Woodland City Council
May 19, 2026

56 such as data recovery excavations. If only part of a site will be impacted by a project, data recovery will only be necessary for that portion of the site. Data recovery will not be required if the implementing agency determines prior testing and studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from the resources. Studies and reports resulting from the data r ecovery shall be deposited with the Northwest Information Center. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Cultural 2) For projects that could adversely affect a potential historic resources:
a. Consult the City’s Historic Resources Inventory and, as necessary, s eek updated information from the North Central Information Center or other applicable data repositories to determine whether the project area has been surveyed, and whether historic built environment resources were identified.
b. If a survey of the property or the area in which the property is located has not been conducted, a qualified architectural historian shall conduct a study of the project area for the presence of historic built environment resources.
c. If a study is required, it will evaluate the significance of built environment resources greater than 50 years in age that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities. The study may include a field survey; background, archival and historic research; and consultation with local historical societies, museums or other interested parties; as necessary. d. If necessary, the qualified architectural historian’s study will recommend appropriate protection or mitigative treatment, if any, and include recordation of identified built environment resources on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) series 523 forms. Recommended treatment for historical resources identified in the report shall be implemented.
e. If no significant historic built environment resources are ide ntified in the study or prior survey of the project area that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, there is no adverse change to documented historical built environment resources and no further action is required.
f. If a significa nt historic built environment resource could be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, avoidance shall be considered the primary mitigation option. If avoidance is not feasible, then the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, r estoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of the historical resource, conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties will reduce impacts to an acceptable level. If adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards cannot avoid materially altering in an adverse manner the physical characteristics or historic character of the surrounding environmental setting that contribute to a resource’s historic significance, additional mitigation may be required.
g. If avoidance is not feasible and minimizing impacts through adherence to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is not feasible, documentation is required using, as appropr iate, Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and/or Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) guidelines.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Cultural 3)

57 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 archaeologist shall be consulted within 24 hours to assess the significance of the find, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and implement, as applicable, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(d) , (e), and (f).
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 mitig ation. Cultural resources shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms, and all significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist and in consultation with the l ocal 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 t he 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 h istorical 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.

The policies and implementation programs summarized above establish appropriate review procedures and consultation requirements, while also addressing the need for qualified personnel to undertake technical analysis, where necessary. The policies and implementation programs provide for the identification and evaluation of cultural resources, as well as for the assessment of potential impacts to such resources and the development of mitigation strategies. Additionally, CEQA review and local regulatory review provide additional levels of p rotection for known resources, and address the identification of unidentified cultural resources.

Although the policies and implementation programs will minimize the severity of significant impacts associated with such change, impacts may occur that canno t be reduced to a less -than-significant level through mitigation. Applicants for entitlements requiring General Plan consistency findings will need to comply with the policies described above. These policies and implementation programs will help ensure new development is designed to maintain important elements of the historic setting, where this is

58 important; preserve and rehabilitate historic structures in a way that preserves their integrity; relocate structures as method of historic preservation; and avoid impacts to archaeological and historic resources.

While the Proposed Project policies and implementation programs will reduce potential effects, the potential remains for residual effects.

Beyond existing regulations that protect cultural resources and these proposed policies and implementation programs, no further mitigation is available (FEIR, p. 4.6-29).

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.6-29). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environment al benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Impact 4.6-2: Disturb Human Remains, including those Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries.

Finding: The Proposed Project would result in development and infrastructure improvement projects throughout the Planning Area that would involve earthmoving activities that could impact human remains.

There is the potential for discovery of human remains during construction. This impact is considered significant. Mitigation is included (FEIR, pp. 4.6-31 and 4.6-32).

Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Cultural 4):
a. Consistent with Health and Safety Code, Sect ion 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 investig ation 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 th e 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 disp osing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code; or
(2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebu ry 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 th e 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 t he recommendation of the most likely descendant, and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

59 Because prehistoric and historic archaeological sites that contain human remains can occur below ground with little or no surface manifestation it may not be feasible to entirely avoid impacts to interred human remains during buildout of the General Plan, despite implementation of the City’s proposed policies and mitigation measure. If buried human remains are encountered during construction without prior discovery they may be inadvertently damaged or destroyed (FEIR, p. 4.6-32).

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.6-32). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Noise and Vibration

Impact 4.11-1: Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Short-Term (Construction).

Finding: Future development and implementation of the policies in the Proposed Project would result in exposure of existing and proposed noise sensitive land uses to noticeable increases from construction activities. This impact is considered significant. Mitigation is included (FEIR, pp. 4.11-50 and 4.11-51).

Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Noise 1) 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. Th e 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, sit e 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 noi se-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 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

60 • 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.

The above described implementation program would reduce construction noise exposure. However, for construction sites that are adjacent to noise -sensitive uses, there s till could be a substantial temporary increase in noise levels that could lead to adverse noise -related impacts. The City is obliged to balance temporary noise impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Plan with other environmental benefits, a s well as economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits. The City’s focus on facilitating infill development in the Downtown area and along major corridors will help to achieve goals related to economic development, fiscal sustainability, and local employment opportunities. As noted in OPR’s draft General Plan Guidelines update, “While urban infill developments can be noisy environments, they are often healthy communities. Residents whom opt to live in infill developments may welcome such noise, and there are many ways to minimize harmful exposure to excessive noise” (OPR 2015, page 185). While sites for future infill development may be located near noise-sensitive uses, these sites are also in proximity to a mix of housing and destinations. Loc ating a mix of uses in proximity to one another makes travel without the use of a car more practical, and this provides benefits related to mobility, air quality, and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Communities that make non -automobile trips (pedestrian, bicycle, transit) practical for more residents can also reduce traffic congestion for those who still need to drive. Land and transportation policies that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) also reduce harmful air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions , enhance mobility, and reduce commuting time. Since transportation is a major cost for most households, making transportation without a car more feasible could also hold benefits related to reducing household transportation costs. Municipal costs can be reduced with compact, planned development. The City can help to free up discretionary income that can support expanded local retail activity through planning strategies that reduce travel and utility costs for households. Since infill sites are generally in areas that have access to existing infrastructure, infill development also holds potential benefits related to the up -front and ongoing cost of infrastructure.

Implementation of this mitigation measure co would reduce impacts from construction noise. Howe ver, there could still be a noticeable temporary increase in noise levels for noise-sensitive uses that are adjacent to construction sites. There is no additional feasible mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.11-51).

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.11-51). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Impact 4.11-2: Exposure to or Generation of Long-Term Noise Levels.

Finding: Future development of new noise -sensitive land uses would occur under the Proposed Project within areas that either are currently exposed to noise from both transportation and non -transportation noise sources, or will be in the future. Uses allowed under the 2035 General Plan could potentially expose existing or planned noise -sensitive uses to noise levels that exceed local standards. The impact is considered significant. Mitigation is included. (FEIR, pp. 4.11-59 and 4.11-60).

Mitigation Measure 4.11-2a – Policy 8.G.3 should be amended as follows:

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 -6 [Table

61 4.11-13]. Noise mitigation measures that may be approved to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct facades with sound insulation to achieve acceptable interior noise; • Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use setbacks and/or sound barriers where applicable, feasible, and reasonable; • Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; • Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions; and
• Maximize site design so that buildings shelter outdoor areas.

Mitigation Measure 4.11-2b – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new policies:

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

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 roadways near existing or planned noise-sensitive land uses to the maximum extent feasible.

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.

The policies referenced above would reduce long -term noise exposure impacts by establishing noise compatibility standards and requiring new development to include certain measures and strateg ies to achieve acceptable noise environments, wherever feasible. The Proposed Project provides options for different mitigation strategies and performance standards designed to avoid significant adverse noise exposure impacts. The effectiveness of the nois e control strategy to bring the desired reduction in noise exposure depends on the physical characteristics of the development and existing surrounding environment. With the proposed intensification of land uses in Woodland, especially Downtown and along key corridors, noise control will be an increasing consideration for new development, particularly for infill projects. However, urban development generally experiences greater ambient (background) noise than rural areas and residents, employees, and visitors to more urban environments would generally be expected to be acclimated to relatively noisier conditions. In order to achieve the increased levels of density and development intensity outlined in this 2035 General Plan, somewhat greater ambient noise levels must be acknowledged and accepted. The noise standards established in the 2035 General Plan accept 70 dB as being in the “normally acceptable” range for residential uses, as compared with 60 dB in the previous 2002 General Plan. This policy supports t he development of infill projects Downtown and along key corridors by setting a realistic, achievable threshold of impact for new development that acknowledges the somewhat greater noise levels associated with a vibrant, urban environment in appropriate lo cations.

This policy could result in a greater number of new noise sensitive uses that are exposed to ambient noise levels between 60 dB and 70 dB compared to what may have occurred under the previous General Plan.

Similarly, Policy 8.G.7 addresses acceptable noise levels associated with roadway improvement projects, changing from 60 dB to 70 dB areas where an increase in 5 dB increase is considered significant; increasing from 60-65 to 70-75 areas where an increase of 3 dB is considered significant; and increasing from greater than 65 to greater than 75 areas where a 1.5 dB increase is considered significant. This policy

62 change from the 2002 General Plan relaxes the baseline against which noise increases attributable to roadway improvement projects are assessed.

Policies in the 2035 General Plan establish noise performance standards and require feasible mitigation.

Implementation of policies in the Proposed Project, as described above, would reduce the potential for significant noise exposure impacts. Al though the policies are designed to avoid substantial disturbances to noise-sensitive receptors, the City anticipates that, despite implementation of feasible noise reduction strategies, noise-sensitive uses could be exposed to noise in exceedance of the City’s standards, including noise generated by new development anticipated under the Proposed Project. The City cannot demonstrate at this time that policies in the Proposed Project would reduce impacts of each project and upon each project that could be de veloped under the 2035 General Plan to a less-than-significant level (FEIR, p.

4.11-60).

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.11-60). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Pro ject outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Impact 4.11-3: Exposure to or Generation of Vibration.

Finding: Construction of projects under the Proposed Project could cause temporary, short -term disruptive vibration for locations near sensitive receptors. Under the Proposed Project, future development of new vibration-sensitive land uses could occur within vibration -generating areas (e.g., railroads). This impact is considered significant. Mitigation is included (FEIR, pp. 4.11-62 and 4.11-63).

Mitigation Measure 4.11-3a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Vibration 1) a. New development that proposes the use of piles for foundations shall includ e all feasible measures necessary with the goal to ensure that vibration exposure for adjacent buildings is less than 0.5 PPV and less than 80 VdB for adjacent vibration -sensitive uses and less than 0.2 PPV for adjacent historic buildings. These performanc e 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.

Mitigation Measure 4.11-3b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.11-1

As described above, the new implementation programs require 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 vibra tion impacts to sensitive land uses. Implementation would reduce the potential for vibration levels in areas of new vibration-sensitive land uses and the level of impact associated with temporary construction -related vibration exposure for sensitive uses. However, the City cannot determine at this time that potentially significant vibration-related impacts would be avoided in every instance. There is no additional feasible mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.11-63).

63 The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.11-63). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

C. Mandatory Findings of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when one of the following four conditions occurs:

(1) The project ha s the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

(2) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.

(3) The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, which means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

(4) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Section 15061(a)(1) states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to (1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (2) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; (3) substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or (4) eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. The EIR fully addresses any impacts that might relate to reduction of habitat and the effect on species. Impacts related to wildlife and plant species are addressed under Impacts 4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.4-3, 4.4-4, and 4.4-8, and as outlined above, impacts are less than significant with mitigation. Historic and prehistoric impacts are addressed under Impact 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 and, as outlined above, impacts are significant and unavoidable.

Section 15061(a)(2) states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Chapter 6 of the EIR includes a section on Significant Irreversible En vironmental Effects of the Proposed Project. In addition, Section

6.4 of the EIR identifies all significant and unavoidable impacts that could occur and create a long-term impact on the environment. Finally, Chapter 6 of the EIR also identifies any long -term environmental impacts caused by the Proposed Project.

Section 15061(a)(3) states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environment al effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. This means that the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects

64 of other current projects, and the effects of probably future projects.” Cumulative impacts are addressed for each of the environmental topics in the EIR and are discussed in Chapter 6 of the EIR.

Section 15065(a)(4) requires a lead agency to find that a project will have a significant effect on the environment when there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. This factor relates to effects to the environment on human bein gs generally but not to effects on specific individuals. Any of the environmental effects analyzed in the EIR could cause adverse impacts to human beings, but all impacts that could directly affect human beings (such as aesthetics, air quality, hazardous m aterials, hydrology, flooding, and water quality, noise and vibration, and transportation) were examined in Chapter 4 of the EIR.

The City Council therefore finds that the EIR for the Proposed Project has analyzed all four mandatory findings of significance.

D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), the City has included all feasible mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant and significant effects of the Proposed Project as policies or implementation programs. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(b) establish that when the project examined in an EIR is a general plan, mitigation measures may be incorporated into the plan. This is the approach taken by the City. These mitigation measures are fully enforceable by the City Council. As such, the General Plan and CAP are considered self-mitigating, and the only action required for full implementation of the MMRP is adoption of the General Plan and CAP.

The MMRP includes Table 2-1, which contains the final revised summary of the impacts and mitigation measures, and is simultaneously being adopted by the City Council with its Resolution Certifying the EIR for the Proposed Project.

E. Growth Inducement
Chapter 6, “Other CEQA Considerations,” of the Draft EIR provides a discussion of the growth-inducing impacts of the 2035 General Plan pursuant to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. The 2035 CAP would not create any growth -inducing impacts as it does not propose development or land use change s, does not propose infrastructure that would induce development, and does not include components that could induce growth. Rather, it provides a roadmap for reducing emissions of GHG emissions to achieve specified targets over time.

The EIR analysis points out that by definition, the 2035 General Plan is intended to provide for , and address future growth in the City. The goals, policies, and implementation programs of the 2035 General Plan provide a framework for long -term growth and conservation within the City ’s Planning Area. The General Plan is required by State law to be long-term in its focus, addressing physical development within and outside the City’s jurisdiction that is related to the City’s planning.

Revisions to the General Plan are required in order to address long -range goals related to land use, transportation, public health and safety, housing, open space and conservation, economic development , fiscal sustainability, climate change, and other topics that are a focus of the Final 2035 General Plan. The environmental consequences related to the potential for direct growth are analyzed throughout Chapter 4,

65 “Environmental Impact Analysis, ” of the Draft EIR and discussed herein in Section VII.C (Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures). Other indirect growth -inducing impacts are analyzed including the following: (1) inducement of substantial unanticipated population growth; (2) economic expansio n resulting in jobs and housing growth; (3) elimination of obstacles to growth ; and (4) result in service, facility, or infrastructure demand.

