proposed annexation areas to result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies would be substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Impact. The proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change.

Therefore, the proposed annexations would not include any temporary or permanent vibration-generating sources, nor have the potential to generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. Construction and demolition activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used, the location of construction activities relative to sensitive receptors, and operations/activities involved. Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The type and density of soil can also affect the transmission of energy. These vibration levels drop off at a rate of about 9 vibration decibels per doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor. Heavy truck traffic can generate groundborne vibration, which varies considerably depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. However, groundborne vibration levels generated from vehicular traffic are not typically perceptible outside of the road right-of-way.

Temporary, short-term vibration levels from construction sources could exceed the Federal Transit Authority’s maximum-acceptable vibration standard of 80 vibration decibels with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance) at vibration-sensitive land uses. If construction activities were to occur during more noise- sensitive hours, vibration from construction sources could annoy and/or disrupt the sleep of occupants of residences and expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. General Plan Implementation Program 8.12 requires the use of project-specific vibration mitigation measures (preparation of vibration analysis and implementation of vibration abatement measures, as necessary and to the greatest extent feasible) and best practices during construction to mitigate vibration impacts to sensitive land uses. This Implementation Program is detailed in Appendix A and would serve as a Condition of Approval of future projects

Page 178 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.13-3 Noise
within the annexation areas that would occur within proximity of vibration sensitive uses and would be anticipated to otherwise exceed the standards of General Plan Implementation Program 8.12. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed annexation areas are not located within 2 miles of a public airport.

The proposed annexations are not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports. Medlock Field is the closest private airport, located 4.7 miles from the project annexation areas, and the Yolo County Airport is the closest public airport, located approximately 10 miles from the project site. As such, the proposed annexation areas are not located within two miles of any public airports or private airstrips and does not fall within an airport land use plan area. Therefore, the proposed annexations would not expose people working or residing in the area to excessive noise produced by an airport. Because the proposed annexation areas are located outside of the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan area and the proposed annexations would not involve any aircraft uses for construction or operation, the proposed annexations would not affect any airport operations; and would not expose people on- or off-site to excessive aircraft noise levels There would be no impact.

Page 179 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Noise 2.13-4 City of Woodland

This page intentionally left blank

Page 180 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.14-1 Population and Housing

2.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.10-1 (pages 4.10-26 through 4.10-30), the 2035 General Plan anticipates development of currently undeveloped areas that would result in infrastructure being extended into areas that are currently undeveloped and could result in pressure to plan for and entitle development beyond that anticipated under the 2035 General Plan. The proposed annexations do not propose any development, and therefore would not induce population growth directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

As stated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, growth inducement may indirectly lead to environmental effects. Such environmental effects may include increased traffic, degradation of air quality, conversion of agricultural land to urban uses directly from population and employment growth and indirectly from development associated with goods and services needed by such growth. Physical impacts associated with development of residential and nonresidential land uses, such as traffic, air quality degradation, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and increased demand for public services and utilities, are evaluated in the respective specific resource areas throughout this Initial Study.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed annexation areas do not contain a substantial amount of existing housing. In addition, the proposed annexations would not propose any development or any physical change. Therefore, the proposed annexations would not result in the displacement or relocation of any residents that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Any potential future development within the proposed annexation areas would be consistent with the land use designations and land use development planned for under the 2035

Page 181 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Population and Housing 2.14-2 City of Woodland
General Plan and anticipated in the analysis under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. There would be no impact.

Page 182 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.15-1 Public Services

2.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Services?
No Impact. The Woodland Fire Department provides fire and emergency medical services in the Planning Area.

In 1982, the City of Woodland Fire Department merged with the Springlake Fire Protection District. Now, the Fire Department protects an area of 56 square miles, which includes 15 square miles of land within the City limits and 41 square miles of rural area north, east, and south of the City limits in unincorporated Yolo County.

The City staffs three fire stations, with a minimum of 13 personnel on duty per day. This provides enough personnel to meet the National Fire Protection Association’s Standard 1910 for residential structure fire responses. The City has robust automatic aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to ensure sufficient firefighting personnel arrive at a fire in a commercial building. The current fire service areas, inclusive of the proposed annexation areas, would not change with the proposed annexations. The proposed annexations would not propose any development, and therefore would not result in new or physically altered fire protection facilities or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12-1 (pages 4.12-29 through 4.12-32), General Plan Goal 5.B establishes a comprehensive program of fire protection services as a priority in the 2035 General Plan. Policy 5.B.4 requires development projects to develop and/or fund fire protection facilities, equipment, personnel, and operations and maintenance that maintain the City’s fire protection service standards. Policy 5.B.7 reduces the need for new facilities through enforcement of safe building standards, and Policy 5.B.8 requires review of development applications by the fire department. Policy 5.B.10 of the 2035 General Plan specifically addresses the location of new fire stations in relation to planned growth. The environmental effects from construction and operation of new or expansion of existing fire stations were evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR throughout the individual environmental topic sections.

The Fire Prevention Division of the Woodland Fire Department provides plan review services for both new and existing construction projects. Services include the review of designs and installation of automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm. The Fire Prevention Division is responsible for ensuring these projects adhere to code requirements regulating the safety of people who will occupy the building or area. Project applicants for any potential future proposed projects within the proposed annexation areas would be required to submit project design plans to the City of Woodland Community Risk Reduction Division and implement recommended conditions, as well as provide funding to ensure fire protection personnel and equipment is provided to meet increased demand for fire protection services (General Plan Policy 5.B.4). Incorporation of all California Fire Code, City development standards, and Woodland Fire Department requirements into project designs would reduce the dependence on fire department equipment and personnel by reducing fire hazards. The City’s

Page 183 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Public Services 2.15-2 City of Woodland
Municipal Code Chapter 8.20.010 formally adopted the 2019 California Building Standards Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, (California Fire Code) in its entirety. In addition, the City’s Community Risk Reduction Division consists of a Fire Marshal and Fire Prevention Specialists directly responsible for code enforcement, fire plans review, fire investigation, and fire and life safety education. Therefore, impacts associated with fire services as a result of potential future development within the proposed annexation areas would be substantially mitigated by City-administered uniformly applied development standards, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-1.

Police Protection?
No Impact. Law enforcement services in unincorporated portions of Yolo County are typically provided by the County Sheriff-Coroner Department. The department has a staff of 276 full time employees, 95 of which are full- time sworn officers, and is located at 140 Tony Diaz Drive in Woodland. Each of the proposed annexation areas is currently served by City Fire and Police services through an agreement with the County. The Woodland Police Department could also respond to an emergency if needed. With annexation, the priority service response would switch such that police services would be provided primarily by the Woodland Police Department, but the Yolo County Sherriff-Coroner Department could also respond, if needed.

The Woodland Police Department provides a full range of police services. The Woodland Police Department determines staffing needs based on the amount of uncommitted time per officer, number of calls for service per officer per day, and number of major crimes assigned to detectives per day. The proposed annexations do not propose any development, and therefore would not result in new or physically altered police protection facilities or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12-2 (pages 4.12-32 through 4.12-35), future development consistent with the General Plan is not expected to require new Woodland Police Department facilities, but may require additional staff and policing resources to account for workload and to meet response time standards. Goal 5.A provides for sufficient law enforcement services that will adequately meet the needs of increasing population and non-residential development. Development projects are required to fund police facilities. General Plan Policy 5.A.7 ensures projects are reviewed for consideration of adequate police services through project application review by the Police Department. In the event that new police facilities would be needed, they would be located within the development footprint analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and individual development projects would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Schools?
No Impact. Woodland Joint Unified School District (WJUSD) calculates school capacities for each school based on the number of permanent classrooms, the number of portable classrooms, the number of classrooms used for programs other than classroom instruction, and loading standards (i.e., students per classroom for each grade

Page 184 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.15-3 Public Services
level). In addition, the WJUSD uses student generation factors (students per new dwelling units) for single- and multi-family development in order to project student enrollment. The proposed annexations do not propose any development, and therefore would not result in new or physically altered school facilities or the need for new or physically altered school facilities. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12-3 (pages 4.12-35 through 4.12-38), the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR analyzed the projected student enrollment of full buildout of the General Plan. However, the proposed annexation areas are not designated as residential land use under the 2035 General Plan and, therefore, if there is future proposed development within the annexation areas, this would not be anticipated to contribute substantially to future student generation within the City’s Planning Area or WJUSD enrollment.

Parks? Other Public Facilities?
No Impact. The proposed annexations do not propose new development. Therefore, the proposed annexations would not involve the construction of new housing or other land uses that would increase demand for parks, recreation facilities, or other public facilities. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12-6 (pages 4.12-46 through 4.12-48), additional population growth would induce demand for parks and other public facilities throughout the City’s Planning Area. However, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR fully accounted for the City’s planned growth, and General Plan Policy 5.C.3 requires that new development of parks and recreation facilities keeps pace with development and growth within the city in order to achieve and maintain the City’s standard of 6.0 acres of parks per 1,000 residents, and General Plan Policy ensures that new development provide for its fair share of this standard. In addition, the proposed annexation areas are not designated as residential land use under the 2035 General Plan and, therefore, if there is future proposed development within the annexation areas, this would not be anticipated to contribute substantially to future demand for parks and recreational facilities within the City’s Planning Area.

Public utilities and service systems are addressed in Section 2.19 of this Initial Study.

Page 185 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Public Services 2.15-4 City of Woodland

This page intentionally left blank

Page 186 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.16-1 Recreation

2.16 RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. The Sport Park Annexation Area is the only existing park and recreational facility within or adjacent to the proposed annexation areas. There are several small neighborhood parks within less than a mile of the Pirmi Area and Westucky Avenue annexation areas. Pioneer Park and Klenhard Park are the nearest existing parks to the Water Plant and Northeast annexation areas, more than a mile from each of the nearest point of each of the respective annexation areas.

The proposed annexations do not propose new development. Therefore, the proposed annexations would not involve the construction of new housing or other land uses that would increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12-6 (pages 4.12-46 through 4.12-48), additional population growth would place added physical demands on existing park facilities by increasing the number of people using the parks, lengthening the periods of time during which the parks would be in active use, and/or increasing the intensity of use over the course of a typical day. However, the City also anticipated that new parkland would be created to serve new residential growth areas. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.12-4 (pages 4.12-35 through 4.12-43), the 2035 General Plan Policy 5.C.3 requires 6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. For any new future master or specific plan area, parkland would be required to support residential development according to the 2035 General Plan standard. However, the proposed annexation areas are not designated as residential land use under the 2035 General Plan and, therefore, if there is future proposed development within the annexation areas, there would not be an increase in use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed annexations would not propose new development. Therefore, the proposed annexations would not involve the construction of new housing or other land uses that would increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 187 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Recreation 2.16-2 City of Woodland
land use designations and allowable development densities and intensities of the 2035 General Plan. As stated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, physical impacts such as traffic, air quality degradation, noise generation, greenhouse gas emissions, and degradation and biological or cultural and tribal resources, associated with the construction and operation of new or relocated facilities are evaluated in the respective specific resource areas throughout this initial study. The proposed annexations would include prezoning consistent with the City’s 2035 General Plan land use designations analyzed as part of the 2035 General Plan, and therefore anticipated recreational requirements were analyzed as part of the General Plan and CAP EIR.