The growth inducement analysis states that with the amount of new development planned under the 2035 General Pla n, it is possible that, through expansion of job opportunities or other aspects of the 2035 General Plan, growth elsewhere could be facilitated. If jobs are created that cause people to move to the Planning Area or nearby communities and create a demand for housing construction beyond that provided under the 2035 General Plan, the 2035 General Plan could be considered growth inducing.

The EIR analysis states that whether or not obstacles to growth are eliminated relates to the extent to which the 2035 General Plan would increase infrastructure capacity or change the regulatory structure such that additional development beyond that assumed in the EIR would be facilitated. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves insufficient or no infrastructure and insufficient public service capacity. The extension of public service infrastructure (e.g., roadways, water and sewer lines) into areas that are not currently provided with these services would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth. With respect to the Proposed Project, development in new growth areas is anticipated. Therefore, the 2035 General Plan would facilitate elimination of growth obstacles that would result in new growth.

The 2035 General Plan does anticipate development of currently undeveloped areas. This could result in infrastructure being extended into areas that are currently undeveloped and result in pressure to plan for and entitle development beyond that anticipated under the 2035 General Plan. The 2035 General Plan includes policies for both infill and new development that would avoid unplanned development that could be induced through infrastructur e expansions into new growth areas. This reduces the potential for unplanned, induced growth. An important consideration that limits growth within the City is the City’s urban limit line, which sets an ultimate boundar y around the City. Because the urban l imit line was approved as a voter initiative in 2006, t he urban limit line may only be modified by another vote by the people. Additionally, the initiative measure approving the urban limit line also places restrictions on the provision of services outside of the urban limit line. Both parts of this initiative provide an effective constraint to induced growth outside of the City’s boundaries.

However, the EIR analysis concludes that it is possible for the Proposed Project to induce growth that could have indirect effects. The analysis concludes that the purpose of the 2035 General Plan is to provide for future development of new housing and employment opportunities. The EIR concludes that the indirect effects on the environment would have a significant and unavoidable impact, and there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond those already embodied in the Final 2035 General Plan to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level without changing the purposes of the 2035 General Plan. The City Council finds that due to the overriding considerations set forth in Section VIII below, the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh its growth-inducing impacts.

F. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Chapter 6.0, “Other CEQA Considerations,” of the D raft EIR examines “significant irreversible environmental changes” pursuant to Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project includes both the 2035 General Plan and the 2035 CAP. The CAP is designed to reduce impacts associated

66 with GHG emissions and will provide air quality and other benefits. The 2035 CAP will not create any significant irreversible environmental impacts.

However, development allowed under the 2035 General Plan is identified as contributing to the following significant irreversible environmental changes : (1) changes in land use which would commit future generations; (2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and (3) consumption of non-renewable resources.

Specifically, the EIR analysis identifies the following items as significant and unavoidable outcomes of implementation of the 2035 General Plan for which there are no known additional feasible mitigation measures beyond those already embodied in the Final General Plan: urban development in areas the previous 2002 General Plan designated urban reserve; irreversible loss of agricultural land and existing wildlife habitats ; e nvironmental disturbance from development ; increased traffic, air pollution, GHG emissions, and noise; use of non-renewable resources during construction, such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead, and water ; potential for accidental release of hazardous materials; and nonrenewable energy use.

The EIR concludes that there is no feasible mitigation without changing the 2035 General Plan purposes and that the impacts are significant and unavoidable. However, and as explained below in Section VIII of these Findings, the City C ouncil finds that the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable growth-inducing effects caused by the Proposed Project.

G. Cumulative Impacts

CEQA Guideline 15130(b)(1) requires an EIR to either analyze (a) a list of past , present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, projects outside of the agency’s control or (b) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. These plans may include a general plan, a regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for one of these plans, and the projections may be supplemented with additional information.

Chapter 6.0, “Other CEQA Considerations,” of the EIR contains an analysis of the cumulative i mpacts, pursuant to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis in the EIR uses the second method described above, the “plan method,” and analyzes cumulative issues based on regional growth projections.

The analysis examines population, housing, and employment growth for the six-county Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) region, which includes the City of Woodland. SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) includes a regional -scale land use change scenario covering the period from 2012 to 2036. This represents past, present, and probable future projects that may have impacts to which the Proposed Project would contribute (past, present, and future projects are collectively known as the “Cumulative Context”).

The Cumulative Scenario for the Proposed Project considers buildout of the City ’s Planning Area if all vacant and underutilized parcels within the Planning Area developed. Regional cumulative impacts are analyzed within each CEQA issue area a nd contribution of buildout of the City’s Planning Area in each impact area is considered. The following conclusions are reached:

67 1. Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Implementation of the Cumulative Scenario would allow for greater density and development intensity in certain infill areas – particularly areas designated Downtown Mixed Use and Corridor Mixed Use under the Final 2035 General Plan. Taller or larger buildings do not necessar ily constitute a visual impact. In addition to adding uses and density, new investment in urban infill areas typically improves visual quality by developing vacant or underutilized properties and improving maintenance of existing structures and yards. Nonetheless, the Cumulative Scenario would change the visual character of the Planning Area, which would be perceived within the Planning Area, as well as from adjacent areas. In addition, the Cumulative Scenario would contribute nighttime light to the already increasing amount of light pollution in the region. Mitigation measures in Section 4.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources,” of the EIR and 2035 General Plan policies establish high standards for design and compatibility with a project’s surroundings; however, there is no feasible mitigation that would avoid changing the visu al character of the Planning Area while also allowing the City to accomplish its Vision and Guiding Principles for the 2035 General Plan. The Proposed Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative regional impacts. The cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable . However, and as explained below in Section VIII, the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of these cumulative impacts.

2. Agricultural Resources

The conversion of farmland in the region constitutes a significant cumulative impact. As described in Section 4.2, “Agriculture and Forestry Resources,” of the Draft EIR, multiple policies are identified in the 2035 General Plan to manage agricultural land conversion, including an ULL that is designed to protect agricultural land surrounding the City limits, which would reduce the potential impact associated with conversion of agricultural land. The 2035 General Plan also requires mitigation for lost farmland within the ULL at a rate of one acre of permanently conserved farmland for every acre converted to urban development or non-agricultural uses. Notwithstanding these policies, there is no feasible mitigation that would allow the City to implement the 2035 General Plan according to the City ’s Vision and Guiding Principles, while also avoiding the conversion of farmland. No additional feasible mitigation, in addition to those discussed above, are available to further reduce the impact. The conversion of farmland that would occur under the Cumulative Scenario will contribute to the loss of agricultural land in the region, which is an irreversible loss of a shared and finite resource. The loss of farmland associated with the Cumulative Scenario makes a cumulatively considerable contribution, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. However, and as explained below in Section VIII, the benefits of the Proposed P roject outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of these cumulative impacts.

3. Air Quality

By its nature, air pollution has cumulative impacts. The implementation of plans and projects within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin would contribute to this impact on a cumulative basis , and this regional impact is a significant cumulative impact. The Cumulative Scenario of the Proposed Project would generate construction-related and operational criteria air pollutants and precursor emission s that would exceed Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District’s thresholds of significance. This is a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. The 2035 General Plan policies, mitigation included in Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR , and strategies outlined in the 2035 CAP will reduce emissions, but it is not possible to demonstrate with reasonable certainty that emissions would be reduced below applicable thresholds. There is no additional feasible mitigation. As a result, this cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable. However, and as explained below in Section VIII, the

68 benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of these cumulative impacts.

Existing toxic air contaminant sources in the Planning Area include mobile sources, stationary sources, and areawide sources, which all cumulatively contribute to the existing toxic air contaminant concentrations and the associated health risk. Implementation of the Cumulative Scenario of the Proposed Project would generate additional vehicle trips within the Planning Area that would increase vehicle volumes at local intersections. The 2035 General Plan includes policies that would require buffers between sensitive land uses and sources of toxic air contaminants ( TACs), and Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR recommends detailed mitigation that would ensure against exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations – both as a result of construction and operation of the Proposed Project. As a result, this impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

4. Biological Resources

Adverse regional impacts on palmate-bracted bird’s beak, vernal pool habitat and associated vernal pool species, and alkali prairie sink habitat, giant garter snake, and Swainson’s hawk are considered significant cumulative impacts. Buildout of the Cumulative Scenario would preserve the remaining occurrences of palmate-bracted bird’s beak; preserve the known remaining vernal pool h abitat and vernal pool species, including vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and California tiger salamander; and preserve both the known remaining alkali prairie/sink habitat and the majority of known occurrences of special-status plant species, including alkali milk -vetch, brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, and Heckard’s peppergrass, in the Planning Area. Therefore, implementing the Cumulative Scenario would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts. Impacts associated with loss of palmate -bracted bird’s beak, loss of vernal pool habitat and associated vernal pool species, and loss of special -status species associated with alkali prairie sink habitat are less than cumulatively considerable.

With successful implementation of the 2035 General Plan policies, mitigation measures in Section 4.4 of the EIR, “Biological Resources, ” and compliance with existing State and federal regulations, the Cumulative Scenario of the Proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the giant garter snake or Swainson ’s hawk. Impacts associated with the loss of giant gar ter snake and Swainson’s hawk are less than cumulatively considerable.

5. Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy

The Cumulative Scenario would result in GHG emissions associated with construction and long -term operations. The Proposed Proje ct commits the City to revisiting the emissions inventory and CAP reduction strategies when new information is available and making appropriate changes. Policies in the 2035 General Plan, reduction strategies in the 2035 CAP, and mitigation identified in S ection 4.5 of the EIR, “Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy,” of the Draft EIR will reduce local GHG emissions and commit the City to adjust policies and reduction measures, as needed, when future information related to the State ’s efforts become available. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.5 -1a provides additional clarity and requires the City to maintain and revise, as necessary, a Climate Action Plan that would achieve local emission rates for relevant emission sectors consistent with the State’s own reduction targets outlined in AB 32, Executive Order B -30-15, SB 32, and Executive Order S -3-05. The City will update GHG inventories, evaluate the performance of individual strategies, evaluate progress toward the City’s reduction targets, and make revisions to strategies, as necessary, to ensure that the City will achieve its targets. With mitigation, the impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

69 Under the Cumulative Scenario, the City does not anticipate any unusual or atypical project characteristics that would generate the need for construction equipment that would be less energy -efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the region or state. In addition, the Cumulative Scenario includes developments that would improve overall energy efficiency (energy demand per unit of development – per capita and per square footage of non -residential development, for example). The Cumulative Scenario would not be expected to cause the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Furthermore, by adhering to the policies proposed in the 2035 General Plan, as well as all applicable State and federal requirements pertaining to energy facilities construction and operation, and mitigation imposed in the Draft EIR, impacts associated with construction and operation of energy facilities to meet Cumulative Scenario demands would be substantially reduced. This impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

6. Cultural Resources

Future development and infrastructure improvements associated with the Cumulative Scenario could result in significant impacts to historical resources and archaeological resources through either direct physical impacts or by indirect impacts. Though record searches did not identify known archaeological resources in the Planning Area, the broader vicinity does have sensitivity for undiscovered resources.

When projects occur in existing developed areas, and depending on the context, development could add incompatible architectural elements; diminish the historic integrity of a cultural resources setting, feeling, or association; or destroy the historic character of a property. Although the policies of the 2035 General Plan and mitigation proposed in Section 4.6, “Cultural Resources,” of the EIR will minimize the severity of significant impacts associated with the above described changes, impacts cannot altogether be avoided.

Therefore, the Cumulative Scenario would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources. This cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable. However, and as explained below in Section VIII, the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of these cumulative impacts.

7. Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources

Construction activities associated with the Cumulative Scenario would result in substantial grading, excavation, and movement of earth associ ated with site preparation activities. These activities would increase soil erosion, especially from wind and water, and increase the potential for siltation of local drainages. All applicable projects are required to comply with the California Building Co de, City of Woodland Stormwater Management Program and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, including construction site storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) and best management practices (BMPs). Therefore, the cumulative effects associated with geology and soils would be less than cumulatively considerable. In addition, with implementation of 2035 General Plan policies and mitigation described in Section 4.7 of the EIR, “Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources,” the impacts of the Cumulative Scenario on paleontological resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.

8. Hazards and Hazardous Material

Hazardous materials and other public health and safety issues are generally site-specific and would not be significantly affected by other development in the region. The Cumulative Scenario anticipates growth that will likely result in an increase in routine use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as handling of hazardous materials near existing or proposed schools. In addition, the Cumulative

70 Scenario would result in development within the Airport Land Use Commission ( ALCU) policy area boundaries. However, existing federal, State, and local regulations and implementation of 2035 General Plan policies enforce standards for the routine use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and land uses within the ALCU boundaries. Therefore, the cumulative effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than cumulatively considerable.

9. Hydrology and Water Quality

Projects that could be facilitated under the Cumulative Scenario are subject to City ’s Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements that would require developments to minimize the area of impervious surfaces and infiltrate or reuse storm runoff from project sites so that there would not be an increase in flow volume compa red to pre -project conditions. There is no cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact associated with long -term water quality or groundwater recharge.

Although the Cumulative Scenario anticipates more growth in these areas than under the Proposed Project, the amount of growth in these areas is not relevant to this impact analysis because proposed Policy 2.B.2 applies at all intensities of buildout in SP -2 and SP-3A. The implementation of the Cumulative Scenario would not in crease or add to the impacts already discussed in Section 4.9 of the EIR, “Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality.” In addition, Policy 8.B.6 requires that structures would not redirect flows onto adjacent properties. Similar to Policy 2.B.2, Policy 8.B.6 applies to all development. The Cumulative Scenario makes a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to this potentially significant cumulative impact for flood hazard areas.

However, under the Cumulative Scenario, the City anticipates development in the levee inundation area and cannot guarantee that levees will not fail. The Cumulative Scenario would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this significant cumulative impact. There is no additional feasible mitigation beyond that proposed in the 2035 General Plan to address this impact. This cumulative impact in dam and levee inundation areas is significant and unavoidable. However, and as explained below in Section VIII, the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of these cumulative impacts.

10. Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing

There are no significant cumulative impacts regarding land use planning; therefore, the Cumulative Scenario would not have any cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

However, the population, housing, and employment projections under the Cumulative Scenario would be substantially larger than the SACOG projections. If non-residential development is attracted to Woodland beyond the levels currently forecast by SACOG, this could attract additional residential development to the Planning Area, as new residents seek opportunities to live near their new jobs. Policies in the 2035 General Plan and mitigation described within the environmental topic -specific sections of the Draft EIR reduce potential effects associated with both residential and non -residential development within the Planning Area assume d under the Cumulative Scenario. The City ’s Urban Limit Line ( ULL) and associated policies are designed to manage growth within the Planning Area to avoid adverse effects, such as unplanned development indirectly facilitated by planned development within the ULL. The City’s ULL can only be modified by the voters. While the voter -approved ULL prevents conversion of additional agricultural land outside of the ULL, the City could increase land use density/intensity to allow for additional development to meet d emand and/or neighboring jurisdictions may experience increased demand for additional development as a result. For these reasons , this cumulative impact is significant

71 and unavoidable. However, and as explained below in Section VIII, the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of these cumulative impacts.