Page 188 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.17-1 Transportation

2.17 TRANSPORTATION
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Impact. The proposed annexations do not propose new development. Therefore, the proposed annexations would not involve the construction of new land uses that would affect current or planned programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.13-4 (pages 4.13-23 through 4.13-27), population and employment growth would increase demand for transit, bicycling and pedestrian activity. Goals and policies documented in the 2035 General Plan call for the development of a multi-modal transportation system (Goal 3.A) and providing complete streets (Goal 3.B). Roadway functional classifications and street typology are described in Goal 3.C. Other key policies address protecting residential streets (Goal 3.D), providing a comprehensive pedestrian system (3.E) and bicycle system (3.F), promoting an effective transit system (3.G), and maintaining the safe and efficient movement of goods (3.I). The 2035 General Plan also complies with AB 1358 requiring the inclusion of a complete streets policy in city and county general plans to promote balance and compatibility across transportation modes. Any future proposed development within the annexation areas will be required to be consistent with the land use designations of the 2035 General Plan, and development of public right-of-way will be reviewed for consistency with General Plan Policies, including Policy

2.J.6 that states that the City will “[r]equire convenient, attractive, and safe pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections both within commercial centers and between centers and surrounding neighborhoods and other destinations”, and Policy 3.A.11 that “[r]equire[s] all new development to provide convenient bicycle and pedestrian environments and access through building orientation, site layout, traffic management, and connections to transit service and local commercial and community facilities.” Future proposed development within the annexation areas would also be reviewed for consistency with the City Master Plans as a part of the Site Plan/Design Review process and would be required to comply with the City of Woodland Interim Zoning Code Section 3.06.E.7 for Connectivity within Community Commercial Zones and the California Building Code requirements, including Title 24, which includes provisions for alternative modes of transportation and safety requirements associated with bicycle and pedestrian access, thereby providing for consistency with the City’s efforts to address transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No Impact. Section 15064.3 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines allows a qualitative analysis of potential impacts related to vehicle miles travelled (VMT). The proposed annexations do not propose new development. Therefore, the proposed annexations would not involve the construction of any land use that would generate VMT. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 189 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Transportation 2.17-2 City of Woodland
While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. Future proposed development within the annexation areas could generate vehicle trips from construction and operational activities. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the level of service (LOS) analysis that evaluated a project’s impacts on traffic conditions on nearby roadways and intersections. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR demonstrated that the mix of actions and policies to reduce emissions, inclusive of a 10-percent reduction in VMT across the City’s Planning Area, would achieve the necessary GHG reductions for the City’s Planning Area. The City’s CAP provides for interim monitoring and reevaluation over time to ensure that reduction targets are being met and to allow for adjustments in reduction strategies and policies if they are not being met.

Any future proposed development within the annexation areas will be required to be consistent with the land use designations of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. General Plan Policy 3.A.4 would serve as a Condition of Approval (see Appendix A) of any future proposed development within the annexation areas, requiring that new development projects achieve a 10-percent reduction in VMT per capita or VMT per service population compared to the General Plan 2035 performance, or a 10-percent reduction compared to baseline conditions for similar land use when measuring transportation impacts for subsequent projects and making General Plan consistency findings. This would ensure the any proposed future development within the annexation areas would be consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for the purposes of impacts associated with consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed annexations do not propose new development. Therefore, the proposed annexations would not involve the construction of any land use or transportation facility that would have the potential to increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 190 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.17-3 Transportation
annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. Slow-moving trucks entering and exiting future project sites could slightly delay the movement of emergency vehicles. However, the trucks would typically pull to the side of the road when emergency vehicles use their sirens. Additionally, truck traffic would be temporary and intermittent during construction. Operations of any future proposed development within the proposed annexation areas would be required to meet City standards for turning radii, drive aisle width, and other road geometry, and comply with City landscaping standards requiring that vegetation be set back to maintain the line of sight. Maintaining adequate safety and operation at internal intersections and drive aisles and trimming the shrubbery and landscaping near the internal intersections and site access points would ensure adequate emergency access associated with any future proposed development within the annexation areas.

Page 191 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Transportation 2.17-4 City of Woodland

This page intentionally left blank

Page 192 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.18-1 Tribal Cultural Resources

2.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geologically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? No Impact. As the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or physical alteration of the land in any way, they do not have the potential to change the significance of a tribal cultural resource. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 193 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Tribal Cultural Resources 2.18-2 City of Woodland

This page intentionally left blank

Page 194 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.19-1 Utilities

2.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.5-4 (pages 4.5-63 through 65), Impact

4.14-2 (pages 4.14-37 through 4.14-42), and Impact 4.14-3 (pages 4.14-42 through 4.14-46), the 2035 General Plan anticipates development of currently undeveloped areas, which would result in infrastructure being extended into areas that are currently undeveloped and could result in the need for new or relocated utilities and services systems. The proposed annexations do not propose any development, and therefore do not require any extension, expansion, relocation, or construction of any public facilities, utilities, or infrastructure. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

8.08, Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A-2. 2035 General Plan policies are consistent with these regulations that would minimize the need for new utility facilities and ensure appropriate planning and implementation for any new or relocated utilities, including water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

General Plan Policy 5.H.9 requires water-conserving design and equipment in new development, and General Plan Policy 5.I.4 require new development design features to minimize runoff rates, filter out pollutants, and facilitate groundwater infiltration. These policies reduce the increase in demand on water, wastewater, and storm drainage facilities resulting from new development.

As stated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, physical impacts such as traffic, air quality degradation, noise generation, greenhouse gas emissions, and degradation and biological or cultural and tribal resources, associated with the construction and operation of new or relocated utilities are evaluated in the respective specific resource areas throughout this initial study. The proposed annexations would include prezoning consistent with the City’s 2035 General Plan land use designations analyzed as part of the 2035 General Plan, and therefore anticipated utility requirements were analyzed as part of the General Plan and CAP EIR. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.14-4 (pages 4.14-46 through 4.14-49), development anticipated under the General Plan would result in water demand to serve the associated land uses.

The proposed annexations do not propose any development, and therefore would not result in an increased water demand. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that

Page 195 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Utilities 2.19-2 City of Woodland
were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that, based on the supply of surface water and groundwater, the City is expected to successfully meet water demand through 2035 (Table 4.14-3 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR). As detailed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, according to the Woodland 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Woodland’s surface water availability in 2035 is expected to meet the demand. It is expected that there will be sufficient water supplies available to serve the City from existing entitlements and resources. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan considered anticipated development of the City’s Planning Area under the 2035 General Plan, which included the proposed annexation areas. The proposed annexations would include prezoning consistent with the City’s 2035 General Plan land use designations analyzed as part of the 2035 General Plan, and therefore anticipated water demand analyzed as part of the General Plan and CAP EIR would be the same, if not less due to recent regulatory changes and conservation measures, as that analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.14-1 (pages 4.14-32 through 4.14-36), Impact 4.14-2 (pages 4.14-37 through 4.14-42), and Impact 4.14-5 (pages 4.14-49 through 4.14-51) additional residential, commercial, and industrial uses anticipated under the General Plan would generate greater amounts of wastewater effluent compared to existing conditions. The proposed annexations do not propose any development, and therefore would not result in an increased generation of wastewater effluent. There would be no impact.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. General Plan Policy 5.H.6 requires all sewage generators within the City’s Planning Area to connect to the City’s system. General Plan Policies 5.F.1 ensures that there would be sufficient public services, including wastewater treatment facility capacity, to serve existing and new development in Woodland.

Policies 5.F.2, 5.F.3, 5.F.4, and 5.F.5 address fiscal and funding impacts of new development to ensure there is funding available to support public facilities and services. Policies 5.H.2, 5.H.3, 5.H.4, and 5.H.5 address the need to plan for wastewater needs by requiring updates to the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, consideration of the wastewater needs, active planning for maintenance and repairs, and evaluation and updates to the Capital Improvement Program. Policy 5.H.9 requires a reduction in wastewater system demand. Implementation of policies in the 2035 General Plan, along with existing local, State, and federal requirements would ensure that the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB would continue to be met for the anticipated amount of wastewater effluent from existing and future development within the City’s Planning Area. In terms of wastewater treatment, as explained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the hydraulic capacity of the City’s Water Pollution Control Facility is expected to meet the city’s projected needs through 2035. The environmental effects from placement of infrastructure were evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR throughout the individual environmental topic area sections.

Page 196 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.19-3 Utilities
The proposed annexations would include prezoning consistent with the City’s 2035 General Plan land use designations analyzed as part of the 2035 General Plan, and therefore anticipated wastewater flows analyzed as part of the General Plan and CAP EIR would be the same, if not less due to recent regulatory changes and conservation measures, as that analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Impact. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impacts 4.14-6 (pages 4.14-51 through 4.14- 55), future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses anticipated under the General Plan would increase solid waste generation compared to existing conditions. The proposed annexations do not propose any development, and therefore would not result in an increased generation of solid waste. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. General Plan Policies 5.J.1 and 5.J.2 require adequate solid waste services and compliance of solid waste collection in new development with local regulations for the purposes of waste reduction. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that existing State laws and regulations would reduce the potential environmental impact associated with solid waste generation (AB 341’s solid waste diversion requirements and AB 1826’s mandatory commercial organics recycling requirements). Furthermore, the City of Woodland Municipal Code reduces the potential environmental impact by regulating solid waste receptacles and disposal services, recyclable materials, and construction and demolition debris. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined existing landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs from anticipated future growth. Solid waste collected from the proposed annexation areas would be hauled to the Yolo County Central Landfill, which has a maximum permitted throughput of 1,800 tons per day, a remaining capacity of approximately 35 million cubic yards, and an expected closure date of 2081 (CalRecycle 2019). Due to the substantial amount of remaining capacity at the Yolo County Central Landfill, the General Plan and CAP EIR determination is still applicable and sufficient capacity is and will continue to be available to accommodate solid- waste disposal needs associated with any potential development within the proposed annexation areas, consistent with the 2035 General Plan.
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. Compliance with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste is discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impacts 4.14-7 (pages 4.14-55 through 4.14- 56). As explained in impact discussion d) above, future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses anticipated under the General Plan would increase solid waste generation compared to existing conditions. The proposed annexations do not propose any development, and therefore would not result in an increased generation of waste. There would be no impact. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the proposed annexations that were not addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), no additional CEQA review is required.

Page 197 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Utilities 2.19-4 City of Woodland
While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. Construction activities require site clearing and generate various construction-period wastes. Any future proposed projects within the annexation areas will be required to comply with both the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling and Diversion Ordinance (Title 13, Chapter 13.40 of the City of Woodland Municipal Code) and the 2019 CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations) as it pertains to construction and demolition debris handling. In addition, General Plan Policy 5.J.2 requires compliance of solid waste collection in new development with local regulation. In addition to compliance with State and local regulations pertaining to solid waste, future proposed development within the annexation areas would be required to comply with this General Plan policies as a condition of approval, as detailed in Appendix A.