11. Noise and Vibration

Noise is generally a localized impact that does not have regional or cumulative considerations. Stationary noise sources within Woodland’s Planning Area would not generally combine with noise sources outside the Planning Area to create a cumulative increase in stationary noise. However, development forecast under the MTP/SCS would generate and attract vehicular travel along roadways located throughout the region, including within and near the City’s Planning Area, which would combine with traffic associated with development in the Planning Area to increase vehicular traffic noise in areas directly adjacent to travelways. Implementation of policies in the 2035 General Plan and mitigation described in Section 4.11, “Noise and Vibration,” of the Draft EIR would reduce the potential for noise exposure for noise-sensitive land uses – both existing and future planned noise -sensitive uses. While in most locations and for most projects, compliance with General Plan policies and EIR mitigation would reduce ambient noise levels to acceptable levels, it is not possible to demonstrate with reasonable certainty at this time that no significant noise exposure impacts could occur within the Planning Area as a result of the Cumulative Scenario. In addition, it is possible that traffic generated under the Cumulative Scenario could combine with traffic generated by existing and future development throughout the SACOG region to increase vehicular traffic noise along regional roadways to levels that are deemed unacceptable to Yolo County, Sacramento County, the City of Sacramento, and other local agencies in the region. There is no additional feasib le mitigation. The cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable. However, and as explained below in Section VIII, the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of these cumulative impacts.

12. Public Services and Recreation

Public services are generally provided by local governments and/or special districts for areas within their jurisdiction and are not provided on a regional basis. The Cumulative Scenario includes changes in land use and the dens ity and intensity of development that would create demand for new fire protection services, law enforcement and emergency services, school facilities, and parks in the Planning Area. The 2035 General Plan includes policies to ensure that sufficient fire, police, and school facilities and services, as well as sufficient parks and recreation facilities are provided to serve additional growth. Therefore, cumulative impacts on public services would be less than cumulatively considerable.

13. Transportation and Circulation

The Cumulative Scenario is expected to result in 33 roadway segments with level of service (LOS) D, one with LOS E, and one with LOS F. The only unacceptable LOS condition would occur on East Gum Avenue from Bourn Drive to Pioneer Avenue. This segment is projected to operate at LOS F under the Cumulative Scenario, while the acceptable LOS threshold i s LOS C. The traffic volume growth on this segment is over 100 peak hour trips. Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.13 -1a in Section 4.13, “Transportation and Circulation, ” of the Draft EIR would reduce the impact . This impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

14. Utilities and Service Systems

The Proposed Project’s contribution to the Cumulative Scenario associated with the provision of utilities and service systems are considered below:

72 a. Water Supply and Infrastructure

The City has not analyzed the availability of water supply beyond the population anticipated from the Proposed Project through 2035. Therefore, it is possible the water demand from the Cumulative Scenario may exceed supply. Because the City has not analyzed the water supply for the Cumulative Scenario and cannot state with any certainty what impact on water supply new development will have, this is assumed to be a cumulatively considerable contribution. There is a potential significant and unavoidable impact.

However, and a s explained below in Section VIII, the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of these cumulative impacts.

b. Wastewater

Implementation of the Cumulative Scenario would result in increased develop ment and therefore greater amounts of wastewater effluent. The projected future capacity of the Water Pollution Control Facility, which treats Woodland’s wastewater, could serve up to 105,000 residents and is sufficient to serve growth under the Cumulative Scenario. The sewer system capacity in the Downtown area currently faces capacity constraints, but the City has plans to improve the system capacity with a new sewer line. In addition, Policy 5.F.1 of the 2035 General Plan ensures that sufficient public facilities and services will be available to serve new development. Therefore, the Cumulative Scenario makes a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the potentially significant cumulative impact.

15. Solid Waste

Solid waste management is generally provided by the respective counties and not on a regional basis. Yolo County Central Landfill ’s disposal capacity is sufficient to absorb that increase, as well as projected increases from population growth in the rest of the County. Furthermore, the 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP include policies to reduce solid waste disposal needs through encouraging the development of regional and community -based recycling facilities and secondary resource businesses, and through the promotion of waste reduction measures to Woodland residents and businesses. Therefore, the Cumulative Scenario makes a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact.

VII. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

When a lead agency has determined that , even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a proposed project would still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. An alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to fully promote the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project.

When significant effects are identified in the EIR for the project, CEQA Guideline section 15126.6 requires the EIR to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions as a way of avoi ding the significant effects. Subdivision (a) states:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the ba sic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate

73 the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasi ble alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The Lead Agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

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

Subdivision (c) describes the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives and states that the range must include those that could feasibly accomplish m ost of the project’s basic o bjectives and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives and identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the agency’s reasons underlying that determination. Factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from consideration include an alternative’s failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, or the inability t o avoid significant environmental effects.

Thus, the range of alternatives is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to allow a reasoned choice. The EIR must include enough information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives.

Under CEQA, “(f)easible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, en vironmental, legal, social, and technological factors” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.) The concept of feasibility permits agency decision-makers to consider the extent to which an alternative is able to meet some or all of a project’s objectives. In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses desirability to the extent that an agency’s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.

Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides a discussion of factors that can be taken into account in determining the feasibility of alternatives. These factors include:

► Project objectives;
► Avoid or substantially lessen significant effects;
► Site suitability;
► Other plans or regulatory limitations;
► Economic viability;
► Availability of infrastructure;
► Jurisdictional boundaries/regional context;
► Property ownership and control; and
► Other reasons for rejecting as infeasible (e.g., effects cannot be reasonably ascertained or implementation is remote and speculative).

74 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project are described in Section 5 of the EIR and summarized below.

A. Proposed Project Objectives

1. 2035 General Plan

The Vision Statement and the Guiding Principles for the 2035 General Plan also serve as the objectives for it, as follows:

2035 General Plan Vision Statement:

In 2035, Woodland is a highly desirable community to live, learn, work and recreate. It has maintained a small -town feel while maturing into an attractive, vibrant, and sustainable city that celebrates it architectural heritage and cultural diversity. Woodland is a healthy community with livable neighborhoods, a thriving downtown, w ell maintained infrastructure, excellent schools and recreational amenities connected by a seamless network of trails and paths.

The city is the region’s center of agricultural technology and food production and is recognized globally as a leader in sust ainable agriculture. The community is prosperous and fiscally sound, offering abundant employment opportunities to its diverse and creative workforce.

Woodland has become a destination for visitors seeking to experience its unique agricultural, historical, recreational, cultural and entertainment amenities.

2035 General Plan Guiding Principles:

► Quality and Character: Retain and enhance Woodland’s quality of life, its distinctive identity and small-town characteristics.

► Orderly Development: Promote new growth while achieving an orderly pattern of community development, consistent with economic, social, fiscal and environmental needs.

► Historic Downtown: Strengthen the historic downtown district as the City’s center of shopping, dining, entertainment and employment.

► Economic Development: Foster economic growth and diversification with a range of employment opportunities for all residents.

► Mobility Options: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to provide a range of attractive and viable transportation options, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit.

► Housing Choice: Provide a variety of housing types to meet the needs for all generations and income levels.

► Agricultural Heritage: Preserve and protect prime agricultural lands and their uses within and surrounding the community.

75 ► Safety: Ensure that Woodland remains a safe place to live, protected from natural and manmade hazards.

► Environmental Stewardship: Foster a sustainable community for the next generation and protect and improve the quality of the natural environment.

► Public Services: Provide realistic, supportable and appropriate levels of public service that are sustainable and fiscally sound.

► Health and Recreation: Provide all residents with opportunities to live an active, healthy, and green lifestyle.

► Quality Education: Foster quality educational and enrichment opportunities.

2. 2035 CAP Objectives
The 2035 CAP is organized into six focus area, each of which includes overarching strategies to achieve each objective and implementation actions for each strategy. The 2035 CAP objectives are as follows:

► Energy:
• Reduce Building Energy Use
• Increase Renewable Energy Generation

► Transportation and Land Use:
• Implement Land Use Policies to Support Reduced Motor Vehicle Use • Reduce Vehicle Trip Mileage and Equipment Idling Emissions • Replace Gas and Diesel Vehicles with Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

► Urban Forest and Open Space:
• Increase Community Tree Canopy
• Maintain and Enhance Open Space Environmental Values

► Water and Solid Waste:
• Reduce Per Capita Water Demand
• Achieve 75 percent Landfill Waste Diversion
• Achieve 90 percent Landfill Methane Capture

► Public Involvement:
• Build Community Engagement in CAP Implementation
• Measure CAP Implementation Progress and Adjust Actions as Needed

► Municipal Operations:
• Incorporate Sustainable Practices into All City Operations • Reduce Emissions from Municipal Electricity Use by 80 percent or More • Reduce Vehicle Fleet and Employee Commute Emissions

B. Alternatives Considered and Rejected

76 The City’ s process of developing and analyzing alternatives to the Proposed Project began with the Development Scenarios Analysis report in April 2015, which was a part of the City’s general plan update process. The four different development scenarios set forth op tions to address the long -term physical growth and other community issues and priorities. The development scenarios analysis evaluated four development scenarios. Two of the scenarios eventually became the East Alternative and the South Alternative, which the EIR examined, and are explained more fully below.

The other two scenarios, Scenarios 1 and 3, were rejected as possible development scenarios. Scenario 1 considered development only on infill sites, primarily in the downtown area, along major existin g transportation corridors, and in the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area. Scenario 1 would have provided for approximately 4,000 new housing units and 8,600 new jobs by 2035.

Scenario 3 considered a moderate amount of infill development, in addition to new development in SP- 1A and SP-3. Scenario 3 would have provided for approximately 7,700 new housing units and 11,000 new jobs by 2035.

The City evaluated each of the four scenarios for impacts to transportation, utility capacity, odor exposure, and fiscal repercussions to the City. This analysis was provided to, and discussed by, members in attendance at a public workshop, the General Plan Steering Committee at three separate meetings, the Planning Commission at two meetings, and one City Council hearing. T he City rejected Scenario 1 because it did not align with the City Council’s growth objectives, and it would have resulted in the highest Vehicle Miles Traveled per capita. The City rejected Scenario 3 because a large portion of land in SP -3 would need to be reserved for a potential flood solution, leaving too little land available for development.

This scenario also would have required moving an existing fire station and would have converted the most amount of Prime Farmland to urban uses. Thus, Scenarios 1 and 3 were incompatible with the City Council’s objectives for future growth and development within the Planning Area.

C. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR.

1. No Project Alternative: Buildout of the 2002 General Plan and Implementation of the Preliminary 2020 Climate action Plan
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that an EIR’s evaluation of alternatives must include a “no project” scenario, which is “ . . . what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the [Proposed Project] were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” This alternative assumes that the 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP would not be implemented and instead the City would build out as provided under the 2002 General Plan (as amended) and implement the Preliminary 2020 Climate Action Plan. The No Project Alternative plans for approximately 14,930 new resi dents, 5,420 new housing units, 5,545,000 new square feet of non - residential building space, and 8,170 new jobs. This alternative is considered to be feasible as it is currently in effect as the City’s adopted general plan.

The No Project Alternative inc ludes planned development also in the areas west of I -5 and north of Kentucky Avenue – including Rural Residential development in the western portion of the Planning Area, and Industrial, Business park, and Industrial development closer to I -5, as well as a small area identified for Highway Commercial development. Areas north of this planned development to the City’s northern ULL are identified as Undesignated on the 2002 General Plan land use diagram. The No Project Alternative identifies a Planned Neighborhood in the areas west of CR 101 and south of the existing City limits. The Planned Neighborhood designation in the 2002 General Plan provides for detached and

77 attached single-family units, multi -family units, commercial uses, parks, open space, public an d quasi- public uses under a future specific plan with an average density for residential areas not to exceed seven units per acre. The areas south of the Planned Neighborhood area to the City’s southern ULL are Undesignated.

Of the non-residential square footage anticipated to develop under the No Project Alternative, 72 percent is anticipated to be located in infill locations. For residential development, the No Project Alternative anticipates that 60 percent of the new dwelling units would be located in infill settings. The No Project Alternative also assumes continued buildout of the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area.

The No Project Alternative also includes implementation of the Preliminary 2020 Climate Action Plan.

The Preliminary 2020 Climate Action Plan is set to achieve emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels. This target is intended to approximate a return to 1990 emissions levels, consistent with the statewide target adopted in Assembly Bill 32. The Preliminary 2020 Climate Action Plan presents a set of community- generated strategies to guide the City of Woodland, its residents, and local businesses in GHG emissions consistent with state goals for 2020 addressing California’s contributions to climate change.

Table 5-24 in the EIR sets forth a summary comparison of the environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative as compared to the other two alternatives analyzed in the EIR. That table concludes that the No Project Alternative would have a similar or lesser impact in almost all area s analyzed in the EIR except for (1) climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy as the 2035 CAP would help reduce many of those impacts and (2) cultural resources.

2. East Alternative: Moderate Infill, SP-1A Development, SP-2 Development Unlike other EIRs that analyze a project and different alternatives, this EIR analyzed the East Alternative and the South Alternative as “equal weight” alternatives, with the understanding that the City Council would select one of these two alternatives.

Development Scenario 2 became the East Alternative, which considered a moderate amount of infill development, new development in SP -1A (in the southern portion of the Planning Area ) and new development in SP-2 (in the eastern portion of the Planning Area).

The City modified Scenario 2 to include the potential for new development in the northern portion of the Planning Area, in the vicinity of SP-3, where feasible. Development capacity assumptions were adjusted so that Scenario 2 would provide the same number of new dwelling units and approximately the same amount of nonresidential square footage as Scenario 4 (which became the South Alternative).

The East Alternative anticipated approximately 19,300 new residents, 7,000 new housing units, 17,386,000 new square feet of non-residential building space, and 19,340 new jobs. Of the non-residential square footage, 76 percent was anticipated to occur in infill locations under the East Alternative, particularly in the Downtown area (compared to 72 percent for the No Project Alternative and 80 percent for the South Alternative). For residential development, the East Alternative anticipated that 51 percent of the new dwelling units would occur in infill locations within existing City limits but not including the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area (compared to 60 percent for the No Project Alternative and 65 percent for the South Alternative). The East Alternative included the same amount of non -residential and residential development in the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area as the No Project Alternative and South Alternative.

78 Because the EIR provides an “equal weight” analysis of the East Alternative and the South Alternative, Chapter 4 of the EIR analyzes in detail the environmental effects of the East Alternative. Chapter 5 of the EIR sets forth in detail a comparison of the environmental impacts associated with the East Alternative as compared to the No Project Alternative and the South Alternative. The EIR concludes that the East Alternative would have a more significant ef fect on almost every impact as compared to the No Project Alternative. As compared to the No Project Alternative, the East Alternative would have a less significant effect on Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy. The East Alternative would have the same effect on Hazardous Materials and Toxics, Public Services and Recreation, and Utilities as the No Project Alternative.

3. South Alternative: Moderate Infill, New Greenfield Growth in the South

The City modified the South Alternative from Development Scenario 4 to include potential for new development in the northern portion of the Planning Area, in the vicinity of SP -3, where feasible.

Development capacity assumptions for the South Alternative were adjusted to provide the same number of new dwelling units and approximately the same amount of nonresidential square footage as theEast Alternative.

The EIR analyzed in detail the environmental effects of the South Alternative throughout Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, along with the East Alternative , as the EIR is an “equal weight” analysis of two different alternatives, the East and the South . The South Alternative planned for approximately 19,300 new residents, 7,000 new housing units, 16,685,000 new square feet of non -residential building space, and 18,210 new jobs. Of the non -residential square footage, 80 percent was anticipated to occur in infill locations, with the majority occurring in the Downtown area and Corridors, under the South Alternative (compared to 72 percent for the No Project Alternative an d 76 percent for the East Alternative). For residential development, the South Alternative anticipated that 51 percent of the new dwelling units would occur in infill settings, particularly in the Downtown area and Corridors,(compared to 65 percent for the No Project Alternative and 40 percent for the East Alternative). The South Alternative included same amount of non-residential and residential development in the Spring Lake Specific Plan Area as the No Project Alternative and East Alternative.

The EIR c oncluded that the South Alternative would have a more significant effect on seven impacts (aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, geology, land use, noise and vibration, and transportation and traffic) than the No Project Alternative and would have a more s ignificant effect on one impact (Agriculture) as compared to the East Alternative.

D. Environmentally Superior Alternative

The No Project Alternative is environmentally superior since it would have fewer impacts in the greatest number of environmental impact areas. In many instances, the No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts compared to the East and South Alternatives because the No Project Alternative would result in less overall development, including residential and non-residential square footage, employment, and total population. Thus, despite the fact that the Proposed Project includes policies that will result in more efficient development, community design approaches that may help to reduce environmental effects, or other benefits, includ ing implementation of the 2035 Climate Action Plan, the total amount of development would still increase the level of environmental impact for many topic areas compared to the Proposed Project.

79 When the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires that another alternative be identified. Generally, CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt the environmentally superior alternative instead of the proposed project unless the lead agency finds a basis for rejecting the alternative. CEQA allows the lead agency to reject an alternative if the alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project, including its mitigation measures, if the alternative fails to meet most of the basic project objectives, or if the alternative is infeasible for legal, economic, social, or other reasons.

In this case, the next most environmentally superior Alternative is the South Alternative of the Proposed Project, since it would reduce impacts in eight impact areas compare d to two for the East Alternative of the Proposed Project. The South Alternative would have fewer impacts compared to the East Alternative for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology, flooding, and water quality; and land use planning, population, and housing. The South Alternative would have fewer impacts compared to the No Project Alternative for cultural resources, as well.

Since the South Alternative would involve a reduced amount of area of land disturbance, the emissions during trenching, grading, and site preparation would be slightly less than the East Alternative. Under the East Alternative, a greater amount of habitat loss would occur than under the South Alternative or the No Project Alternative because greater acreage of planned growth would occur in areas that are currently undeveloped and provide habitat that could help to support special-status species. Each of the Alternatives would involve ground-disturbing construction in areas where the City anticipates infill development will happen during the planning horizon, as well as in the Specific Plan Areas. Overall, the South Alternative would have the least land area potentially subject to disturbance, relative to the No Project Alternative and the East Alternative. Thus, there is less potential to encounter archaeological and historic architectural resources that could be damaged or destroyed. Implementation of any alternative could expose people or structures to significant risks due to flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The impact would be significant and unavoidable for any alternative, with greater areas of risk for the East Alternative due to the fact that it permits development in the SP-2 area. Housing and employment growth related to the East and South Alternatives exceeds the forecast included in SACOG’s current MTP/SCS. This could be considered a growth-inducing impact if the City is successful in attracting more development than forecast by SACOG and if this, in turn, results in less overall development locating in other parts of the region. The East Alternative assumes a total population of approximately 19,300 people, 7,000 dwelling units, 19,340 local jobs, and 17.4 million square feet of nonresidential development.

Therefore, the East Alternative is projected to generate the same population and housing growth but more employment than the South Alternative and more population and employment growth than the No Project Alternative.

However, as explained below, even though the South Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative (other than the No Project Alternative) the City Council has chosen not to select either the East Alternative or the South Alternative as its preferred development scenario and instead is adopting a modified growth strategy that does not select a particular growth direction.

E. Findings for Project Alternatives

1. Rejection of No Project Alternative

The City Council specifically rejects the No Project Alternative on the ground that the No Project Alternative does not meet the Proposed Project’s objectives. The No Project Alternative would result in less overall development, including residential and non-residential square footage, employment, and total

80 population. The No Project Alternative would not include policies that result in more efficient development; community design approaches that may help to reduce envi ronmental effects; or other benefits, including implementation of the 2035 CAP. While the No Project Alternative could reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and energy, cultural resources, and paleontological resources, the No Project Alternat ive would not avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, and noise.

The Final 2035 General Plan requires the maintenance of LOS D or better in most places. The Final General Plan also includes a requirement to develop a transportation demand management ordinance, includes policies on Complete Streets (that promote travel by all modes), and includes a policy to reduce the amount of land devoted to parking. The No Project Alternative would not promote the City’s Project Objective related to Mobility Options to the same extent as would the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP.

This Objective indicates that the City will “[c]oordinate land use and transportation planning to provide a range of attractive and viable transportation options, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit.” The change from LOS C to D better promotes the City’s Objective related to Public Services, which indicates that the City will “[p]rovide realistic, supportable and appropriate levels of public service that are sustainable and fiscally sound” both in relation to capital costs, as well as ongoing maintenance costs of roadways.

Unlike the No Project Alternative, the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP includes new policies that address fiscal sustainability, strong partnerships with entities such as University of California at Davis, and the provision of infrastructure to support new growth. The No Project Alternative would not promote the City’s Project Objective related to Economic Dev elopment to the same degree as would the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP. This Objective indicates that the City will “[f]oster economic growth and diversification with a range of employment opportunities for all residents.”

Compared to the No Project Alternative, the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP include new policies that are more specific to certain resources and environmental concerns. The 2035 General Plan includes policies specific to the protection of agricultural land and mineral and cultural reso urces. While the No Project Alternative does not, the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP includes a policy on the Surface Water Project. The Final 2035 General Plan and CAP explicitly addresses GHG emissions and climate change with respect to the latest State legislation. These differences mean that the No Project Alternative is not as effective in promoting the City’s Project Objective related to Environmental Stewardship, which indicates that the City will “[f]oster a sustainable community for the next gener ation and protect and improve the quality of the natural environment.”

Compared to the No Project Alternative, the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP include more detail related to development in flood hazard zones. The No Project Alternative is not as effec tive in promoting the City’s Project Objective related to Safety, which indicates that the City will “[e]nsure that Woodland remains a safe place to live, protected from natural and manmade hazards.”

In order to better balance between environmental noise and other planning objectives, including economic development and infill development in particular, noise policies have been revised under the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP. These changes promote the City’s Objectives related to the Historic Downtown and Economic Development, which indicate that the City will “[s]trengthen the historic downtown district as the City’s center of shopping, dining, entertainment and employment” and “[f]oster economic growth and diversification with a range of employment oppor tunities for all residents,” including in infill locations, such as downtown.

2. Rejection of the East and South Alternatives

81 The City Council held three public hearings on the 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP prior to adopting the Proposed Project. During those hearings, the City Council considered whether to select either the East Alternative or the South Alternative and ultimate ly decided to adopt a different growth strategy. That strategy continues to prioritize future residential growth through infill along key corridors and Downtown and continues to prioritize Spring Lake buildout. The City Council recognizes the potential ben efits of development in new growth areas (including SP -1, SP -2, and SP -3) and desires to not preclude consideration of development in any of the growth areas through selection of either the south or east alternative. Instead, the City Council recognizes that inherent physical, financial, and market constraints exist that will naturally direct and meter growth in these areas. Various growth phasing considerations are imbedded as policy considerations rather than as regulatory “restrictions.” Decisions on fut ure development in new growth areas will rely on a thorough assessment of the specific project proposal and its consistency with the 2035 General Plan Goals and Policies, 2035 Climate Action Plan, as well as the Final EIR.

As discussed above in Section VI.A, the City made various changes to the 2035 General Plan in order to accomplish this change to the growth strategy, but none of these changes required revisions to the EIR as they did not change the environmental effects of the Proposed Project.

Based on impacts identified in the EIR, and other reasons documented in these Findings and below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds that adoption and implementation of the Final 2035 General Plan and Final 2035 CAP is the mos t desirable, feasible, and appropriate action and rejects the other alternatives as infeasible based on consideration of the relevant factors identified herein.

Additionally, none of the alternatives achieves the same the City’s objectives and community values to the same degree as the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP. The East Alternative and South Alternative would achieve some of the Project Objectives, but not to the same degree as would the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP. Based on the information in the EIR, comments received on the Public Review Draft General Plan, and professional expertise, the City team has identified proposed changes to the Public Review Draft General Plan in the form of clarifications, corrections, and modifications.

The Final 2035 General Plan provides greater flexibility compared to both the East and South Alternatives unknown future market conditions and will allow for an independent review of appropriate constraints on development based on actual conditions at the time opportunities/applications emerge. The Final 2035 General Plan provides the desired flexibility in terms of location of growth while continuing to guide the location, timing, and character of future development through the General Pl an’s policies. Compared to the East and South Alternatives, the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP is better able to achieve the City’s Objective related to Economic Development, which indicates the City will “[f]oster economic growth and diversification with a range of employment opportunities for all residents.

As a part of revisions to the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP, the City modified Policy 2.B.1 to clearly provide protections for completion of infrastructure and amenities in existing specific plan areas while they are developing. Compared to the East and South Alternatives, the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP are better able to achieve the City’s Objectives related to Mobility Options, Public Services, and Health and Recreation, as follows:

► Mobility Options: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to provide a range of attractive and viable transportation options, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit.

82 ► Public Services: Provide realistic, supportable and appropriate levels of p ublic service that are sustainable and fiscally sound.
► Health and Recreation: Provide all residents with opportunities to live an active, healthy, and green lifestyle. Promote healthy lifestyles by enhancing opportunities for physical activity, healthy ea ting and sustainable living. The General Plan ensures that adequate parks and recreational amenities are well integrated in new neighborhoods. The Plan promotes creation of a recreational greenbelt and expansion of walking and biking paths to enable reside nts to use active transportation options to connect to work, schools, grocery stores, and variety of open spaces.

With the modified growth strategy, the City will be able to evaluate new development proposals as they are submitted and to determine whether they meet the above policies, as well as all of the 2035 General Plan policies, to ensure that growth occurs in an orderly and logical manner. The City will analyze each new development project for its impacts and will compare it to the Proposed Project a nd the EIR for the Proposed Project. In this manner, the City Council determines that it will be able to grow in a manner that is more thoughtful than had it selected one of the two alternatives.

As a part of the revisions to the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP, Policy 2.B.2 was modified to be consistent with State law related to flood protection but to also clarify that advance p rocessing in areas subject to flood risk is not allowed. Policy 2.B.2 now states that no specific plan for SP-1, SP-2, or SP-3 may be processed until the designs for projects to provide necessary 200-year flood protection have been approved and the funding for construction has been secured. The City Council also modified the policy to require a 4/5 vote prior to the City’s agreement to purchase the 900-acre property within SP-2. Compared to the East and South Alternatives, the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP is better able to achieve the City’s Objectives related to Safety, which indicates the City will, “[e]nsure that Woodland remains a safe place to live, protected from natural and manmade hazards.”

The City has also modified Policy 2.L.1 to clarify that plans to develop new Specific Plan areas will be independently analyzed for consistency with the 2035 General Plan and to consider site -specific constraints. This policy modification will similarly ensure that the City grows in a logical and orderly manner with a recognition of specific limitations and will not necessarily tie growth to a particular location with the City.

Additionally, the City modified General Plan Policy 2.A.3 to clarify that the farmland identified for preservation must be of the same quality as the farmland that is impacted. With these revisions, the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP would be better able to achieve the City’s Objectives related to Agricultural Heritage and Environmental Stewardship, which indicate the City will, “[p]reserve and protect prime agricultural lands and their uses within and surroun ding the community,” and, “ [f]oster a sustainable community for the next generation and protect and improve the quality of the natural environment.”

The City also modified 2035 General Plan Policy 3.A.4 to require new development projects to achieve a 10 percent reduction in VMT per capita or service population compared to General Plan 2035 VMT performance or baseline conditions. Compared to the East and South Alternatives, the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP is better able to achieve the City’s Objectives related to Mobility and Environmental Stewardship, which indicate the City will, “[c]oordinate land use and transportation planning to provide a range of attractive and viable transportation options, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit,” and “[f]oster a sustainable community for the next generation and protect and improve the quality of the natural environment.”

83 The City also made other modifications to the 2035 General Plan in the Economic Development Element, the Public Facilities and Services Elem ent, the Healthy Community Element, the Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element, the Safety Element, and the Draft CAP to create the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP. These clarifications, corrections, and modifications are all set forth in Attachment A to the City Council’s resolution approving the 2035 General Plan and overall represent a more desirable and therefore feasible Final 2035 General Plan.

The City Council may reject an alternative that it considers undesirable from a policy standpoint, provided that such a decision reflects a reasonable balancing of various “economic, social, and other factors.” Based on impacts identified in the EIR and throughout this findings document, the City Council finds that adoption and implementation of the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP as approved, is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate General Plan and CAP, and rejects other alternatives and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible.

VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth in the preceding sections, the City of Woodland City Council ’s approval of the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP will result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all fe asible mitigation measures, and there are no feasible project alternatives which would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council chooses to approve the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP because the economic, social, and other benefits that the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP will produce will render the significant effects acceptable.

Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and Guidelines Section 15093, the City of Woodland has balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Project and has included all feasible mitigation mea sures in the EIR. The City has also examined alternatives to the Proposed Project and determined and adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate action.

The City Council determines that the EIR identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the Proposed Project. By implementing the EIR mitigation measures, as adopted by this Resolution, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for the unav oidable significant impacts discussed below. The City Council finds that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. The City Council also finds that except for the Proposed Project, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of the Proposed Project’s objectives and/or specific economic, social, or other benefits that the City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives.

In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of the findings of fact and the Proposed Project, the City Council finds that the environmental effects of the Proposed Project have been red uced to the extent feasible b the mitigation measures, that it has considered the information contained in the Final EIR, as well as the public testimony and record in proceedings in which the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP were considered, and that the b enefits of the Proposed Project, as discussed further below, outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse potential environmental impacts acceptable based upon the City Council’s overriding considerations.