Page 198 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.19-5 Utilities

This page intentionally left blank

Page 199 ends

Page 200 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.20-1 Wildfire

2.20 WILDFIRE
a) If Located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
i) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
ii) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
iii) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? iv) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. Per the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program (2007), the proposed annexation areas are not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Thus, there would be no impact.

As noted on pages 4.8-43 through 4.6-46, most of the Planning Area is non-wildland/non-urban area that is not at risk for wildland fires and Policies 5.B.1, 5.B.2, and 5.B.3 of the 2035 General Plan set standards for and supports the capacity and ability of Fire Department staff. Policies 5.B.5 and 8.C.2 aim to improve public education and awareness of emergencies. Policies 5.B.4, 5.B.6, 5.B.7, 5.B.8, 5.B.10, 8.C.1, and 8.C.3 set standards for the safety of new buildings and developments. While the proposed annexations do not include any proposed development or any physical change, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR accounts for potential development within opportunity areas, which include the proposed annexation areas. As noted above, the proposed annexation areas are not within state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, therefore, there would be no impact. However, in the case of urban fire or wildland fire in surrounding areas, state and local regulation that would serve as uniformly applied development standards for the safety of new buildings and developments to minimize and avoid potential impacts related to fire are further discussed in Section 2.15 with regard to emergency response services, 2.17 with regard to emergency access, and 2.7 and 2.10 with regard to slope stability and erosion.

Page 201 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Wildfire 2.20-2 City of Woodland

This page intentionally left blank

Page 202 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 2.21-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact. The proposed annexations do not include development or physically alter the land in any way.

Therefore, it would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. There would be no impact.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact. The proposed annexations would not result in any impacts; therefore, the there is no potential for project cumulative effects in combination with other planned or anticipated improvements. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact. The proposed annexations would have no impacts, and therefore would not cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Page 203 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
Mandatory Findings of Significance 2.21-2 City of Woodland

This page intentionally left blank

Page 204 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 3-1 References
3 REFERENCES

3.1 INTRODUCTION
City of Woodland. 2016a (September). 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by: AECOM. State Clearinghouse No. 2013032015. Available:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/563/General-Plan-2035. Accessed September 2021.

3.2 AESTHETICS
California Department of Transportation. 2021. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aaca a. Accessed November 2021.

City of Woodland. 2016b (August). Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications. Available:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=10833. Accessed July 10, 2018.

City of Woodland. 2004 (August). Community Design Standards, Standards. Available:
https://www.cityofwoodland.org/DocumentCenter/View/1227/Complete-Community-Design-Standards- PDF. Accessed March 2022.

Yolo County. 2009 (November). 2030 Countywide General Plan. Available: http://www.yolocounty.org/general- government/general-government-departments/county-administrator/general-plan-update/adopted-general- plan. Accessed July 3, 2018.

3.3 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed: November 2021.

Yolo LAFCo. See Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission.

Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission. 2019. Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study for the City of Woodland (LAFCo No S-049).

3.4 AIR QUALITY
California Air Resources Board. 2005 (April). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2011. Recommended Protocol for Evaluating the Location of Sensitive Land Uses Adjacent to Major Roadways.

Page 205 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
References 3-2 City of Woodland
SMAQMD. See Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

Yolo-Solano County Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). 2007. Handbook for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Adopted July 11, 2007. Available at http://www.ysaqmd.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/CEQAHandbook2007.pdf. Accessed March 2018.

YSAQMD. See Yolo-Solano County Air Quality Management District.

3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
AECOM. 2021a. Biological Resources Survey Report for the City of Woodland Annexations, Woodland, CA.

Prepared for City of Woodland. November 2021.

Ascent. 2018. Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Appendices A, B, and C. Prepared for Yolo County.

April 2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. NCCP Plan Summary – Yolo HCP/NCCP. State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, CA. available at
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Yolo. Accessed August 1, 2019.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. California natural community list. Updated Wednesday, September 09, 2021. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Yolo Habitat Conservancy. 2018. Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan – Final.

Prepared by ICF. Yolo County, California. April 2018.

Yolo Habitat Conservancy. 2019. Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan:

Implementation Handbook Permitting Guide. Authored by: Consero Solutions, ICF, Alford Environmental, and Tschudin Consulting Group, November 2019.

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
AECOM. 2021b. Biological Resources Survey Report for the City of Woodland Annexations, Woodland, CA.

Prepared for City of Woodland. November 2021.

3.7 ENERGY
None.

3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. 2008. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2)—Supplemental Workbook and Appendix A. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1437 and California Geological Survey Special Report 203. Available:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1437/. Accessed February 2, 2016.

Page 206 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 3-3 References
California Geological Survey. 2008. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Ground Motions Interpolator. Available:
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/PSHA/psha_interpolator.html. Accessed September 16, 0216. ———. 2015. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Available:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. Last updated December 2015. Accessed March 1, 2016.

CGS. See California Geological Survey.

City of Woodland. 2011 (April). City of Woodland Groundwater Management Plan. Available:
http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps. Accessed February 29, 2016. ———. 2016b (August). Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications. Available:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=10833. Accessed July 10, 2018.

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Web Soil Survey. Available:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Last updated September 2015.

Accessed March 4, 2016.

3.9 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
None.

3.10 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor [database]. Available:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
———. 2021. EnviroStor. Available: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. July 12, 2021.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2016. GeoTracker [online GIS database of environmental data].

Available: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
———. 2021. GeoTracker. Available: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed July 12, 2021.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021 (September).Search for Superfund Sites where you Live. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live. Accessed July 12, 2021.

Page 207 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
References 3-4 City of Woodland

3.11 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
California Stormwater Quality Association. 2019 (December). 2019 (December). Industrial & Commercial Best Management Practice Handbook. Available: https://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp-handbooks/industrial- commercial. Accessed September 10, 2020.

California Department of Water Resources. 2019. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Available:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/. Accessed August 28, 2020.

City of Woodland. 2006 (April). Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures.

Available: http://www.cityofwoodland.org/DocumentCenter/View/590/Technical-Guidance-Manual-for- Storm-Water-PDF. Accessed June 6, 2018.
———. 2015. Post-Construction Standards Plan: A Guidance Document on Storm Water Post-Construction Design Measures for Developers and Plan Checkers. Available:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/DocumentCenter/View/1006/Post-Construction-Standard-Plan-PDF.

Accessed June 5, 2018.
———. 2016b (August). Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications. Available:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=10833. Accessed July 10, 2018.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2018 (May). Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fifth Edition, the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/. Accessed August 28, 2020.

CVRWQCB. See Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.

Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency. 2020. Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency—Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Available: https://www.yologroundwater.org/sustainable-groundwater-management- act-sgma-553f70b. Accessed August 28, 2020.

3.12 LAND USE AND PLANNING
None.

3.13 MINERAL RESOURCES
Yolo County. 1996 (July). Off-Channel Mining Plan for Lower Cache Creek. Available:
http://www.yolocounty.org/general-government/general-government-departments/county- administrator/county-administrator-divisions/natural-resources/the-cache-creek-area-plan-ccap-. Accessed March 4, 2016.

Page 208 ends

Annexations Initial Study AECOM
City of Woodland 3-5 References
———. 2002 (August). Cache Creek Resources Management Plan for Lower Cache Creek. Available:
http://www.yolocounty.org/general-government/general-government-departments/county- administrator/county-administrator-divisions/natural-resources/the-cache-creek-area-plan-ccap-. Accessed March 4, 2016.

3.14 NOISE AND VIBRATION
California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement, Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

3.15 POPULATION AND HOUSING
None.

3.16 PUBLIC SERVICES
None.

3.17 RECREATION
None.

3.18 TRANSPORTATION
City of Woodland. 2016b (August). Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications. Available:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=10833. Accessed July 10, 2018.

3.19 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
None.

3.20 UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Solid Waste Information System. Facility/Site Summary Details: Yolo Central Landfill. (57-AA-0001). Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/57-AA-0001/. Accessed: May 8, 2019.

CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

3.21 WILDFIRE
CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Page 209 ends

AECOM Annexations Initial Study
References 3-6 City of Woodland
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program (2007 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6855/fhszs_map57.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2021.

Page 210 ends

APPENDIX A
Uniformly Applied Development Standards and
Stipulated Conditions of Approval

Page 211 ends

UNIFORMLY APPLIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND

STIPULATIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following tables provide a detailed summary of the City’s General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs applicable to minimizing and avoiding potential environmental impacts, as analyzed and identified through the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Table A-1 identifies those General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs that would be relevant to future development within the proposed annexation areas, such that future development would be consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP, as applicable, and implement required measures to minimize potential environmental impacts in accordance with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Within Table A-1, the relevant policies, regulations, and development standards that would be uniformly applied to all future development within the annexation areas, as applicable, are identified. In the case that no such uniformly applied policy, regulation, or development standard currently exists to implement a required General Plan Policy or Implementation Program, then the policy or program would be enforced through a Condition of Approval on any future development within the proposed annexation areas. Table A-2 specifically identifies the Conditions of Approval that would be required of any future development within the proposed annexation areas; the City would require a project demonstrate consistency with the applicable Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvement plans.

Table A-1. 2035 General Plan Policies and Uniformly Applied Development Standards, Policies, and Regulations Applicable to Future Development Within Proposed Annexation Areas Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
Aesthetic
Resources
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
None required.

Aesthetic
Resources
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
None required.

Page 212 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
Aesthetic
Resources
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character
or quality of public views
of the site and its
surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations
governing scenic quality?
None required.

Aesthetic
Resources
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
General Plan Policy 2.F.4 Light Pollution. Control artificial lighting to avoid spill-over lighting and preserve the night sky.

General Plan Policy 2.F.5 Glare. Control artificial lighting to prevent glare.

Woodland Municipal Code, Title
17 Zoning, Section 17.92.060 I
Industrial Zone (Performance
Standards)
City of Woodland Interim
Zoning Ordinance 2020, Section

3.11.A4 (Exterior Lighting)
City of Woodland Community
Design Standards, Lighting
Standards
Agricultural
and Forestry
Resources
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps
General Plan Policy 2.A.3 Agricultural Mitigation. For impacts to agriculture within the Urban Limit Line, require one acre to be permanently conserved for every acre converted to urban development. The farmland being conserved must be of the same Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program type (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Section 15.33

Page 213 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of
the California Resources
Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
Farmland of Local Importance) as the farmland that is being converted, or of a type of higher quality, and the conserved farmland should be located as close to the Woodland Urban Limit Line as possible.

General Plan Policy 7.C.5. Agricultural Buffer. Require new development that occurs at the edge of the ULL to be set back a minimum of 150 feet from adjacent agricultural land where possible. Equivalent means of providing agricultural buffers may be considered by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis for parcels where development potential would be precluded or severely limited as a result of the required buffer size. The buffer shall be landscaped/vegetated and may include public right of way.

Condition of Approval required
for General Plan Policy 7.C.5;
see Table A-2.

Agricultural
and Forestry
Resources
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use
or a Williamson Act
contract?
None required.

Agricultural
and Forestry
Resources
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public
Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public
Resources Code section
4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
None required.

Agricultural
and Forestry
Resources
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest
use?
None required.

Page 214 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
Agricultural
and Forestry
Resources
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment,
which, due to their
location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland to non-
agricultural use or
conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
None required.

Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
See Air Quality checklist question b) below.

Air Quality b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant
for which the project
region is non-attainment
under an applicable
federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
General Plan Policy 7.F.2 Best Management Practices. Require all projects to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects as a standard City condition of approval.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.18. New developments that could generate a potentially significant short-term air quality impact shall incorporate feasible construction mitigation strategies, including those listed below, those included in an updated set of mitigation recommendations prepared by the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, or those determined by the City to be as effective:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. b. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials. d. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut-and-fill operations and hydroseed area.
e. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).

Woodland Municipal Code
Section 17.92.060(B)
Woodland Interim Zoning
Ordinance 2020, Article 3,
Section 3.11.B.5 and 3.11.B.7.d
Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District adopted
Rules and Regulations
California Code of Regulations
Sections 2449(2)(B) and 2485
Idling Restrictions
Condition of Approval required
for General Plan Implementation
Program 7.18; see Table A-2.

Page 215 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
f. Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.
g. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. h. Cover inactive storage piles.
i. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.
j. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6 to 12 inch layer of wood chips or mulch.
k. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6-inch layer of gravel.
l. Limit all idling of vehicles and equipment that use gasoline or diesel fuel to five minutes maximum.
m. Use alternative power source, such as electricity, for construction equipment or use reformulated and emulsified fuels, incorporate catalyst and filtration technologies, and generally modernize the equipment fleet with cleaner and newer engines.

Air Quality c) Expose Sensitive
Receptors to Substantial
Pollutant Concentrations?
General Plan Policy 7.F.2 Best Management Practices. Require all projects to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects as a standard City condition of approval.

General Plan Policy 7.F.3 Protect Sensitive Receptors. For the purposes of environmental review of potential toxic air contaminant impacts, consider residentially designated land uses, hospitals and other medical facilities, residential care facilities, schools, day care centers, playgrounds to be “sensitive receptors.” Discourage the location of new sensitive receptor uses within 500 feet of a limited access state highway (State Route 113 and Interstate 5). Implement applicable buffer distances recommended by the California Air Resources Board between sensitive uses and sources of substantial pollutant concentrations.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.17.
a. New development shall be required to demonstrate adherence with Woodland Municipal Code
Section 17.92.060(B)
Woodland Interim Zoning
Ordinance 2020, Article 3,
Section 3.11.B.5 and

3.11.B.7.d
Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District adopted
Rules and Regulations

Page 216 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
applicable YSAQMD-recommended health risk thresholds involving sensitive receptors, uses that involve substantial truck trips, and large gas stations, as defined by the applicable regulations. “Substantial truck trips” is defined as more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units per day, or transport refrigeration unit operations that exceed 300 hours per week. A “large gas station” is one that would be anticipated to accommodate a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater.
b. Proposed uses that include sensitive receptors may demonstrate compliance with this implementation program by providing a minimum 1,000-foot buffer from existing uses that involve substantial truck trips and a minimum 50-foot buffer from existing large gas stations. c. Proposed uses that involve substantial truck trips may demonstrate compliance with this implementation program by providing a minimum 1,000-foot buffer from properties where the City’s land use designation would allow sensitive receptors.
d. Proposed large gas stations may demonstrate compliance with this implementation program by providing a minimum 300-foot buffer, while typical gas dispensing facilities would provide a minimum 50-foot buffer from existing sensitive receptors and from properties where the City’s land use designation would allow sensitive receptors.
e. Avoid siting new sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the edge of the closest travel lane of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.
f. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any existing dry cleaning operation.
g. As an alternative to these buffer distances, proposed sensitive receptors, uses that involve substantial truck trips, and large gas stations may provide a site-specific health risk assessment, using methods consistent with applicable guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, with mitigation, if necessary, to demonstrate compliance with applicable YSAQMD-recommended health risk thresholds. When health risk impacts exceed YSAQMD-recommended thresholds, feasible on-site California Code of Regulations
Sections 2449(2)(B) and 2485
Idling Restrictions
Conditions of Approval required
for General Plan Policy 7.F.3,
and Implementation Programs

7.17 and 7.19; see Table A-2.

Page 217 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
mitigation measures to reduce TAC exposure shall be implemented to mitigate health risk impacts below YSAQMD thresholds. On-site measures could include, but are not limited to providing enhanced filtration systems (e.g., Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value 13 or greater) for near-by sensitive receptor buildings, changes to the TAC emission source’s operation, and positioning of exhaust and intake for ventilation systems to minimize exposure among others.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.19.
a. New development that would require the use of diesel-fueled construction equipment within 300 feet of an existing sensitive receptor use an equipment mix, incorporate buffering, schedule construction activities, or use other strategies to reduce potential health risk consistent with guidance from the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
b. Alternatively, a project applicant may prepare a site-specific estimate of diesel PM emissions associated with total construction activities and evaluate for health risk impact on existing sensitive receptors in order to demonstrate that applicable YSAQMD-recommended thresholds for toxic air contaminants would not be exceeded or that applicable thresholds would not be exceeded with the application of alternative mitigation techniques approved by the City.
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of
people?
None required.

Biological
Resources
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
General Plan Policy 7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning. Site new development to maximize the protection of native tree species and sensitive special-status plant and wildlife habitats.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.4
a. The City will require biological inventory surveys for new developments that could affect special-status species or sensitive habitat in areas designated for development under the General Plan.

City of Woodland Tree
Ordinance (Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 12.48)
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16
U.S.C. Section 703, et. Seq

Page 218 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b. The City will work with project applicants to identify opportunities to preserve special-status species occurrences and sensitive habitats through design and planning. […T]he City shall implement the applicable requirements of the HCP/NCCP as relevant to any specific land use project. [The details of Implementation Program 7.4 have been revised from as written in the City’s 2035 General Plan to reflect the fact that the HCP/NCCP has been adopted and Incidental Take Permits have been issued. General Plan Implementation Program 7.4 is now achieved through compliance with the HCP/NCCP through the City of Woodland’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.32, as applicable to discretionary projects.] Based upon the initial biological reconnaissance surveys completed of the annexation areas, the following Avoidance and Minimization Measures of the HCP/NCCP would be applicable to portions of the annexation areas, as detailed in the Biological Survey Memorandum (AECOM 2021a):

Yolo County HCP/NCCP Avoidance and Minimization Measure 16. In accordance with AMM 16 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP:
a. In accordance with AMM 16 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct species- specific surveys and identify any nesting habitat present within 1,320 feet of the footprint of a proposed project prior to any ground disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas. b. If a construction project cannot avoid potential nest trees (as determined by the qualified biologist) by 1,320 feet, the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests consistent with guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000), between March 1 and August 30, within 15 days prior to the beginning of the construction activity. The results of the survey will be submitted to the Yolo Habitat Conservancy and CDFW. If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a 1,320-foot initial temporary nest disturbance buffer shall be established. If project-related activities within the temporary nest Protection of Bird Nests and
Raptors, California Fish and
Game Code, Section 3503
City of Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 15.32 - This code
applies only to discretionary
projects; by-right projects within
the Annexation Areas would be
required to comply with the
requirements of this code as a
Conditional of Approval, as
included in Table A-2.

Page 219 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
disturbance buffer are determined to be necessary during the nesting season, then the qualified biologist will monitor the nest and will, along with the City, consult with CDFW to determine the best course of action necessary to avoid nest abandonment or take of individuals. Work may be allowed only to proceed within the temporary nest disturbance buffer if Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite are not exhibiting agitated behavior, such as defensive flights at intruders, getting up from a brooding position, or flying off the nest, and only with the agreement of CDFW. The designated on-site biologist/monitor shall be on-site daily while construction-related activities are taking place within the 1,320-foot buffer and shall have the authority to stop work if raptors are exhibiting agitated behavior. Up to 20 Swainson’s hawk nest trees (documented nesting within the last 5 years) may be removed during the permit term, but they must be removed when not occupied by Swainson’s hawks.
c. For covered activities that involve pruning or removal of a potential Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest tree, the City will require project proponent/s to conduct preconstruction surveys that are consistent with the guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, no tree pruning or removal of the nest tree will occur during the period between March 1 and August 30 within 1,320 feet of an active nest, unless a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.
d. Before any ground-disturbing activities, the City will require project proponent/s to identify and quantify (in acres) Swainson’s hawk habitat (as defined in the Yolo County HCP/NCCP Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts [Yolo HCP/NCCP 2018]) in and within 1,320 feet of a project footprint. The City will require project proponent/s to submit the Yolo HCP/NCCP Application Form for non-member agency projects and Member Agency Reporting Form for member agency projects, as applicable, and will pay applicable fees to the Yolo Habitat Conservancy as specified in the appropriate form.

Yolo County HCP/NCCP Avoidance and Minimization Measure 18. In

Page 220 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
accordance with AMM 18 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP:

Suitable habitat for the western burrowing owl is present within the proposed annexation areas. In accordance with AMM 18 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct species-specific surveys and within 30-days but no less than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects, consistent with Appendix L of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, which follows CDFW guidelines.

If burrowing owls are identified during the species-specific pre-project survey, the City will require project proponent/s to minimize activities that will affect occupied habitat, as follows. Occupied habitat is considered fully avoided if the project footprint does not impinge on a non- disturbance buffer around the suitable burrow. For occupied burrowing owl nest burrows, this non-disturbance buffer could range from 150 to 1,500 feet (Table 4-2 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, Recommended Restricted Activity Dates and Setback Distances by Level of Disturbance for Burrowing Owls), depending on the time of year and the level of disturbance, based on current guidelines.

Compliance Measure Bio 1: Avoid Direct Loss of Protected Bird Nests.

While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the following would be required for compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code:
•To the extent feasible, the City will require that construction activities be carried out during the nonbreeding season (between September 1 and January 31) for protected bird species in this region to avoid and minimize impacts to common migratory nesting birds.
•For any ground disturbance activity necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects that would occur during the nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), the City will require the project applicant to conduct a preconstruction survey. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist before any activity occurring within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat for any protected bird species. The survey shall be timed to maximize the potential

Page 221 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
to detect nesting birds, and should be repeated within 10 days of the start of project-related activity.
•If an active common bird species protected by the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code nest is found, the qualified biologist shall establish a buffer around the nest. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active. The size of the buffer shall be determined in consultation with CDFW. Buffer size is anticipated to range from 50 to 500 feet, depending on the nature of the project activity, the extent of existing disturbance in the area, and other relevant circumstances as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW.
•Monitoring of all protected nests by a qualified biologist during construction activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest. If construction activities cause the nesting bird to vocalize, make defensive flights at intruders, get up from a brooding position, or fly off the nest, then the no-disturbance buffer shall be increased until the agitated behavior ceases. The exclusionary buffer will remain in place until the chicks have fledged or as otherwise determined by a qualified biologist.