84 A. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Based on the information and analysis set forth in the EIR and reiterated in Section VI.B.3 of these Findings, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation:

Aesthetics and Visual Resources

4.1-3: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and its Surroundings.

4.1-4: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources

4.2-1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as Shown on the Maps Prepared Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to Non-Agricultural Use.

4.2-3: Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment that, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland, to Non-Agricultural Use.

Air Quality

4.3-1: Generation of Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors.

4.3-2: Generation of Long-Term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors.

4.3-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations.

Cultural Resources

4.6-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Archaeological or Historical Resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

4.6-2: Disturb Human Remains, including those Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries.

Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality

4.9-7: Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Flooding, Including Flooding as a Result of the Failure of a Levee or Dam.

Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing

4.10-3: Impacts Related to Inducing Population Growth.

Noise and Vibration

4.11-1: Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Short-Term (Construction).

4.11-2: Exposure to or Generation of Long-Term Noise Levels.

85 4.11-3: Exposure to or Generation of Vibration.

Cumulative Impacts
The Cumulative Scenario of the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP, taken together with other past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts, would have a significant impact in the following areas:

► Aesthetics: Changes in visual character and increased light and glare in the Planning Area and region.

► Agricultural and Forestry Resources: Permanent loss of agricultural land in the Planning Area and region.

► Air Quality: Increased generation of construction-related and operational criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions that exceed Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District’s thresholds of significance.

► Cultural Resources: Potential damage or destruction of undiscovered cultural resources.

► Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality: Potential flooding from development in dam inundation areas.

► Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing: Increase in population, housing, and employment that could attract additional residential development to the Planning Area and region.

► Noise: Increase in noise exposure for noise-sensitive land uses associated with increases in traffic in the Planning Area and region.

► Water Supply and Infrastructure: Increase in water demand that may exceed supply.

B. Benefits of the Proposed Project/ Statement of Overriding Considerations The City of Woodland has independently reviewed the information in the EIR a nd the record of proceedings, made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially lessen the impacts resulting from the Proposed Project to the extent feasible by including policies and actions in the General Plan that effectively mitigate potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible, and balanced the Proposed Project’s benefits against its significant unavoidable impacts.

In the judgment of the City Council, the Proposed Project and its general benefits, set forth in Section IV. outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. It is the position of the City Council that any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Proposed Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is suppor ted by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section V, (Record of Proceedings).

The City Council finds that adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project would provide

86 economic, social, legal, and other considerable benefits. The following statement identifies the reasons why this is the case:

1. The 2035 General Plan promotes environmentally-sustainable development through goals and policies that integrate the 2035 Climate Action Plan and balance the need for adequate infrastructure, housing, and econ omic vitality with the need for resource management, agricultural preservation, environmental protection, and preservation of quality of life for City of Woodland residents.

2. The 2035 General Plan ensures the long -term productivity and viability of the Ci ty’s economic base as well as preserves and protects prime agricultural land and their uses within and surrounding the City.

3. The 2035 General Plan land use map accounts for existing development, physical constraints, agricultural preservation, economic d evelopment, hazards, and incompatible uses in accordance with the voter-adopted Urban Limit Line and assigns densities and use types accordingly to enhance the safety, livability, and economic vitality of the City of Woodland.

4. The 2035 General Plan permits growth in existing and new areas of the City while retaining and enhancing the City’s small town characteristics as well as providing all City residents with opportunities to live an active, healthy, and green lifestyle.

5. The 2035 General Plan and 2035 Climate Action Plan together outline a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within and from the City of Woodland so that the City can grow responsibly while also conserving energy, water, and other resources and promote net-zero energy development.

6. The 2035 Climate Action Plan provides GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 that allow the City to demonstrate consistency with the State of California’s long -term GHG reduction targets, as set forth in AB 32 and SB 32 and outlines actions that are appropriate for the City.

7. The City of Woodland is legally required to update its General Plan pursuant to Government Code section 65302(b).

IX. CONCLUSION

The City prepared the Final EIR pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council has independently determined that the Final EIR fully and adequately addresses the impacts , mitigating policies and implementation programs, and implementation of g oals, policies, and programs, and build- out of the Final 2035 General Plan and C limate Action Plan (CAP) The alternatives identified and considered in the Final EIR meet the test of “reasonable” analysis, and this consideration provides the City Council with important information from which to make an informed decision. Both the Planning Commission and City Council held p ublic hearings. Substantial evidence in the record from those meetings and other sources demonstrates various benefits and considerations including economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits that the City would achieve from the implementation of the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP . The City Council has balanced these project benefits and considerations against the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Project

87 and has concluded that those impacts are outweighed by the Final 2035 General Plan and CAP benefits.

Upon balancing the environmental risk and countervailing Final 2035 General Plan and CAP benefits, the City Council has concluded that the benefits that the City will derive from the implementation of the project outweigh those environmental risks. The City Council hereby determines that the above-described Final 2035 General Plan and CAP benefits override the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Proposed Project.

In sum, the City Council finds that any residual or remaining effects on the environment resulting from adoption and implementation of the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP are acceptable due to the benefits set forth in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Exhibit B: CEQA Findings of Fact for the
City of Woodland Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report General
Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1

1 EXHIBIT B

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE CITY OF WOODLAND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO POLICY 2.A.1 OF THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN AND 2035

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) requires the City of Woodland, as the lead agency, to make certain written findings when certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) Section 15163(e) sets forth the requirements for these findings related to a Supplemental EIR (SEIR).

The City of Woodland (City) has proposed an amendment to Policy 2.A.1 in the General Plan (the proposed project or General Plan amendment). The General Plan amendment would permit the extension of sewer, water, and recycled water utility facilities to serve existing commercial facilities up to one mile beyond the existing Urban Limit Line (ULL), and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026 . The City prepared a SEIR to supplement the previously certified City of Woodland 2035 General Plan and 2035 Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR; State Clearinghouse #2013032015). The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR continues to have utility in addressing direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with implementing the General Plan and General Plan amendment to Policy

2.A.1. Mitigation measures imposed as a part of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR continue to apply to implementation of the City’s General Plan.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(e) states that when the agency decides whether to approve a project, the decision-making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised. The Resolution 6835 adopting CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the original 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Exhibit A) remains valid. There are no significant effects shown in the previ ous 2035 General Plan and CAP findings that have been revised. This document for the General Plan amendment will address findings specific to the SEIR and amendment to General Plan Policy 2.A.1. The se findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding the 2035 General Plan and CAP environmental impacts and mitigation measures relative to the General Plan amendment to Policy 2.A.1 and the SEIR.

II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Proposed Project
The City has proposed an amendment to Policy 2.A.1 in the General Plan (“the proposed project” or General Plan amendment). The City’s ultimate boundaries are circumscribed by a permanent ULL established by a vote of the people in 2006. The approved initiative placed restrictions on the provision of services outside of the ULL. The ULL boundary and provisions of services outside the ULL may only be modified by another vote by the people.

2 The proposed general plan amendment would add the following text to existing Policy 2.A.1:

A permanent Urban Limit Line (ULL) is established around Woodland to permanently circumscribe urban development and comply with provisions for agricultural lands. Public services and facilities shall not extend beyond the permanent Urban Limit Line, with the exception of sewer, water, and recycled water facilities to serve existing commercial facilities located on parcels with a boundary that falls wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026… The General Plan amendment would permit the extension of sewer, water, and recycled water utility facilities to serve existing commercial facilities up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The proposed project would apply to commercial facilities meeting the following definition: a business located in a commercial or industrial building typically involving (but not limited to) the sale of goods or provision of services, manufacturing or processing materials, R&D, and/or indoor production/office functions, with on -site employees and regular operating hours. It is anticipated at this time that two existing commercial facilities would make use of the utility extension if the ballot measure passes. These two existing commercial facilities are Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC (located at 37437 CA-16, Woodland, CA 95695; Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN]: 025-470-038-000) and Clark Pacific (located at 40600 County Road 18C, Woodland, CA 95776; APN: 027-250-028-000). The ballot measure would not require either Bayer or Clark Pacific to extend utility facilities and services.

1. Supplemental EIR and General Plan Amendment Summary
The SEIR supplements the previously certified City 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR). The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR continue to have utility in addressing direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with implementing the General Plan and cited mitigation measures continue to apply to implementation of th e City’s General Plan. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the SEIR provides the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the proposed project. The proposed project evaluated in the SEIR includes potential amendment to the City’s General Plan Policy 2.A.1.

CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when there is a previously certified EIR covering the project for which a subsequent discret ionary action is required. According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a) and 15163, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent or supplement to an EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole public record, one or more of the following:
(1) substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
(2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new

3 significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The Draft SEIR is organized into the following chapters so that the reader can easily obtain information about the proposed project and its environmental issues:
• Chapter 1, Executive Summary
• Chapter 2, Introduction
• Chapter 3, Project Description
• Chapter 4, Impact Analysis
• Chapter 5, Alternatives Analysis
• Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations
• Chapter 7, List of Preparers
• Chapter 8, “References,”
The Draft SEIR has dedicated resource sections in Chapter 4 where supplementary information is provided. The supplementary information is based on a review of existing information and the CEQA scoping process for the General Plan amendment. The resource sections follow the organization of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, however, may have different section numbers in the SEIR.
• Section 4.1 of the Draft SEIR, Agricultural Resources (Section 4.2 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR)

4 • Section 4.2 of the Draft SEIR, Air Quality (Section 4.3 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR)
• Section 4.3 of the Draft SEIR, Biological Resources (Section 4.4 in the 2035 General Plan and

CAP EIR)
• Section 4.4 of the Draft SEIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy (Section 4.5 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR)
• Section 4.5 of the Draft SEIR, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 4.6 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR)
• Section 4.6 of the Draft SEIR, Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources (Section 4.7 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR)
• Section 4.7 of the Draft SEIR, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 4.8 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR)
• Section 4.8 of the Draft SEIR, Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 4.9 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR)
• Section 4.9 of the Draft SEIR, Land Use Planning/Population and Housing (Section 4.10 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR)
• Section 4.10 of the Draft SEIR, Noise and Vibration (Section 4.11 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR)
• Section 4.11 of the Draft SEIR, Utilities (Section 4.14 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) The Final SEIR is organized into the following Chapters so that the reader can easily obtain information about the City’s responses to comments on the proposed project and its environmental issues, as well as modifications made to the Draft SEIR:
• Chapter 1, Introduction
• Chapter 2, Response to Comments
• Chapter 3, Errata
• Chapter 4, List of Preparers
B. Consideration of the EIR
In adopting these Findings, the City Council finds that the Final SEIR was presented to the City Council, the lead agency’s decision -making body, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final SEIR prior to approving the Proposed Project. The City Council finds that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The three discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council are: (1) certification of the Final SEIR

5 for the General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1; (2) adoption of the General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 ; and (3) approve a Resolution submitting to the Qualified Voters of the City of Woodland a Measure Amending the City of Woodland Voter Approved Urban Limit Line Act (“Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative”) to permit the extension of sewer, water, and recycled water facilities to serve existing commercial facilities located on parcels with a boundary that falls wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026.

C. Proposed Project Objectives
The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the Project Objectives that were included in the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As noted in Section 3 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, “Project Description,” the project objectives include the City’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles for the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The vision statement is an aspirational description of what the community would like to be in the future, in this case, looking forward to 2035, and represents a compilation of input from the community through the public process.

Guiding principles are shared values that will be used to develop policies that would, once implemented, achieve the vision.

The 2035 General Plan Vision Statement is:
• In 2035, Woodland is a highly desirable community to live, learn, work and recreate. It has maintained its small-town feel while maturing into an attractive, vibrant, and sustainable city that celebrates its architectural heritage and cultural diversity. W oodland is a healthy community with livable neighborhoods, a thriving downtown, well maintained infrastructure, excellent schools and recreational amenities connected by a seamless network of trails and paths.
• The city is the region’s center of agricultural technology and food production and is recognized globally as a leader in sustainable agriculture. The community is prosperous and fiscally sound, offering abundant employment opportunities to its diverse and creative workforce. • Woodland has become a destination for visitors seeking to experience its unique agricultural, historical, recreational, cultural and entertainment amenities The General Plan’s Guiding Principles highlight the most critical shared values that were used in developing the policies and implementation measures in the 2035 General Plan. The applicable guiding principles to the proposed project are described below in Table B-1.

Table B-1 Summary
Guiding Principals Proposed Project Applicability
Quality and Character: Retain and enhance
Woodland’s quality of life, its distinctive identity and small-town characteristics
Existing commercial facilities receiving City utilities would continue to support the economic diversity of the City of Woodland.

Economic Development: Foster economic growth and
diversification with a range of employment
opportunities for all residents
Existing commercial facilities receiving City utilities would continue to support the economic diversity of the City of Woodland.

6 Guiding Principals Proposed Project Applicability
Agricultural Heritage: Preserve and protect prime
agricultural lands and their uses within and
surrounding the community
Existing commercial facilities that could be served by the general plan amendment (e.g., Bayer) include those that support the agricultural heritage surrounding the
community.

Environmental Stewardship: Foster a sustainable
community for the next generation and protect and
improve the quality of the natural environment
Use of City utilities would reduce the volume of
groundwater pumped, resulting in better conditions for the groundwater basin and would reduce the use of septic
tanks, overall reducing the amount of nutrients entering the groundwater basin.

Health and Recreation: Provide all residents with
opportunities to live an active, healthy, and green
lifestyle
Drinking water quality of existing commercial facilities would be improved through the use of City water supply.

Table Note
City = City of Woodland
The guiding principles that are not applicable to the proposed project include those listed below.

The principles are not applicable because the proposed project does not include changes in land use or zoning; the development of houses, or the public servi ces, education services , or safety services that support housing development; and, would not be located in historic downtown. • Orderly Development: Promote new growth while achieving an orderly pattern of community development, consistent with economic, social, fiscal and environmental needs. • Mobility Options: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to provide a range of attractive and viable transportation options, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit. • Housing Choice: Provide a variety of housing types to meet the needs for all generations and income levels.
• Historic Downtown: Strengthen the historic downtown district as the City’s center of shopping, dining, entertainment and employment.
• Public Services: Provide realistic, supportable and appropriate levels of public service that are sustainable and fiscally sound.
• Safety: Ensure that Woodland remains a safe place to live, protected from natural and manmade hazards.
• Quality Education: Foster quality educational and enrichment opportunities III. GENERAL FINDINGS: GENERAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
A. CEQA Process
A notice of preparation (NOP) on the SEIR was prepared that requested comments from affected agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of the SEIR (Appendix B of the Draft SEIR). The City circulated the NOP for a 30-day review period starting on August 12, 2025. The City invited additional comments on the scope of the SEIR at virtual public meeting held on August

7 19, 2025. The City reviewed and addressed comments received during scoping as part of the preparation of the Public Draft SEIR (Section 1.6 of the Draft SEIR and Appendix B of the Draft SEIR).