Biological
Resources
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive
natural community
identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the
California Department of
Fish and Game or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
General Plan Policy 7.B.8 Native and Compatible Non-Native Plant Species. Require developers to use native and compatible non-native species, especially drought-resistant species, to the extent possible in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, provide benefits for native wildlife, and ensure that a variety of plants suited to the region are maintained.

General Plan Policy 7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning. Site new development to maximize the protection of native tree species and sensitive special-status plant and wildlife habitats.

Implementation Program 7.6. If the project would result in fill or alteration of a waterway or any body of water supporting riparian forest habitat, the City will require project proponent/s to notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, obtain a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement if City of Woodland Tree
Ordinance (Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 12.48)
City of Woodland Community
Design Standards, Landscaping
California Fish and Game Code
Section 1602
City of Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 15.32 - This code
applies only to discretionary

Page 222 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
determined necessary by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and comply with all conditions of the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.4. (See Biological Resource impact area a) above)
projects; by-right projects within
the Annexation Areas would be
required to comply with the
requirements of this code as a
Conditional of Approval, as
included in Table A-2.

Biological
Resources
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption,
or other means?
General Plan Policy 7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning. Site new development to maximize the protection of native tree species and sensitive special-status plant and wildlife habitats.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.4. (See Biological Resources impact area a) above).

General Plan Implementation Program 7.5. If the project would result in ground disturbance on sites containing waterways or other aquatic habitats, the City will require project proponent/s to complete a delineation of waters of the United States according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ methods, and to submit the completed delineation to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional determination. If the project would result in fill of wetlands or other waters of the United States, the City will require project proponent/s to obtain a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If the project involves work in areas containing waters disclaimed by the USACE, project applicants shall obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act.

Project applicants shall be required to obtain all needed permits prior to project implementation, to abide by the conditions of the permits, including all mitigation requirements, and to implement all requirements of the permits in the timeframes required therein.

To ensure appropriate review of
potential impacts to wetlands and
other waters of the United States,
Conditions of Approval required
for General Plan Implementation

Page 223 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
and to submit the completed delineation to the USACE for jurisdictional determination.
•If implementation of a proposed project would result in fill of waters of the United States, the City will require that project proponent/s obtain a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the USACE and water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
•If implementation of a proposed project involves work in areas containing waters disclaimed by the USACE, the City will require that the applicant obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act. •The City will require that the applicant obtain all needed permits prior to project implementation, to abide by the conditions of the permits, including all mitigation requirements, and to implement all requirements of the permits in the timeframes required therein.

Program 7.5 and Compliance
Measures Bio 2; see Table A-2.

Biological
Resources
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any
native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with
established native resident
or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
None required.

Biological
Resources
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
None required. City of Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 12.48, Tree
Ordinance

Page 224 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
Biological
Resources
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
See impact questions Biological Resources a) and b) above.

Cultural
Resources
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
General Plan Policy 7.E.2. Discovery of Resources. If cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, ensure their evaluation and protection, as appropriate, in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.13.
a. During ground-disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects, if any prehistoric or historic subsurface resources are discovered, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist1 shall be consulted within 24 hours to assess the significance of the find, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and implement, as applicable, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(d), (e), and (f).
b. If any find is determined to be a historical resource according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, representatives from the City and the archaeologist will meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Cultural resources shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms, and all significant California Public Resources
Code 5097
Archaeological Resources
Protection Act (16 U.S. Code
470aa-470mm)
National Historic Preservation
Act (54 U.S. Code Section
300101 et seq.)
Conditions of Approval required
for General Plan Implementation
Program 7.13 and Compliance
Measure Cultural 1; see Table A-

2. 1 The California Office of Historic preservation utilizes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation as found in Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. The minimum professional qualifications in archeology are a graduate degree in archeology, anthropology, or closely related field plus:

1. At least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized training in archeological research, administration or management; 2. At least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archeology; and 3. Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion. In addition to these minimum qualifications, a professional in prehistoric archeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archeological resources of the prehistoric period. A professional in historic archeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archeological resources of the historic period.

Page 225 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist and in consultation with the local Native American community if the discovery is prehistoric in age, subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and documentation according to professional standards. If it is determined that the proposed development or infrastructure project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, with a preference for preservation in place. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. Preservation in place may be accomplished by planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. c. If avoidance is not feasible, the qualified archaeologist shall develop and oversee the execution of a treatment plan. The treatment plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, data recovery procedures based on location and type of archaeological resources discovered and a preparation and submittal of report of findings to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. Data recovery shall be designed to recover the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain, based on the scientific/historical research questions that are applicable to the resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable resource questions. Data recovery, in general, should be limited to the portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by project proponents’ actions. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical.

Compliance Measure Cultural 1: Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training Prior to ground-disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects, contractors shall receive cultural

Page 226 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
resource sensitivity training to identify potential archaeological resources and that all work should cease within 150 feet of prehistoric cultural resources that may be discovered during project implementation.

Cultural
Resources
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
General Plan Policy 7.E.2. Discovery of Resources; see Cultural Resources checklist item a) above.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.13; see Cultural Resources checklist item a) above.

Compliance Measure Cultural 1; see Cultural Resources checklist item a) above.

Cultural
Resources
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
General Plan Implementation Program 7.14.
a. Consistent with Health and Safety Code, Section 7050 through 7052 and Health and Safety Code Section 8010 through 8030, in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery during construction, the City and contractor/s shall take the following steps:
(1)No further excavation or disturbance of the project site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains will occur until:
(A) the coroner of Yolo County has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and
(B) if the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:

1. the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours;

2. the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American; and

3. the most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code; or
California Health and Safety
Code, Section 7050 through 7052
California Native American
Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act, Health and
Safety Code, Division 7, Part 2,
Chapter 5 Section 8010 through
8030
National Historic Preservation
Act (36 CFR 60)
Procedures for the Protection of
Historic Properties (33 CFR 325
Appendix C)

Page 227 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
(2)Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
(A) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the most likely descendant fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission;
(B) the most likely descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or
(C) the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the most likely descendant, and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Energy a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
General Plan Policy 2.C.2. Consistency with the Climate Action Plan.

Ensure that new development is consistent with the objectives and targets of the City’s Climate Action Plan.

General Plan Policy 3.E.4 Interconnected Network. Require new development to create complete pedestrian networks with linkages such as walkways, paseos, and shared-use paths that interconnect pedestrian facilities.

Policy 3.F.4 Bicycle Facilities. Require residential, commercial, and industrial developments to include bicycle lanes or pathways in accordance with the Bikeway Master Plan or Specific Plans when constructing new roadways or upgrading existing streets.

General Plan Policy 5.H.9 Reduce Demand. Reduce wastewater system demand through efficient water use by requiring water-conserving design and equipment in new construction; encouraging retrofitting with water- conserving devices; and designing, constructing, and repairing wastewater systems to minimize inflow and infiltration to the extent economically feasible.

City of Woodland Municipal
Code 13.32 for Water
Conservation
City of Woodland Municipal
Code Article 17.112 for
Landscaping.

City of Woodland Interim
Zoning Code Section 3.06.E.7
through 10, and 11 for
connectivity, pedestrian access,
outdoor spaces and shading
within Community Commercial
Zones.

Page 228 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
City of Woodland Community
Design Standards
California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Part 11 (CalGreen)
California Code of Regulations,
Title 20, Appliance Efficiency
Standards
California Code of Regulations,
Title 23. Waters, Divisions 2.

Department of Water Resources,
Chapter 2.7, Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Energy b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
General Plan Policy 2.C.2. Consistency with the Climate Action Plan.

Ensure that new development is consistent with the objectives and targets of the City’s Climate Action Plan.

See Energy impact topic a)
above.

Geology, Soils,
Minerals
Resources, and
Paleontological
Resources
a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for
General Plan Policy 8.A.1. Minimize Seismic Risk. Continue to maintain and enforce appropriate standards to ensure new development is designed to meet current safety standards associated with seismic activity. Require public and private development to be located, designed, and constructed to minimize the risk of loss of life and injury in the event of a major earthquake or other natural disaster.

General Plan Policy 8.A.2. Geologic-Seismic Analysis. Require the preparation of a soils engineering and geologic-seismic analysis prior to permitting development in areas prone to geological or seismic hazards (i.e., groundshaking, liquefaction, expansive soils).

City of Woodland Municipal
Codes Chapter 15.04 Building
Codes
Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Act, Public Law 95-124
California Health and Safety
Code Section 19100 et seq.
(Earthquake Protection Law)

Page 229 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
the area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? (Refer to
California Geological
Survey Special
Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
California Code of Regulations
Title 5, Division, Chapter 14,
Sections 14001–14036
Geology, Soils,
Minerals
Resources, and
Paleontological
Resources
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
General Plan Policy 5.I.3. Overland Flow Requirements in New Development. Require development to provide for the overland flow of stormwater meeting or exceeding the City's standard design capacity of the storm drainage system. Overland flow waters should be conveyed over public streets where possible and should be at least one foot below building pad elevations and contain provisions for removal of silt and other contaminants.

General Plan Policy 5.I.4. Low Impact Development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate site design and low impact development runoff requirements, in accordance with the Municipal Code. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
•Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
•Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
•Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
•Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
City of Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 8.08 Urban
Stormwater Quality Management
and Discharge Control
City of Woodland Post
Construction Standards Plan
(Low Impact Development &
Hydromodification) for
compliance with the City’s Phase
II MS4 permit with the State
Water Resources Control Board
California State Water Resources
Control Board General Permit
for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction
and Land Disturbance Activities

Page 230 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
•On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration; and
•Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.

General Plan Policy 5.I.5. Prohibiting Grading Activities in Rainy Season. Prohibit grading activities during the rainy season, unless adequately mitigated, to avoid sedimentation of storm drainage facilities. (Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as
amended)
Stormwater Best Management
Practices for Construction
Handbook, California
Stormwater Quality Association
Geology, Soils,
Minerals
Resources, and
Paleontological
Resources
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
None required.

Geology, Soils,
Minerals
Resources, and
Paleontological
Resources
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994, as
updated), creating direct
or indirect substantial
risks to life or property?
General Plan Policy 8.A.3. Expansive Soils. Evaluate and avoid siting of structures across soil materials of substantially different expansive properties.

Require appropriate design specification including special slabs where foundations are in areas of expansive soils.

Condition of Approval required
for General Plan Policy 8.A.3;
see Table A-2.

Geology, Soils,
Minerals
Resources, and
Paleontological
Resources
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste
General Plan Policy 5.H.6. Connection to Sewer System. Require all sewage generators within its service area to connect to the City’s system, except those areas where the City has determined a connection to the City’s sewage collection system would be infeasible.

General Plan Implementation Program 5. 14. Where soils are proposed for use as leach fields associated with wastewater treatment, the City shall require a site-specific evaluation by a licensed geotechnical engineer regarding the City of Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 13.12 Sewer and
Storm Drainage Services,
Section 13.12.020
City of Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 13.12 Sewer and

Page 231 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
water? soil suitability, including a perc test, as appropriate. All septic systems or other forms of on-site wastewater treatment and disposal facilities shall be designed by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer. On-site wastewater treatment systems shall be designed to meet the following parameters:
•provide available effective absorptive area in both primary and reserve disposal fields;
•provide appropriate separation between the disposal field bottom and groundwater or a restrictive soil layer;
•factor the ground slope in both the primary and reserve disposal field areas; •factor the influent wastewater strength and quantity in wastewater system design;
•accommodate requirements for setbacks from wells, surface waters, and property boundaries; and
•provide treatment of wastewater such that it does not adversely affect water quality or endanger public health.

Storm Drainage Services,
Section 13.12.030
Geology, Soils,
Minerals
Resources, and
Paleontological
Resources
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
General Plan Policy 7.E.2. Discovery of Resources. If cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, ensure their evaluation and protection, as appropriate, in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.15.
•Prior to the start of earthmoving activities that would disturb 1 acre of land or more within the Riverbank or Modesto Formations, the project applicant shall inform all construction personnel involved with earthmoving activities regarding the possibility of encountering fossils, the appearance and types of fossils likely to be seen during construction, and proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered.
•If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the City of Woodland Community Development Department.
•The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the Conditions of Approval required
for General Plan Implementation
Program 7.15; see Table A-2.

Page 232 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
resource and prepare a recovery plan. The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum curation for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the City to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered.

Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
a, b) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant
impact on the
environment or conflict
with an Applicable Plan,
Policy, or Regulation
Adopted for the Purposes
of Reducing Emissions of
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions?
General Plan Policy 2.C.2. Consistency with the Climate Action Plan.

Ensure that new development is consistent with the objectives and targets of the City’s Climate Action Plan.

City of Woodland Municipal
Code Article 17.112 for
Landscaping.

California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Part 11 (CalGreen)
California Code of Regulations,
Title 20, Appliance Efficiency
Standards
California Code of Regulations,
Title 23. Waters, Divisions 2.

Department of Water Resources,
Chapter 2.7 Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Condition of Approval required
for implementation of General
Plan Policy 2.C.2; see Table A-2.

Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
a) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through the
General Plan Policy 8.E.2. Disposal and Storage Plan. Requires that new development for industries that will generate hazardous wastes or utilize City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.20, Section

8.20.010

Page 233 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
hazardous materials include a detailed plan for hazardous waste reduction, recycling, and storage.

General Plan Policy 8.E.3. Buffer Zone. Requires that new development for industries store and process hazardous materials provide a buffer zone between the installation and the property boundaries sufficient to protect public safety.

City of Woodland Building
Division Hazardous Materials
Survey
Compliance with the Yolo
County Environmental Health
Division Unified Program
regulatory standards
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
b) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and/or accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
General Plan Policy 8.E.2. Disposal and Storage Plan. Requires that new development for industries that will generate hazardous wastes or utilize hazardous materials include a detailed plan for hazardous waste reduction, recycling, and storage.

City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.20, Section

8.20.010
City of Woodland Building
Division Hazardous Materials
Survey
Compliance with the Yolo
County Environmental Health
Division Unified Program
regulatory standards
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or
proposed school?
None required.

Page 234 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code
§65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the
environment?
None required.

Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted,
within two miles of a
public airport or public
use airport, would the
project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or
working in the project
area?
None required.

Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation
plan?
None required.

Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
g) Expose people or
structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss,
None required.

Page 235 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
Hydrology and
Water Quality
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water quality?
General Plan Policy 5.1.3. Overland Flow Requirements in New Development. Require development to provide for the overland flow of stormwater meeting or exceeding the City’s standard design capacity of the storm drainage system. Overland flow waters should be conveyed over public streets where possible and should be at least one foot below building pad elevations and contain provisions for removal of silt and other contaminants.

General Plan Policy 5.1.4. Low Impact Development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate site design and low impact development runoff requirements, in accordance with the Municipal Code to reduce runoff rates, filter out pollutants, and facilitate groundwater infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
•Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
•Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
•Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
•Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
•On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration;
•Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses; and •Innovative engineering practices that allow for compact, connected, and walkable urban design.

General Plan Policy 5.I.5 Prohibiting Grading Activities in Rainy Season.

Prohibit grading activities during the rainy season, unless adequately mitigated, to avoid sedimentation of storm drainage facilities.

Policy 7.A.4 Best Management Practices. Continue to require the use of feasible and practical best management practices (BMPs) and promote Low City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.08 Urban
Stormwater Quality Management
and Discharge Control
City of Woodland Post
Construction Standards Plan
SWRCB’s General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction
and Land Disturbance Activities
(Construction General Permit)
(Order 2009-009-DWQ as
amended by Order No. 2012-
0006-DWQ)
Stormwater Best Management
Practices for Construction
Handbook, California
Stormwater Quality Association

Page 236 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
Impact Development to protect receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction activities and urban and agricultural runoff.

Hydrology and
Water Quality
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially
with groundwater
recharge such that there
the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
General Plan Policy 5.1.4. Low Impact Development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate site design and low impact development runoff requirements, in accordance with the Municipal Code to reduce runoff rates, filter out pollutants, and facilitate groundwater infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
•Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
•Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
•Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
•Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
•On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration;
•Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses; and •Innovative engineering practices that allow for compact, connected, and walkable urban design.

City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.08 Urban
Stormwater Quality Management
and Discharge Control
City of Woodland Post
Construction Standards Plan
SWRCB’s General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction
and Land Disturbance Activities
(Construction General Permit)
(Order 2009-009-DWQ as
amended by Order No. 2012-
0006-DWQ)
Stormwater Best Management
Practices for Construction
Handbook, California
Stormwater Quality Association
Hydrology and
Water Quality
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of
a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

General Plan Policy 5.1.3. Overland Flow Requirements in New Development. Require development to provide for the overland flow of stormwater meeting or exceeding the City’s standard design capacity of the storm drainage system. Overland flow waters should be conveyed over public streets where possible and should be at least one foot below building pad elevations and contain provisions for removal of silt and other contaminants.

General Plan Policy 5.1.4. Low Impact Development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate site design and low impact development runoff requirements, in accordance with the Municipal City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.08 Urban
Stormwater Quality Management
and Discharge Control
City of Woodland Post
Construction Standards Plan

Page 237 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;
ii, iii) Substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface
runoff in a manner
which would result in
flooding on- or off-
site; Create or
contribute runoff
water which would
exceed the capacity of
existing or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted
runoff;
iv) Impede or redirect
flood flows.

Code to reduce runoff rates, filter out pollutants, and facilitate groundwater infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
•Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
•Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
•Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
•Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
•On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration;
•Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses; and •Innovative engineering practices that allow for compact, connected, and walkable urban design.

General Plan Policy 5.I.5 Prohibiting Grading Activities in Rainy Season.

Prohibit grading activities during the rainy season, unless adequately mitigated, to avoid sedimentation of storm drainage facilities.

General Plan Policy 7.A.4 Best Management Practices. Continue to require the use of feasible and practical best management practices (BMPs) and promote Low Impact Development to protect receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction activities and urban and agricultural runoff.

General Plan Policy 8.B.2. Flood Hazard Evaluation. Require evaluation of potential flood hazards prior to approval of development projects. Require proponents of new development to submit accurate topographic and flow characteristics information. This will include depiction of the 200-year floodplain boundaries under fully developed, pre- and post-project runoff conditions.

General Plan Policy 8.B.3. New Development in Flood Hazard Zones. No subdivisions, development agreements, or permits that would place development within a flood hazard zone can be approved unless the City City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Chapter 15.12.

City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Chapter 17.96
SWRCB’s General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction
and Land Disturbance Activities
(Construction General Permit)
(Order 2009-009-DWQ as
amended by Order No. 2012-
0006-DWQ)
Stormwater Best Management
Practices for Construction
Handbook, California
Stormwater Quality Association

Page 238 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
makes explicit findings that either existing flood management facilities provide an adequate level of protection from flooding, the City has conditioned the project to provide an adequate level of protection, or the local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will provide adequate protection. [Further detailed requirements of review are provided on page SE-59 of the 2035 General Plan]
General Plan Policy 8.B.5. Protective Structures. Require installation of protective structures or other design measures to protect proposed building and development sites from the effects of flooding.

General Plan Policy 8.B.7. Adjacent Property. Require that new flood management projects or development within areas subject to flooding ensure that floodwaters will not be diverted into adjacent property to increase flood hazards on properties located elsewhere unless secured through a flood easement or fee title buyout.

General Plan Policy 8.B.11. Levee Inundation Area. Require new development in levee inundation areas to conduct an analysis of risk from levee failure.

Hydrology and
Water Quality
d) In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
None required.

Hydrology and
Water Quality
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
See Hydrology and Water Quality impact questions a) and b) above.

Land Use and
Planning
a) Physically divide an
established community?
None required.

Land Use and
Planning
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
None required.

Page 239 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental effect?
Mineral
Resources
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents of
the state?
None required.

Mineral
Resources
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan, or other land use
plan?
None required.

Noise and
Vibration
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of
standards established in
the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of
other agencies?
General Plan Policy 8.G.3 Noise Exposure from Transportation Sources.

Require noise-reducing mitigation to meet allowable outdoor and indoor noise exposure standards in Table 8-7 [of the 2035 General Plan]. Noise mitigation measures that may be approved to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
•Construct facades with substantial weight and insulation; •Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; •Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas;
•Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
•Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Title 17 Zoning, Chapter

17.92 Industrial Zone, Section

17.92.060 Performance
Standards
City of Woodland Construction
Noise Guidelines, Municipal
Code, Section 9.28.090 (Noise
Ordinance)

Page 240 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
•Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions; and
•Maximize site design so that buildings shelter outdoor areas.

General Plan Policy 8.G.5 New Noise-Sensitive Receptors. Prohibit development of new noise-sensitive receptors where the noise level due to non-transportation noise sources will exceed the noise level standards of Table 8-6 [of the 2035 General Plan] as measured immediately within the property line of the new development, unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development design to achieve the standards. Create peaceful outdoor spaces where possible, but acknowledge that particular ambient outdoor thresholds may not always be achievable.

Require noise mitigation to assure acceptable interior noise levels appropriate to the land use type:
•45 dB L dn for residential, transient lodgings, hospitals, nursing homes, and other uses where people normally sleep; and
•45 dB L eq (peak hour) for office buildings and similar uses.

General Plan Policy 8.G.6 New Non-Transportation Noise Sources.

Require that noise created by new non-transportation noise sources be mitigated so as not to exceed the noise level standards of Table 8-6 [of the 2035 General Plan] as measured immediately within the property line of lands designated for noise-sensitive receptors.

General Plan Policy 8.G.7 Roadway Improvements. Where existing noise- sensitive receptors may be exposed to increased noise levels due to increased roadway capacity and increases in travel speeds associated with roadway improvements, apply the following criteria to determine the significance of increases in noise related to roadway improvement projects:
•Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 70 dB L dn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive receptors, a +5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to a roadway improvement project, will be considered significant; and
•Where existing traffic noise levels range between 70 and 75 dB L dn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive receptors, a +3 dB Ldn increase in City of Woodland Interim
Zoning Ordinance 2020, Article
3, Section 3.11.B.7.g (Noise
Standards)
City of Woodland Community
Design Standards, Site Planning
for Commercial Development
City of Woodland Municipal
Code, Section 9.52 (Right to
Farm Ordinance)

Page 241 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
noise levels due to a roadway improvement project will be considered significant; and
•Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 75 dB L dn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive receptors, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to a roadway improvement project will be considered significant.