The City issued a notice of availability (NOA) of a Public Draft SEIR for the proposed project on Friday, December 19, 2025. The proposed project was discussed at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on January 15, 2026. The NOA was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, to the Yolo County Clerk’s office, and to multiple stakeholders and Responsible Agencies. The State CEQA Guidelines provide a 45 -day public review period for a Draft SEIR following posting of an NOA, during which time respon sible and trustee agencies and the public may submit comments on the scope, content, and adequacy of environmental analysis (Section 15087). The 45-day public review period began Friday, December 19, 2025, and ended Monday, February 2, 2026. The City reviewed and responded to the comments received during the public comment period as part of the preparation of the Final SEIR (Chapter 2 of the Final SEIR).

The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 7, 2026, and recommended by adoption of Resolution No. PC26-06 that the City Council certify the EIR. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings on May 19, 2026 on the SEIR and the General Plan amendment.

B. Intent to Rely on this EIR for Streamlining Purposes The SEIR describes the environmental consequences of amending General Plan Policy 2.A.1 and sufficiently supplements the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The SEIR is designed to inform City of Woodland decision-makers, other responsible and trustee agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental consequences of approval and implementation of the proposed project.

The SEIR identifies goals, policies, and implementation programs that would be implemented to reduce or avoid potentially significant environmental impacts.

The 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP EIR is a program EIR, as described under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, specifically Guidelines Section 15168. A program EIR is one that may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, and that are related:
(1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar effects that can be mitigated in similar ways.

The SEIR supplements the previously certified 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR continue to have utility in addressing direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with implementing the General P lan and cited mitigation measures continue to apply to implementation of the City’s General Plan, as amended.

As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, this SEIR provides the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the proposed project.

As stated in Exhibit A, the City intended to use 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR to streamline future environmental review and approval of private and public projects, as well as implementation actions. The City will use existing streamlining provided by CEQA, and emerging streamlining techniques, as appropriate. The City appropriately streamlined the CEQA process for the proposed

8 project using the original 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR to prepare the SEIR pursuant to Section 15163.

IV. GENERAL FINDINGS: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
A. Final SEIR
The Final SEIR for the proposed project includes the following items:
• The Public Draft SEIR (State Clearinghouse #2013032015) dated December 2025 • The Final SEIR, which includes responses to comments and errata (State Clearinghouse #2013032015 dated April 2025
B. Final 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR
The Final 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR includes the following items:
• The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse #2013032015) dated September 15, 2016; • Response to Comments on the Draft EIR dated January 23, 2017; • Revisions to the Draft EIR dated January 23, 2017; and • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated January 23, 2017, and subsequently amended May 16, 2017.
• Errata to the EIR, dated May 16, 2017.

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

Woodland Community Development Department
300 First Street
Woodland, CA 95695
(530) 661-5820
www.cityofwoodland.org
V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” It also states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying

9 both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” And it states that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles of Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect. As identified in Exhibit A, i nclusion of mitigating General Plan policies and implementation programs are among the “changes or alterations” referenced in this finding. Other “changes and alterations” are discussed herein.

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

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

In the process of adopting mitigation, the City Council made a determination in Exhibit A regarding whether the mitigation is “feasible.”
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons in support of the finding that the project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. In the process of considering the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for certification, in Exhibit A, the City Council recognized that impact avoidance is not possible in all instances. To the extent that significant adverse environmental impacts will not be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigating policies and implementation programs, the City Council found that specific economic, social, and other considerations support approval of the 2035 General Plan and CAP. As identified in Exhibit A, the City made a statement of overriding considerations when approving the Final 2023 General Plan and CAP. The City of Woodland City Council’s approval of the General Plan amendment will not result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. The City does not need a statement of overriding considerations for the General Plan amendment.

10 A. Findings Regarding Specific Environmental Impacts As noted previously, the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the original 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Exhibit A) remains valid. There are no significant effects shown in the previous 2035 General Plan and CAP findings that have been revised.

The SEIR identifies potentially significant impacts where mitigation would be required for the General Plan amendment and other impacts where the original 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR requires mitigation that would not be necessary to address any significant impact associated with the General Plan amendment. Finally, the SEIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR where the General Plan amendment would either have less-than-significant impacts or impa cts that would be mitigated to a less -than-significant level. As shown in the SEIR, the General Plan amendment has not resulted in substantial changes to the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Chapter 4, Impact Analysis). The previously made findings by the City regarding adoption and implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP remain valid.

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

1. Findings Regarding Less than Significant Impacts (No Mitigation Required) CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. As described in Exhibit A and Resolution 6835, the City Council made findings that the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR would have either no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to a number of environmental topics. The General Plan amendment and impact determinations identified in the SEIR have not resulted in substantial changes to the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Chapter 4, Impact Analysis). T he previously made findings by the City regarding adoption and implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP remain valid.

2. Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant As described in Exhibit A and Resolution 6835, the City Council made and adopted Findings of Fact that feasible mitigation measures were identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level on the following resources: air quality (Impact 4.3 -3); biological resources (Impact 4.4 -1, Impact 4.4-2, Impact 4.4-3, Impact 4.4-4, and Impact 4.4-7); climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy (Impact 4.5 -1 and Impact 4.5-2); geology, soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources (Impact 4.7 -3 and Impact 4.7-4); hydrology, flooding, and water quality (Impact 4.9 -1, Impact 4.9-2, and Impact 4.9-3); public services and recreation

11 (Impact 4.12-3 and Impact 4.12-5); transportation and circulation (Impact 4.13 -1, Impact 4.13-2 and Impact 4.13-3).

The SEIR discloses that the General Plan amendment would not result in impact s requiring mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level on the following resources, which were previously identified in Exhibit A as having feasible mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level:
air quality (Impact 4.3-3, pages 4.2-7 to 4.2-9 of the Draft SEIR ); biological resources (Impact

4.4-7 page 4.3-50 and 4.3-51 of the Draft SEIR); climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy (Impact 4.5 -1 and Impact 4.5-2, pages 4.4-3 to 4.4-6 of the Draft SEIR ); geology, soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources (Impact 4.7 -3, pages 4.6-6 of the Draft SEIR ); hydrology, flooding, and water quality (Impact 4.9-1, Impact 4.9-2, and Impact 4.9-3, pages 4.8-7 to 4.8-11 of the Draft SEIR ); public services and recreation (Impact 4.12 -3 and Impact 4.12-5, Section 2.1.4, Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR of the Draft SEIR); transportation and circulation (Impact 4.13-1, Impact 4.13-2, and Impact 4.13-3, Section 2.1.4, Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR of the Draft SEIR). Therefore, the implementation of the General Plan amendment would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for the resources identified above.

The SEIR discloses that the General Plan amendment would result in impacts requiring mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level on the following resources, which are the same resources for which the City made Findings of Fact in Exhibit A for the original 2035 General Plan and CAP as requiring feasible mitigation measures that will avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental impacts to a less -than-significant level : biological resources (Impact 4.4-1, Impact 4.4-2, Impact 4.4-3, and Impact 4.4-4 pages 4.3-31 to 4.3-38 of the Draft SEIR) and geology, soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources (Impact 4.7- 4, page 4.6-7 of the Draft SEIR). In addition, the SEIR discloses that the General Plan amendment would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the following resources because implementation program(s)/mitigation measures previously identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and in Exhibit A would reduce, avoid, and/or minimize potentially significant environmental impacts: cultural resources (Impact 4.6-1 and Impact 4.6-2 pages 4.5-5 to 4.5-8 of the Draft SEIR) and noise (Impact 4.11-1 pages 4.10-3 to 4.10-4).

The General Plan amendment and impact determinations identified in the SEIR have not resulted in substantial changes to the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Chapter 4, Impact Analysis). The previously made findings by the City regarding adoption and implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP remain valid.

3. Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant
As described in Exhibit A and Resolution 6835, the City Council made and adopted Findings of Fact that impacts from adopting and implementing the 2035 General Plan and CAP on the following resources cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level with any feasible mitigation, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was required: aesthetics and visual resources (Impact 4.1-3 and Impact 4.1-4); agriculture and forestry resources (Impact 4.2-1 and Impact 4.2-

12 3); air quality (Impact 4.3-1, Impact 4.3-2, and Impact 4.3-3); cultural resources (Impact 4.6-1 and Impact 4.6-2); noise and vibration (Impact 4.11-1, Impact 4.11-2 and Impact 4.11-3).

The SEIR discloses that the General Plan amendment would not result significant and unavoidable impacts on the following resources: aesthetics and visual resources (Impact 4.1-3 and Impact 4.1- 4, Section 2.1.4, Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR of the Draft SEIR); agriculture and forestry resources (Impact 4. 1-1 and Impact 4.1-3, pages 4.1- 4 to 4.1-7 of the Draft SEIR); air quality (Impact 4.3-1, Impact 4.3-2, and Impact 4.3-3, pages 4.2- 4 to 4.2-9 of the Draft SEIR ); cultural resources (Impact 4.6 -1 and Impact 4.6 -2, pages 4.5-5 to

4.5-8 of the Draft SEIR ); noise and vibration (Impact 4.11 -1, Impact 4.11-2 and Impact 4.11 -3, pages 4.10-3 to 4.10-6 of the Draft SEIR). Therefore, the implementation of the of the Geneal Plan amendment would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for the resources identified above. The City is not required to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the General Plan amendment.

The General Plan amendment and impact determinations identified in the SEIR have not resulted in substantial changes to the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR ( Chapter 4, Impact Analysis). The previously made findings by the City regarding adoption and implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP remain valid.

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

Exhibit A identifies that the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR analyzed all four mandatory findings of significance. These remain valid and the General Plan amendment and SEIR do not alter the previously made findings related to mandatory findings of significance.

13 C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), the City has included all feasible mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant and significant effects of the General Plan Amendment . Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(b) establish that when the project examined in an EIR is a general plan, mitigation measures may be incorporated into the plan. This is the approach taken by the City for the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

The SEIR identifies Implementation Programs that would be required as conditions of approval for a utility extension request under the proposed project, as well as applicable Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Yolo HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Measures, as analyzed and identified through the 2035 General Plan and CAPEIR and Yolo HCP/NCCP Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/EIR. The implementation program(s) and mitigation measures are fully enforceable by the City Council. Exhibit C is Attachment B of the Final SEIR and contains Summary of Applicable Implementation Programs and Mitigation Measures. This is simultaneously being adopted by the City Council with its Resolution Certifying the SEIR for the General Plan amendment.

D. Growth Inducement
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concludes that the indirect effects on the environment would have a significant and unavoidable impact, and there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond those already embodied in the Final 2035 General Plan to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level without changing the purposes of the 2035 General Plan. As documented in Exhibit A, t he City Council found that, due to the overriding considerations set forth in Exhibit A Section VIII, the benefits of the General Plan and CAP outweigh its growth -inducing impacts.

These findings remain valid and the 2035 General Plan amendment and SEIR do not alter the previously made findings related to growth inducing.

E. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concludes that there is no feasible mitigation without changing the 2035 General Plan purposes and that the impacts are significant and unavoidable.

However, and as explained in Exhibit A, Section VIII of the Findings for the 2035 General Plan and CAP, the City Council found that the benefits of the General Plan and CAP outweigh the significant and unavoidable growth-inducing effects caused by the General Plan and CAP. These findings remain valid and the General Plan amendment and SEIR do not alter the previously made findings related to significant irreversible environmental changes” pursuant to Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines.

F. Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guideline 15130(b)(1) requires an EIR to either analyze (a) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, projects outside of the agency’s control or (b) a summary of projection s contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. These plans may include a general plan, a regional

14 transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for one of these plans, and the projections may be supplemented with additional information.

As described in Exhibit A, the City made findings that the following resources would have significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts: aesthetics and visual resources ; agricultural resources; air quality; cultural resources; hydrology and water quality specifically with respect to levee inundation areas; land use planning, population and housing; noise and vibration; and, water supply and infrastructure. However, and as explained in Exhibit A, Section VIII, the benefits of the General Plan and CAP outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of these cumulative impacts. These findings remain valid and the General Plan amendment and SEIR do not alter the previously made findings related to cumulative impacts.

The SEIR evaluated cumulative impacts in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, (pages 6-1 to 6-17 of the Draft SEIR) and determined that for all resources the General Plan amendment would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact and cumulative impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. The General Plan amendment would not increase the severity of any impacts as they were disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Chapter 5, Alternatives Analysis, of the Draft SEIR). Since there are no new impacts associated with the proposed project and since there are no impacts that would increase in severity with implementati on of the General Plan amendment, the SEIR does not include any new alternatives for analysis (Chapter 5, Alternatives Analysis, of the Draft SEIR) .

There are no alternatives that were determined to be infeasible at the time of drafting the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Chapter 5, Alternatives, page 5 -5 through 5-7 of the Draft EIR) that would address any potentially significant impact, and that are now feasible. This is because the alternatives that were determined to be infeasible (General Plan Scenario 1: High Infill; No New Greenfield Development and General Plan Scenario 3: Moderate Infill; New Greenfield Growth in the South and North) would have resulted in more new development than the proposed project.

Therefore, the General Plan amendment would not make the alternatives analysis provided in Chapter 5 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR inadequate.

Exhibit A identifies findings for the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR alternatives . These remain valid and the General Plan amendment and SEIR do not alter the previously made findings related to alternatives.

VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As identified in Exhibit A and Resolution 6835, the City made a statement of overriding considerations when approving the Final 2023 General Plan and CAP. As set forth in the preceding sections, the City of Woodland City Council’s approval of the General Plan amendment will not result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided with the adoption of all

15 feasible mitigation measures. The City does not need a statement of overriding considerations for the General Plan amendment.

VIII. CONCLUSION
The City prepared the SEIR pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines , including CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, which describes the appropriate use of a SEIR to address minor additions and changes needed to the 2035 General Plan and CAP Final EIR to adequately address the General Plan amendment. The City Council has independently determined that the SEIR fully and adequately addresses the impacts of the General Plan amendment.

Both the Planning Commission and City Council held public meetings and have considered all information contained in the record regarding the General Plan amendment. Implementation of the General Plan amendment would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Chapter 4, Impact Analysis, of the Draft SEIR) . The General Plan amendment would not result in substantial changes to the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Chapter 4, Impact Analysis, of the Draft SEIR ). The previously made findings in Exhibit A by the City regarding adoption and implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP remain valid.

Exhibit C: Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
Summary of Applicable Implementation
Programs and Mitigation Measures

ATTACHMENT B
Summary of Applicable Implementation
Programs And Mitigation Measures

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-1 Attachment B
B1 INTRODUCTION
The following table provides a detailed summary of the City of Woodland’s (City’s) General Plan Mitigation Measures that are applicable Implementation Programs that would be required as conditions of approval for a utility request under the proposed project, as well as applicable Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Yolo HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Measures, as analyzed and identified through the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Yolo HCP/NCCP Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/EIR. Table B1-1 identifies those mitigation measures that would be relevant to the amendment to Policy 2.A.1, such that the amendment to Policy 2.A.1 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 and Yolo HCP/NCCP EIS/EIR.

Table B1-1 includes Conditions of Approval that would be required for any future utility extension requests that could occur under the amendment to Policy 2.A.1; the City would require applicable Conditions of Approval as part of the application process for future utility extensions, as part of the execution of the will-serve agreement or utility services agreement, and prior to issuing local applicable permits. Unless otherwise noted in the Table B1-1, the source documentation is the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-2 Attachment B
Table B1-1. Summary of Applicable Implementation Programs and Mitigation Measures Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) Biological Resources Impact 4.4-1: Loss of Special-
status Plants and Loss of Special-
status Plant Habitat
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a – Implementation Program Biological Resources 1 This measure requires biological inventory surveys conducted according to applicable standards and protocols for projects that may affect special-status species or habitats. 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. b) The City will work with project applicants to identify opportunities to preserve special-status species occurrences and sensitive habitats through design and planning. If the HCP/NCCP is adopted and state and federal ITPs have been issued, the City shall implement the applicable requirements of the HCP/NCCP as relevant to any specific land use project. If the HCP/NCCP is not in place and/or ITPs have not been issued, the City shall follow the steps described below. c) If the City determines it is reasonable and feasible to do so, while still achieving the specific project development goals and objectives, the City will require preservation of occupied special-status species habitat and sensitive habitat types as a condition of project approval. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, project proponents shall be required to mitigate all adverse effects in accordance with guidance from the appropriate state or federal agency charged with the protection of the subject species and habitat, including surveys conducted according to applicable standards and protocols, where necessary, implementation of impact minimization measures based on accepted standards and guidelines and best available science, and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable loss of special-status species and sensitive habitats.
d) If the project would result in take of state or federally listed species, the City will require project proponent/s to obtain take authorization from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as appropriate, depending on species status, and comply with all conditions of the take authorization.
e) If the Yolo HCP/NCCP is not adopted or the affected species or habitat is not covered under the plan, the City will require project applicants to develop a mitigation and monitoring plan, in coordination with CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate depending on species status, to compensate for the loss of special- status species and sensitive habitats. The mitigation and monitoring plan will describe in detail how loss of special-status species or sensitive habitats shall be avoided or offset, including details on restoration and creation of habitat, compensation for the temporal loss of habitat, management and monitoring to avoid indirect habitat degradation (e.g., management of invasive plant species, maintenance of required hydrology), success criteria ensuring that habitat function goals and objectives are met and target special- status species are established, performance standards to ensure success, and remedial actions if performance standards are not met. The plan will include detailed information on the habitats present within the preservation and mitigation areas, the long-term management and monitoring of these habitats, legal protection for the preservation and mitigation areas (e.g., conservation easement, declaration of restrictions), and funding mechanism information (e.g., endowment).

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-3 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) f) If available, purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved mitigation bank (i.e., approved by the agency with jurisdiction over the affected species or habitat) in Yolo County, will be acceptable for compensatory mitigation for special-status species that are not covered under the Yolo HCP/NCCP.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c General Avoidance and Minimization Measures • GM01: Preconstruction Survey. Before the start of repair activities, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey to identify special-status plant and wildlife species and associated habitats.

Surveys will be conducted within the project footprint and staging/equipment storage area(s). If required, special-status species and/or buffers will be marked in the field by a qualified biologist, using temporary fencing, high-visibility flagging, or other means that are equally effective. Preconstruction surveys for special-status plant species will incorporate blooming period surveys if utility extensions occur in areas other than developed or agricultural lands.
• GM02: Construction Site Trash Maintenance. All project-related trash items, such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps, will be collected in closed containers that are removed from the rehabilitation site each day and disposed at an appropriate off-site location, to minimize attracting wildlife to work areas.
• GM03: Yolo HCP/NCCP avoidance and minimization measures (AMM)3, Confine and Delineate Work Area. Where natural communities and covered species habitat are present, workers will confine land clearing to the minimum area necessary to facilitate construction activities. Workers will restrict movement of heavy equipment to and from the project site to established roadways to minimize natural community and covered species habitat disturbance. The project proponent will clearly identify boundaries of work areas using temporary fencing or equivalent and will identify areas designated as environmentally sensitive. All construction vehicles, other equipment, and personnel will avoid these designated areas.
• GM04: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM4, Cover Trenches and Holes during Construction and Maintenance. To prevent injury and mortality of special-status species, including: giant garter snake, northwestern pond turtle, and California tiger salamander, workers will cover open trenches and holes associated with implementation of covered activities that affect habitat for these species or design the trenches and holes with escape ramps that can be used during non-working hours. The construction contractor will inspect open trenches and holes prior to filling and contact a qualified biologist to remove or release any trapped wildlife found in the trenches or holes.
• GM05: Equipment Inspection. Inspections will be conducted under all vehicles and heavy equipment for the presence of wildlife before the start of each workday, when equipment is staged overnight. In addition, a search for wildlife will be conducted in all pipes, culverts, and similar structures that have been stored on site for one or more nights, before they are buried, capped, or moved. • GM06: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM6, Conduct Worker Training. All construction personnel will participate in a worker environmental training program approved/authorized by the Conservancy and administered by a qualified biologist. The training will provide education regarding sensitive natural communities and covered species and their habitats, the need to avoid adverse effects, state and federal protection, and the

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-4 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) legal implications of violating the FESA and NCCPA Permits. A pre-recorded video presentation by a qualified biologist shown to construction personnel may fulfill the training requirement. • GM07: Clearing and Grubbing Best Management. Clearing of vegetation will be kept to the minimum necessary, especially the clearing around native oaks.
• GM08: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM8, Avoid and Minimize Effects of Construction Staging Areas and Temporary Work Areas. Project proponents should locate construction staging and other temporary work areas in areas that will ultimately be a part of the permanent project development footprint. If construction staging and other temporary work areas must be located outside of permanent project footprints, they will be located either in areas that do not support habitat for covered species or are easily restored to prior or improved ecological functions (e.g., grassland and agricultural land). Construction staging and other temporary work areas located outside of project footprints will be sited in areas that avoid adverse effects on the following.
• Serpentine, valley oak woodland, alkali prairie, vernal pool complex, valley foothill riparian, and fresh emergent wetland land cover types.
• Occupied western burrowing owl burrows. Occupied for the purpose of AMM 8 means at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying the burrow within the last three years. Occupancy of a burrow may also be indicated by owl sign at the burrow entrance, including molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site. • Nest sites for covered bird species and all raptors, including noncovered raptors, during the breeding season.

Project proponents will follow specific AMMs for sensitive natural communities and covered species in temporary staging and work areas (see below and Impact 4.4-2). For establishment of temporary work areas outside of the project footprint, project proponents will conduct surveys to determine if any of the biological resources listed above are present. Within one year following removal of land cover, project proponents will restore temporary work and staging areas to a condition equal to or greater than the covered species habitat function of the affected habitat. Restoration of vegetation in temporary work and staging areas will use clean, native seed mixes approved by the Conservancy that are free of noxious plant species seed.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities1
The buffers for each sensitive natural community are as follows:
• Alkali prairie and vernal pools: The area necessary to provide the hydrologic conditions needed to support the wetlands within these natural communities (250 feet). Covered activities will avoid vernal pools or alkali seasonal wetlands by 250 feet [Alkali seasonal wetlands are seasonal wetlands within the alkali prairie natural community], or other distance based on site specific topography to avoid indirect hydrologic effects. A buffer of less than 250 feet around vernal pools or alkali seasonal wetlands will be subject to wildlife agency concurrence that effects will be avoided. Considerations that may warrant a buffer of less than 250 feet may include topography (i.e., if the surrounding microwatershed extends less than 250 feet from the pool or wetland), intervening hydrologic barriers such as roads or canals, or other factors indicating that the proposed disturbance area does not contribute to the pool’s hydrology. Other

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-5 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) considerations may include temporary disturbance during the dry season where measures are implemented to avoid disturbance of the underlying claypan or hardpan, and the area is returned to preproject conditions prior to the following rainy season. • Valley foothill riparian: One hundred feet from canopy drip-line. If avoidance is infeasible, a lesser buffer or encroachment into the sensitive natural community may be allowed if approved by the Conservancy and the wildlife agencies, based on the criteria listed in AMM1. Transportation or utility crossings may encroach into this sensitive natural community provided effects are minimized and all other applicable AMMs are followed.
• Lacustrine and riverine: Outside urban planning units, 100 feet from the top of banks [Defined as the area within which water is contained in a channel.]. Within urban planning units, 25 feet from the top of the banks.
• Fresh emergent wetland: Fifty feet from the edge of the natural community.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters1
Project proponents will comply with stormwater management plans that regulate development as part of compliance with regulations under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Covered activities that result in any fill of waters or wetlands will also comply with requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and Regional Board regulations. Other than requirements for buffers, minimizing project footprint, and species-specific measures for wetland-dependent covered species, this HCP/NCCP does not include specific best management practices for protecting wetlands and waters because they may conflict with measures required by the USACE, State Board, Regional Board, and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1f: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM11, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Palmate-Bracted Bird’s Beak1. Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is covered by the Yolo HCP/NCCP only for the removal of suitable habitat and not for the removal of palmate-bracted bird’s beak plants. This AMM ensures compliance with this provision. To determine if palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is present and could be affected, the project proponent will conduct a planning-level survey for this species for any covered activities to be conducted within 250 feet of suitable habitat (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts). The survey will be conducted during the period from May 31 to September 30 and will be consistent with Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (California Department of Fish and Game 2009).

The project proponent will avoid occupied habitat where palmate-bracted bird’s beak has been located within any of the last 15 years (seed viability could be as little as three years and as much as six years, as described in Appendix A, Section A.1.2, Species Description and Life History). The project proponent also will avoid any new occurrences of this species identified during planning-level surveys. Avoidance will require a 250-foot setback from the occupied habitat, or greater distance depending on site-specific topography to avoid hydrologic effects. A shorter buffer distance may apply if is determined to avoid effects and is approved by the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW. Mortality of palmate-bracted bird’s beak

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-6 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) individuals will be avoided, except as needed through management activities that provide an overall benefit to the species.

Biological Resources Impact 4.4-2: Loss and
Degradation of Habitat for Special-
status Wildlife Species and
Potential Direct Take of
Individuals
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4.1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities1 Mitigation Measure 4.4-2f – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters1
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2g, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM12, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle1. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist who is familiar with valley elderberry longhorn beetle and evidence of its presence (i.e., exit holes in elderberry shrubs) to map all elderberry shrubs in and within 100 feet of the project footprint with stems that are greater than one inch in diameter at ground level. To avoid take of valley elderberry longhorn beetle fully, the project proponent will maintain a buffer of at least 100 feet from any elderberry shrubs with stems greater than one inch in diameter at ground level. AMM1, Establish Buffers, above, describes circumstances in which a lesser buffer may be applied. For elderberry shrubs that cannot be avoided with a designated buffer distance as described above, the qualified biologist will quantify the number of stems one inch or greater in diameter to be affected, and the presence or absence of exit holes. The Conservancy will use this information to determine the number of plants or cuttings to plant on a riparian restoration site to help offset the loss, consistent with Section 6.4.2.4.1, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Additionally, prior to construction, the project proponent will transplant elderberry shrubs identified within the project footprint that cannot be avoided.

Transplantation will only occur if a shrub cannot be avoided and, if indirectly affected, the indirect effects would otherwise result in the death of stems or the entire shrub. If the project proponent chooses, in coordination with a qualified biologist, not to transplant the shrub because the activity would not likely result in death of stems of the shrub, then the qualified biologist will monitor the shrub annually for a five- year monitoring period. The monitoring period may be reduced with concurrence from the wildlife agencies if the latest research and best available information at the time indicates that a shorter monitoring period is warranted. If death of stems at least one inch in diameter occurs within the monitoring period, and the qualified biologist determines that the shrub is sufficiently healthy to transplant, the project proponent will transplant the shrub as described in the following paragraph, in coordination with the qualified biologist. If the shrub dies during the monitoring period, or the qualified biologist determines that the shrub is no longer healthy enough to survive transplanting, then the Conservancy will offset the shrub loss consistent with the preceding paragraph.

The project proponent will transplant the shrubs into a location in the HCP/NCCP reserve system that has been approved by the Conservancy. Elderberry shrubs outside the project footprint but within the 100-foot buffer will not be transplanted.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-7 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) Transplanting will follow the following measures:

1. Monitor: A qualified biologist will be on-site for the duration of the transplanting of the elderberry shrubs to ensure the effects on elderberry shrubs are minimized.

2. Timing: The project proponent will transplant elderberry plants when the plants are dormant, approximately November through the first two weeks of February, after they have lost their leaves.

Transplanting during the non-growing season will reduce shock to the plant and increase transplantation success.

3. Transplantation procedure:
a. Cut the plant back three to six feet from the ground or to 50 percent of its height (whichever is taller) by removing branches and stems above this height. Replant the trunk and stems measuring one inch or greater in diameter. Remove leaves that remain on the plants. b. Relocate plant to approved location in the reserve system, and replant as described in Section

6.4.2.4.1, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2h, Perform visual presence surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee and their nests during the active flight season between April and September, in accordance with the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).If an individual is believed to be identified, the surveyor shall take photographs showing the head, body, and back and send photographs to either Xerces or a qualified bumble bee biologist for species verification. If bumble bee nests are identified, aa minimum 50- foot buffer between construction and documented nest location will be established until the species can be verified either by Xerces or a qualified bumble bee biologist.

This buffer distance may need to be increased if it is determined by the qualified biologist to not be sufficient to avoid impacting the species.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2i, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM14, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Northwestern Pond Turtle1
There are no specific design requirements for western pond turtle habitat, however, project proponents must follow design requirements for the valley foothill riparian and lacustrine and riverine natural communities described in AMMs 9 and 10, which require a 100-foot (minimum) permanent buffer zone from the canopy drip-line (the farthest edge on the ground where water will drip from the tree canopy, based on the outer boundary of the tree canopy). If modeled upland habitat will be impacted, a qualified biologist must be present and will assess the likelihood of western pond turtle nests occurring in the disturbance area (based on sun exposure, soil conditions, and other species habitat requirements).