General Plan Policy 8.G.8 Site and Building Design. Orient buildings such that the noise sensitive portions of a project are shielded from noise sources.

General Plan Policy 8.G.9 Existing Development. Promote the use of noise attenuation measures to improve the acoustic environment where existing noise sensitive uses are located in noise-impacted environments, such as along arterial streets or adjacent to noise-producing uses. For non-conforming uses, the burden of noise attenuation falls on the non-conforming use. For allowed uses, the burden falls on the newest use, subject to possible later reimbursement based on benefit received by later use. Allowed uses that are developed simultaneously will share the burden of noise attenuation.

General Plan Policy 8.G.10 Right-to-Farm Ordinance. Support the City and County’s right-to-farm ordinances, especially as they relate to noise emanating from agricultural operations adjacent to urban uses, by requiring notification of the potential impacts to adjacent property owners, purchasers, residents, and users.

General Plan Policy 8.G.11 Construction Noise. Consider construction noise to be an acceptable impact that is an expected byproduct of planned growth, so long as the land use is consistent with the General Plan, and noise levels are consistent with the General Plan and Construction Noise Ordinance.

General Plan Policy 8.G.13 Noise Attenuation Barriers. Noise attenuation barriers are strongly discouraged, expect to attenuate noise for existing developed uses, and may be used in the context of new development only when no other approach to noise mitigation is feasible.

General Plan Policy 8.G.14 Vehicle Traffic. New developments shall disperse vehicular traffic onto a network of fully connected smaller roadways and minimize funneling of local traffic onto large-volume, high speed

Page 242 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
roadways near existing or planned noise-sensitive uses to the maximum extent feasible.

General Plan Policy 8.G.15 Operational Noise. In new development areas, service, utility, loading areas, roof-mounted equipment, and noise-generating equipment shall be screened, designed, and located to reduce visibility and noise for surrounding properties and pedestrian areas.

General Plan Implementation Program 8.13.
a. Demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities that would generate noise perceptible at the property line of the subject property are limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday and between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Sunday and federal holidays. The building inspector may issue an exception to this limitation on hours in cases of urgent necessity where the public health and safety will not be substantially impaired.
b. Idling times for noise-generating equipment used in demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes.
c. Demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities that do not involve pile driving proposed within 445 feet from the edge of properties with existing, occupied noise-sensitive uses shall incorporate all feasible strategies to reduce noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses, including:
•Provide written notice to all known occupied noise-sensitive uses within 400 feet of the edge of the project site boundary at least 2 weeks prior to the start of each construction phase of the construction schedule; •Ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained and equipped with noise control components, such as mufflers, in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications;
•Re-route construction equipment away from adjacent noise-sensitive uses;
•Locate noisy construction equipment away from surrounding noise- sensitive uses;
•Use sound aprons or temporary noise enclosures around noise-generating

Page 243 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
equipment;
•Position storage of waste materials, earth, and other supplies in a manner that will function as a noise barrier for surrounding noise-sensitive uses; •Use the quietest practical type of equipment;
•Use electric powered equipment instead of diesel or gasoline engine powered equipment;
•Use shrouding or shielding and intake and exhaust silencers/mufflers; and
•Other effective and feasible strategies to reduce construction noise exposure for surrounding noise-sensitive uses.
d. For construction of buildings that require the installation of piles, an alternative to installation of piles by hammering shall be used. This could include the use of augured holes for cast-in-place piles, installation through vibration or hydraulic insertion, or another low-noise technique.

Noise and
Vibration
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.

General Plan Implementation Program 8.12.
a. New development that proposes the use of piles for foundations shall include all feasible measures necessary with the goal to ensure that vibration exposure for adjacent buildings is less than 0.5 peak particle velocity and less than 80 VdB for adjacent vibration-sensitive uses and less than 0.2 peak particle velocity for adjacent historic buildings. These performance standards shall take into account the reduction in vibration exposure that would occur through coupling loss provided by each affected building structure. If it is determined necessary to avoid damage, the project applicant shall coordinate with the Chief Building Official to implement corrective actions, which may include, but is not limited to building protection or stabilization.
b. New developments that would generate substantial long-term vibration shall provide analysis and mitigation, as feasible, to achieve velocity levels, as experienced at habitable structures of vibration-sensitive land uses, of less than 80 vibration decibels.

General Plan Implementation Program 8.13; see Noise and Vibration checklist item a) above.

Condition of Approval required
for implementation of General
Plan Implementation Program

8.12; see Table A-2.

Page 244 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
Noise and
Vibration
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport
or public use airport,
would the project expose
people residing or
working in the project
area to excessive noise
levels?
None required.

Population and
Housing
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through
extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
None required.

Population and
Housing
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing
people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
None required.

Public Services a) Result in substantial
adverse physical impacts
associated with the
General Plan Policy 5.B.4. Development Project Requirements. Require development projects to develop and/or fund fire protection facilities, equipment, personnel, and operations and maintenance that maintain the City of Woodland Community
Risk Reduction Division Plan

Page 245 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, or
the need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities,
the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other
performance objectives
for any of the public
services:

Fire Services?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks? Other Public
Facilities?
City’s standards, as demonstrated through positive fiscal impacts or through specific funding mechanisms in the event of fiscal deficits.

Submittal, Review and
Inspection
Recreation a) Would the project increase
the use of existing
neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
None required.
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
None required.

Page 246 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
expansion of recreational
facilities that might have
an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Transportation a) Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
General Plan Policy 2.J.6. Multimodal Access. Require convenient, attractive, and safe pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections both within commercial centers and between centers and surrounding neighborhoods and other destinations.

General Plan Policy 3.A.11. New Development. Require all new development to provide convenient bicycle and pedestrian environments and access through building orientation, site layout, traffic management, and connections to transit service and local commercial and community facilities.

Development must provide appropriate pedestrian amenities such as street lighting, benches, arcades, canopies, shade trees, art, and seating areas.

City of Woodland Interim
Zoning Code Section 3.06.E.7,
Connection within Community
Commercial Zones
City of Woodland Engineering
Standards: Design Standards,
Standard Details and
Construction Specifications
City of Woodland Community
Design Standards
California Building Code, Title
24 Transportation b) Would the project conflict
or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
General Plan Policy 3.A.4. Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

Require new development projects to achieve a 10 percent reduction in VMT per capita or VMT per service population compared to the General Plan 2035 VMT performance, or a 10 percent reduction compared to baseline conditions for similar land use when measuring transportation impacts for subsequent projects and making General Plan consistency findings. reducing peak period VMT in particular is desirable due to the added benefit of minimizing severe congestion and reducing emissions. use of VMT reduction strategies such as those in the chart below [see General Plan page TC 3-22] (taken from quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, CAPCOA, 2010) or similar professional research documents is encouraged.

Condition of Approval required
to implement General Plan
Policy 3.A.4; see Table A-2.

Page 247 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
Transportation c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
None required. City of Woodland Engineering
Standards: Design Standards,
Standard Details and
Construction Specifications
Transportation d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
None required. City of Woodland Engineering
Standards: Design Standards,
Standard Details and
Construction Specifications
Tribal Cultural
Resources
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is
geologically defined in
terms of the size and
scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a
California Native
American tribe, and that
is:
i) Listed or eligible for
listed in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Conditions of Approval Required, see Cultural Resources Impact Topic a), above.

California Public Resources
Code Division 5, Chapter 1.75
Section 5097.9 et. seq.

Conditions of Approval required
for General Plan Implementation
Program 7.13 and Compliance
Measure Cultural 1; see Table A-

Page 248 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
Public Resources
Code section
5020.1(k).
ii) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in
its discretion and
supported by
substantial evidence,
to be significant
pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision
(c) of Public
Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria
set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall
consider the
significance of the
resource to a
California Native
American tribe?
Utilities a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction
of new or expanded
water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or
telecommunications
General Plan Policy 5.H.9. Reduced Demand. Reduce wastewater system demand through efficient water use by requiring water-conserving design and equipment in new construction; encouraging retrofitting with water- conserving devices; and designing, constructing, and repairing wastewater systems to minimize inflow and infiltration to the extent economically feasible.

General Plan Policy 5.I.4. Low Impact Development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate site design and low Woodland Municipal Code
Chapter 13.32, Water
Conservation
City of Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 8.08 Urban
Stormwater Quality Management
and Discharge Control

Page 249 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
facilities, the construction
or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
impact development runoff requirements, in accordance with the Municipal Code to reduce runoff rates, filter out pollutants, and facilitate groundwater infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
•Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
•Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate and the number of required drain inlets;
•Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas; •Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
•On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration;
•Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses; and
•Innovative engineering practices that allow for compact, connected, and walkable urban design.

City of Woodland Post
Construction Standards Plan
(Low Impact Development &
Hydromodification)
Stormwater Best Management
Practices for Construction
Handbook, California
Stormwater Quality Association
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during
normal, dry and multiple
dry years?
None required.
c) Result in a determination
by the wastewater
treatment provider that
serves or may serve the
None required.

Page 250 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected
demand, in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
None required.
e) Comply with federal,
State, and local
management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to
solid waste?
General Plan Policy 5.J.2. New Development. Require waste collection in all new development and ensure that all new development complies with applicable provisions of the City of Woodland Source Reduction and Recycling Element and the Yolo County Integrated Waste Management Plan.

City of Woodland Municipal
Code Chapter 13.36
AB 341: Mandatory Commercial
Recycling (MCR) Program
AB 1826: Mandatory
Commercial Organics Recycling
(MORe) Program
SB 1383: Short-Lived Climate
Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy
Wildfire a) If Located in or near state
responsibility areas or
lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity
None required.

Page 251 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
zones, would the project:
i) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
ii) Due to slope,
prevailing winds, and
other factors,
exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby
expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of
a wildfire?
iii) Require the
installation or
maintenance of
associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water
sources, power lines
or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result
in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?
iv) Expose people or
structures to

Page 252 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question 2035 General Plan Policies and Implementation Programs Uniformly Applied Development
Standards, Policies, and
Regulations
significant risks,
including downslope
or downstream
flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
Notes:

AMM = avoidance and minimization measures
BMPs = best management practices
CAP = Climate Action Plan
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
City = City of Woodland
Farmland = Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance dB = decibel
EIR = Environmental Impact Report
HCP = Habitat Conservation Plan
Ldn = Day-Night Average Sound Level
Leq = Equivalent Sound Level
NCCP = Natural Community Conservation Planning
PM = particulate matter
TAC = toxic air contaminant
USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
VdB = vibration decibels
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
YSAQMD = Yolo-Solano Air quality Management District
Table A-2. Conditions of Approval Required of Future Development Within Proposed Annexation Areas Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question Applicable 2035 General Plan Policies to serve as Conditions of Approval Aesthetic
Resources
a) through d) None. Applicable municipal codes and regulations provided in Table A-1.

Page 253 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question Applicable 2035 General Plan Policies to serve as Conditions of Approval Agricultural and
Forestry
Resources
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Condition of Approval required to implement buffer requirements stipulated by General Plan Policy 7.C.5. Agricultural Buffer: Require new development that occurs at the edge of the ULL to be set back a minimum of 150 feet from adjacent agricultural land where possible. Equivalent means of providing agricultural buffers may be considered by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis for parcels where development potential would be precluded or severely limited as a result of the required buffer size. The buffer shall be landscaped/vegetated and may include public right of way.

Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
See Air Quality checklist question b) below.

Air Quality b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Condition of Approval required to implement emissions reductions requirements stipulated by General Plan Implementation Program 7.18: New developments that could generate a potentially significant short-term air quality impact shall incorporate feasible construction mitigation strategies, including those listed below, those included in an updated set of mitigation recommendations prepared by the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, or those determined by the City to be as effective:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. b. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials. d. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut-and-fill operations and hydroseed area.
e. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days). f. Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.
g. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. h. Cover inactive storage piles.
i. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. j. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6 to 12 inch layer of wood chips or mulch.

Page 254 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question Applicable 2035 General Plan Policies to serve as Conditions of Approval k. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6-inch layer of gravel. l. Limit all idling of vehicles and equipment that use gasoline or diesel fuel to five minutes maximum.
m. Use alternative power source, such as electricity, for construction equipment or use reformulated and emulsified fuels, incorporate catalyst and filtration technologies, and generally modernize the equipment fleet with cleaner and newer engines.

Air Quality c) Expose Sensitive Receptors to
Substantial Pollutant
Concentrations?
Condition of Approval required to implement requirements stipulated by:

General Plan Implementation Program 7.17.
a. New development shall be required to demonstrate adherence with applicable YSAQMD- recommended health risk thresholds involving sensitive receptors, uses that involve substantial truck trips, and large gas stations, as defined by the applicable regulations. “Substantial truck trips” is defined as more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units per day, or transport refrigeration unit operations that exceed 300 hours per week. A “large gas station” is one that would be anticipated to accommodate a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater.
b. Proposed uses that include sensitive receptors may demonstrate compliance with this implementation program by providing a minimum 1,000-foot buffer from existing uses that involve substantial truck trips and a minimum 50-foot buffer from existing large gas stations. c. Proposed uses that involve substantial truck trips may demonstrate compliance with this implementation program by providing a minimum 1,000-foot buffer from properties where the City’s land use designation would allow sensitive receptors. d. Proposed large gas stations may demonstrate compliance with this implementation program by providing a minimum 300-foot buffer, while typical gas dispensing facilities would provide a minimum 50-foot buffer from existing sensitive receptors and from properties where the City’s land use designation would allow sensitive receptors.

Page 255 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question Applicable 2035 General Plan Policies to serve as Conditions of Approval e. Avoid siting new sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the edge of the closest travel lane of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. f. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any existing dry cleaning operation. g. As an alternative to these buffer distances, proposed sensitive receptors, uses that involve substantial truck trips, and large gas stations may provide a site-specific health risk assessment, using methods consistent with applicable guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, with mitigation, if necessary, to demonstrate compliance with applicable YSAQMD-recommended health risk thresholds. When health risk impacts exceed YSAQMD- recommended thresholds, feasible on-site mitigation measures to reduce TAC exposure shall be implemented to mitigate health risk impacts below YSAQMD thresholds. On-site measures could include, but are not limited to providing enhanced filtration systems (e.g., Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value 13 or greater) for near-by sensitive receptor buildings, changes to the TAC emission source’s operation, and positioning of exhaust and intake for ventilation systems to minimize exposure among others.

General Plan Implementation Program 7.19.
a. New development that would require the use of diesel-fueled construction equipment within 300 feet of an existing sensitive receptor use an equipment mix, incorporate buffering, schedule construction activities, or use other strategies to reduce potential health risk consistent with guidance from the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. b. Alternatively, a project applicant may prepare a site-specific estimate of diesel PM emissions associated with total construction activities and evaluate for health risk impact on existing sensitive receptors in order to demonstrate that applicable YSAQMD-recommended thresholds for toxic air contaminants would not be exceeded or that applicable thresholds would not be exceeded with the application of alternative mitigation techniques approved by the City.

Biological
Resources
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Condition of Approval to implement requirements stipulated by the City of Woodland Municipal Code Chapter 15.32 for the implementation of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, for all proposed future development, by-right and discretionary, within the annexation areas. This shall achieve the intent of General Plan Policy 7.B.11 and Implementation Program 7.4:

General Plan Policy 7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning. Site new development to maximize the protection of native tree species and sensitive special-status plant and wildlife habitats.

Page 256 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question Applicable 2035 General Plan Policies to serve as Conditions of Approval Service? Plan.
b. The City will work with project applicants to identify opportunities to preserve special-status species occurrences and sensitive habitats through design and planning. […T]he City shall implement the applicable requirements of the HCP/NCCP as relevant to any specific land use project. [The details of Implementation Program 7.4 have been revised from as written in the City’s 2035 General Plan to reflect the fact that the HCP/NCCP has been adopted and Incidental Take Permits have been issued. General Plan Implementation Program 7.4 is now achieved through compliance with the HCP/NCCP through the City of Woodland’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.32, as applicable to discretionary projects.] Based upon the initial biological reconnaissance surveys completed of the annexation areas, the following Avoidance and Minimization Measures of the HCP/NCCP would be applicable to portions of the Annexation Areas, as detailed in the Biological Survey Memorandum (AECOM 2021a):

Yolo County HCP/NCCP Avoidance and Minimization Measure 16. In accordance with AMM 16 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP:
a. In accordance with AMM 16 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP, the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct species-specific surveys and identify any nesting habitat present within 1,320 feet of the footprint of a proposed project prior to any ground disturbing activities necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.
b. If a construction project cannot avoid potential nest trees (as determined by the qualified biologist) by 1,320 feet, the City will require project proponent/s to retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests consistent with guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000), between March 1 and August 30, within 15 days prior to the beginning of the construction activity. The results of the survey will be submitted to the Yolo Habitat Conservancy and CDFW. If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a 1,320-foot initial temporary nest disturbance buffer shall be established. If project-related activities within the temporary nest disturbance buffer are determined to be necessary during the nesting season, then the qualified biologist will monitor the nest and will, along with the City, consult with CDFW to determine the best course of action necessary to avoid nest abandonment or take of individuals. Work may be allowed only to proceed within the temporary nest disturbance buffer if Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite are

Page 257 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question Applicable 2035 General Plan Policies to serve as Conditions of Approval not exhibiting agitated behavior, such as defensive flights at intruders, getting up from a brooding position, or flying off the nest, and only with the agreement of CDFW. The designated on-site biologist/monitor shall be on-site daily while construction-related activities are taking place within the 1,320-foot buffer and shall have the authority to stop work if raptors are exhibiting agitated behavior. Up to 20 Swainson’s hawk nest trees (documented nesting within the last 5 years) may be removed during the permit term, but they must be removed when not occupied by Swainson’s hawks.
c. For covered activities that involve pruning or removal of a potential Swainson’s hawk or white- tailed kite nest tree, the City will require project proponent/s to conduct preconstruction surveys that are consistent with the guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, no tree pruning or removal of the nest tree will occur during the period between March 1 and August 30 within 1,320 feet of an active nest, unless a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.
d. Before any ground-disturbing activities, the City will require project proponent/s to identify and quantify (in acres) Swainson’s hawk habitat (as defined in the Yolo County HCP/NCCP Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts [Yolo HCP/NCCP 2018]) in and within 1,320 feet of a project footprint. The City will require project proponent/s to submit the Yolo HCP/NCCP Application Form for non-member agency projects and Member Agency Reporting Form for member agency projects, as applicable, and will pay applicable fees to the Yolo Habitat Conservancy as specified in the appropriate form.

Yolo County HCP/NCCP Avoidance and Minimization Measure 18. In accordance with AMM 18 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP:

If burrowing owls are identified during the species-specific pre-project survey, the City will require project proponent/s to minimize activities that will affect occupied habitat, as follows. Occupied habitat is considered fully avoided if the project footprint does not impinge on a non-disturbance buffer around the suitable burrow. For occupied burrowing owl nest burrows, this non- disturbance buffer could range from 150 to 1,500 feet (Table 4-2 of the Yolo HCP/NCCP,

Page 258 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question Applicable 2035 General Plan Policies to serve as Conditions of Approval Recommended Restricted Activity Dates and Setback Distances by Level of Disturbance for Burrowing Owls), depending on the time of year and the level of disturbance, based on current guidelines.

Compliance Measure Bio 1: Avoid Direct Loss of Protected Bird Nests. While not required as mitigation for a significant impact under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the following would be required for compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code:
•To the extent feasible, the City will require that construction activities be carried out during the nonbreeding season (between September 1 and January 31) for protected bird species in this region to avoid and minimize impacts to common migratory nesting birds. •For any ground disturbance activity necessary to implement proposed development and infrastructure projects that would occur during the nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), the City will require the project applicant to conduct a preconstruction survey. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist before any activity occurring within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat for any protected bird species. The survey shall be timed to maximize the potential to detect nesting birds, and should be repeated within 10 days of the start of project-related activity.
•If an active common bird species protected by the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code nest is found, the qualified biologist shall establish a buffer around the nest. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active. The size of the buffer shall be determined in consultation with CDFW. Buffer size is anticipated to range from 50 to 500 feet, depending on the nature of the project activity, the extent of existing disturbance in the area, and other relevant circumstances as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW.
•Monitoring of all protected nests by a qualified biologist during construction activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest. If construction activities cause the nesting bird to vocalize, make defensive flights at intruders, get up from a brooding position, or fly off the nest, then the no-disturbance buffer shall be increased until the agitated behavior ceases. The exclusionary buffer will remain in place until the chicks have fledged or as otherwise determined by a qualified biologist.

Biological
Resources
b) Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
General Plan Policy 7.B.11 and Implementation Program 7.4. (See Biological Resource impact area a) above)

Page 259 ends

Resource Topic
Area CEQA Checklist Question Applicable 2035 General Plan Policies to serve as Conditions of Approval plans, policies, or regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Biological
Resources
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Condition of Approval required to implement requirements stipulated by:

General Plan Policy 7.11.B and Implementation Program 7.4. (See Biological Resources impact area a) above).

Compliance Measure Bio 2: Avoid Loss of and Degradation of Federally Protected Waters. •If a proposed project would result in ground disturbance on the agricultural or roadside ditches, the City will require project proponent/s to conduct a delineation of waters of the United States according to USACE’ methods, and to submit the completed delineation to the USACE for jurisdictional determination.
•If implementation of a proposed project would result in fill of waters of the United States, the City will require that project proponent/s obtain a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the USACE and water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
•If implementation of a proposed project involves work in areas containing waters disclaimed by the USACE, the City will require that the applicant obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act. •The City will require that the applicant obtain all needed permits prior to project implementation,

Page 260 ends

Woodland City CouncilNovember 7, 2023

Woodland City Council
November 7, 2023