If a qualified biologist determines that there is a moderate to high likelihood of western pond turtle nests within the disturbance area, the qualified biologist will monitor all initial ground disturbing activity for nests that may be unearthed during the disturbance, and will move out of harm’s way any turtles or hatchlings found.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2j, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM15, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Giant Garter Snake1
The project proponent will avoid effects on areas where planning-level surveys indicate the presence of suitable habitat for giant garter snake. To avoid effects on giant garter snake aquatic habitat, the project

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-8 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) proponent will conduct no in-water/in-channel activity and maintain a permanent 200-foot non-disturbance buffer from the outer edge of potentially occupied aquatic habitat. If the project proponent cannot avoid effects of construction activities, the project proponent will implement the measures below to minimize effects of construction projects (measures for maintenance activities are described after the following bulleted list).
• Conduct preconstruction clearance surveys using USFWS-approved methods within 24 hours prior to construction activities within identified giant garter snake aquatic and adjacent upland habitat. If construction activities stop for a period of two weeks or more, conduct another preconstruction clearance survey within 24 hours prior to resuming construction activity. • Restrict all construction activity involving disturbance of giant garter snake habitat to the snake’s active season, May 1 through October 1. During this period, the potential for direct mortality is reduced because snakes are expected to move and avoid danger.
• In areas where construction is to take place, encourage giant garter snakes to leave the site on their own by dewatering all irrigation ditches, canals, or other aquatic habitat (i.e., removing giant garter snake aquatic habitat) between April 15 and September 30. Dewatered habitat must remain dry, with no water puddles remaining, for at least 15 consecutive days prior to excavating or filling of the habitat. If a site cannot be completely dewatered, netting and salvage of giant garter snake prey items may be necessary to discourage use by snakes.
• Provide environmental awareness training for construction personnel, as approved by the Conservancy.

Training may consist of showing a video prepared by a qualified biologist, or an in-person presentation by a qualified biologist. In addition to the video or in-person presentation, training may be supplemented with the distribution of approved brochures and other materials that describe resources protected under the Yolo HCP/NCCP and methods for avoiding effects.
• A qualified biologist will prepare a giant garter snake relocation plan which must be approved by the Conservancy prior to work in giant garter snake habitat. The qualified biologist will base the relocation plan on criteria provided by CDFW or USFWS, through the Conservancy. • If a live giant garter snake is encountered during construction activities, immediately notify the project’s biological monitor and USFWS and CDFW. The monitor will stop construction in the vicinity of the snake, monitor the snake, and allow the snake to leave on its own. The monitor will remain in the area for the remainder of the work day to ensure the snake is not harmed or, if it leaves the site, does not return. If the giant garter snake does not leave on its own, the qualified biologist will relocate the snake consistent with the relocation plan described above.
• Employ the following management practices to minimize disturbances to habitat:
• Install temporary fencing to identify and protect adjacent marshes, wetlands, and ditches from encroachment from construction equipment and personnel. • Maintain water quality and limit construction runoff into wetland areas through the use of hay bales, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips, or other accepted practices. No plastic, monofilament, jute, or similar erosion-control matting that could entangle snakes or other wildlife will be permitted.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-9 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) Ongoing maintenance covered activities by local water and flood control agencies typically involve removal of vegetation, debris, and sediment from water conveyance canals as well as resloping, rocking, and stabilizing the canals that serve agricultural water users. Maintenance of these conveyance facilities can typically occur only from mid-January through April when conveyance canals and ditches are not in service by the agency, although some drainages are used for storm conveyance during the winter and are wet all year. This timing s during the giant garter snake’s inactive period. This is when snakes may be using underground burrows and are most vulnerable to take because they are unable to move out of harm’s way. Maintenance activities, therefore, will be limited to the giant garter snake’s active season (May 1 to October 1) when possible. All personnel involved in maintenance activities within giant garter snake habitat will first participate in environmental awareness training for giant garter snake, as described above for construction-related activities. To minimize the take of giant garter snake, the local water or flood control agency will limit maintenance of conveyance structures located within modeled giant garter snake habitat (Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) to clearing one side along at least 80 percent of the linear distance of canals and ditches during each maintenance year (e.g., the left bank of a canal is maintained in the first year and the right bank in the second year). To avoid collapses when resloping canal and ditch banks composed of heavy clay soils, clearing will be limited to one side of the channel during each maintenance year.

For channel maintenance activities conducted within modeled habitat for giant garter snake, the project proponent will place removed material in existing dredged sites along channels where prior maintenance dredge disposal has occurred. For portions of channels that do not have previously used spoil disposal sites and where surveys have been conducted to confirm that giant garter snakes are not present, removed materials may be placed along channels in areas that are not occupied by giant garter snake and where materials will not re-enter the canal because of stormwater runoff.

Modifications to this AMM may be made with the approval of the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2k, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM16, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite 1
The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct planning-level surveys and identify any nesting habitat present within 1,320 feet of the project footprint. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.

If a construction project cannot avoid potential nest trees (as determined by the qualified biologist) by 1,320 feet, the project proponent will 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 15 and August 30, within 15 days prior to the beginning of the construction activity. The results of the survey will be submitted to the 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 project proponent, 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

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-10 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) intruders, getting up from a brooding position, or flying off the nest, and only with the agreement of CDFW and USFWS. 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.

For covered activities that involve pruning or removal of a potential Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest tree, the project proponent will conduct preconstruction surveys that are consistent with the guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, no tree pruning or removal of the nest tree will occur during the period between March 1 and August 30 within 1,320 feet of an active nest, unless a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2l, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM19, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on least Bell’s vireo 1
The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct planning-level surveys and determine if habitat for least Bell’s vireo (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) is present within 500 feet of covered activities. If habitat is present, the project proponent will redesign the project to avoid or minimize activities within 500 feet of least Bell’s vireo habitat. If the activity will encroach within 500 feet of habitat and there are no breeding season records for the species within one-quarter mile of the covered activity within the previous three years, the qualified biologist will conduct planning-level surveys for active territories, consistent with USFWS (2001) guidelines, during the breeding season (April 1 to July 15).

Operations and maintenance activities that do not occur during the breeding season and do not affect least Bell’s vireo habitat are not required to conduct surveys or record searches, and no further avoidance or minimization is necessary for such activities.
• If an occupied territory is discovered during planning-level surveys, or there is a record of the species occurring within one-quarter mile of the covered activity within the previous three years, the project proponent will design the project to avoid activities within 500 feet of suitable habitat, unless the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW approve a shorter distance. • If an activity occurs within 500 feet of suitable habitat during the breeding season, regardless of whether or not the species was detected during planning-level surveys or there are records for the species in the area, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys, consistent with USFWS (2001) guidelines, during the same season when the activity will occur. If active territories are found, the project proponent will avoid activity within 500 feet of the habitat from April 1 to July 15. This buffer may be reduced with approval from the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW. • The project proponent will avoid disturbance of previous least Bell’s vireo territories (up to three years since known nest activity) during the breeding season, unless the disturbance is to maintain public safety.

Least Bell’s vireo uses previous territories; disturbance during the breeding season may preclude birds from using existing unoccupied territories.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-11 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) • The required buffer may be reduced in areas where barriers or topographic relief features are adequate for protecting the nest from excessive noise or other disturbance. Conservancy staff members will coordinate with the wildlife agencies and evaluate exceptions to the minimum nondisturbance buffer distance on a case-by-case basis. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas. • If occupied territories are identified, a qualified biologist will monitor construction activities in the vicinity of all active territories to ensure that covered activities do not affect nest success.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2m, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM21, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Tricolored Blackbird1
The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to identify and quantify (in acres) tricolored blackbird nesting and foraging habitat (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) within 1,300 feet of the footprint of the covered activity. If a 1,300-foot buffer from nesting habitat cannot be maintained, the qualified biologist will check records maintained by the Conservancy (which will include CNDDB data, and data from the tricolored blackbird portal) to determine if tricolored blackbird nesting colonies have been active in or within 1,300 feet of the project footprint during the previous five years. If there are no records of nesting tricolored blackbirds on the site, the qualified biologist will conduct visual surveys to determine if an active colony is present, during the period from March 1 to July 30, consistent with protocol described by Kelsey (2008).

Operations and maintenance activities or other temporary activities that do not remove nesting habitat and occur outside the nesting season (March 1 to July 30) do not need to conduct planning or construction surveys or implement any additional avoidance measures.

If an active tricolored blackbird colony is present or has been present within the last five years within the planning-level survey area, the project proponent will design the project to avoid adverse effects within 1,300 feet of the colony site(s), unless a shorter distance is approved by the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW. If a shorter distance is approved, the project proponent will still maintain a 1,300-foot buffer around active nesting colonies during the nesting season but may apply the approved lesser distance outside the nesting season. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2n, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM18, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Western Burrowing Owl1
The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct planning-level surveys and identify western burrowing owl habitat (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) within or adjacent to (i.e., within 500 feet of) a covered activity. If habitat for this species is present, additional surveys for the species by a qualified biologist are required, consistent with CDFW guidelines (Appendix L).

If burrowing owls are identified during the planning-level survey, the project proponent will minimize activities that will affect occupied habitat as follows. Occupied habitat is considered fully avoided if the project footprint does not impinge on a nondisturbance buffer around the suitable burrow. For occupied burrowing owl nest burrows, this nondisturbance buffer could range from 150 to 1,500 feet (Table 4-2, Recommended Restricted Activity Dates and Setback Distances by Level of Disturbance for Burrowing

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-12 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) Owls), depending on the time of year and the level of disturbance, based on current guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 2012). The Yolo HCP/NCCP generally defines low, medium, and high levels of disturbances of burrowing owls as follows.
• Low: Typically 71-80 dB, generally characterized by the presence of passenger vehicles, small gas- powered engines (e.g., lawn mowers, small chain saws, portable generators), and high-tension power lines. Includes electric hand tools (except circular saws, impact wrenches and similar). Management and enhancement activities would typically fall under this category. Human activity in the immediate vicinity of burrowing owls would also constitute a low level of disturbance, regardless of the noise levels. • Moderate: Typically 81-90 dB, and would include medium- and large-sized construction equipment, such as backhoes, front end loaders, large pumps and generators, road graders, dozers, dump trucks, drill rigs, and other moderate to large diesel engines. Also includes power saws, large chainsaws, pneumatic drills and impact wrenches, and large gasoline-powered tools. Construction activities would normally fall under this category.
• High: Typically 91-100 dB, and is generally characterized by impacting devices, jackhammers, compression (“jake”) brakes on large trucks, and trains. This category includes both vibratory and impact pile drivers (smaller steel or wood piles) such as used to install piles and guard rails, and large pneumatic tools such as chipping machines. It may also include large diesel and gasoline engines, especially if in concert with other impacting devices. Felling of large trees (defined as dominant or subdominant trees in mature forests), truck horns, yarding tower whistles, and muffled or underground explosives are also included. Very few covered activities are expected to fall under this category, but some construction activities may result in this level of disturbance.

The project proponent may qualify for a reduced buffer size, based on existing vegetation, human development, and land use, if agreed upon by CDFW and USFWS (California Department of Fish and Game 2012).

Table 4-2a Recommended Restricted Activity Dates and Setback Distances by Level of Disturbance for Burrowing Owls
Time of Year
Level of Disturbance (feet) from Occupied Burrows
Low Medium High
April 1–August 15 600 1,500 1,500
August 16–October 15 600 600 1,500
October 16–March 31 150 300 1,500
Notes: Table number corresponds to the numbering provided in the HCP/NCCP.

Source: Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018
a Occupancy of burrowing owl habitat during preconstruction surveys is confirmed at a site when at least one burrowing owl or sign (fresh whitewash, fresh pellets, feathers, or nest ornamentation

If the project does not fully avoid direct and indirect effects on nesting sites (i.e., if the project cannot adhere to the buffers described above), the project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys and document the presence or absence of western burrowing owls that could be affected by the covered activity. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, the qualified

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-13 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) biologist will conduct the preconstruction surveys within three days prior to ground disturbance in areas identified in the planning-level surveys as having suitable burrowing owl burrows, consistent with CDFW preconstruction survey guidelines (Appendix L, Take Avoidance Surveys). The qualified biologist will conduct the preconstruction surveys three days prior to ground disturbance. Time lapses between ground disturbing activities will trigger subsequent surveys prior to ground disturbance.

If the biologist finds the site to be occupied is observed at or near a burrow entrance.) by western burrowing owls during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the project proponent will avoid all nest sites, based on the buffer distances described above, during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young (occupation includes individuals or family groups that forage on or near the site following fledging). Construction may occur inside of the disturbance buffer during the breeding season if the nest is not disturbed and the project proponent develops an AMM plan that is approved by the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS prior to project construction, based on the following criteria:
• The Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS approves the AMM plan provided by the project proponent. • A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least three days prior to construction to determine baseline nesting and foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction). • The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl nesting and foraging behavior in response to construction activities. • If the qualified biologist identifies a change in owl nesting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, the qualified biologist will have the authority to stop all construction related activities within the non-disturbance buffers described above. The qualified biologist will report this information to the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS within 24 hours, and the Conservancy will require that these activities immediately cease within the non-disturbance buffer. Construction cannot resume within the buffer until the adults and juveniles from the occupied burrows have moved out of the project site, and the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS agree.
• If monitoring indicates that the nest is abandoned prior to the end of nesting season and the burrow is no longer in use by owls, the project proponent may remove the nondisturbance buffer, only with concurrence from CDFW and USFWS. If the burrow cannot be avoided by construction activity, the biologist will excavate and collapse the burrow in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 guidelines to prevent reoccupation after receiving approval from the wildlife agencies.

If evidence of western burrowing owl is detected outside the breeding season (September 1 to January 31), the project proponent will establish a non-disturbance buffer around occupied burrows, consistent with Table 4-2, as determined by a qualified biologist. Construction activities within the disturbance buffer are allowed if the following criteria are met to prevent owls from abandoning important overwintering sites:
• A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least three days prior to construction to determine baseline foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction). • The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl foraging behavior in response to construction activities.
• If there is any change in owl roosting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, these activities will cease within the buffer.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-14 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) • If the owls are gone for at least one week, the project proponent may request approval from the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS for a qualified biologist to excavate and collapse usable burrows to prevent owls from reoccupying the site if the burrow cannot be avoided by construction activities. The qualified biologist will install one-way doors for a 48-hour period prior to collapsing any potentially occupied burrows. After all usable burrows are excavated, the buffer will be removed and construction may continue.

Monitoring must continue as described above for the nonbreeding season as long as the burrow remains active.

A qualified biologist will monitor the site, consistent with the requirements described above, to ensure that buffers are enforced and owls are not disturbed. Passive relocation (i.e., exclusion) of owls has been used in the past in the Plan Area to remove and exclude owls from active burrows during the nonbreeding season (Trulio 1995). Exclusion and burrow closure will not be conducted during the breeding season for any occupied burrow. If the Conservancy determines that passive relocation is necessary, the project proponent will develop a burrowing owl exclusion plan in consultation with CDFW biologists. The methods will be designed as described in the species monitoring guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 2012) and consistent with the most up-to-date checklist of passive relocation techniquesi. This may include the installation of one-way doors in burrow entrances by a qualified biologist during the nonbreeding season.

These doors will be in place for 48 hours and monitored twice daily to ensure that the owls have left the burrow, after which time the biologist will collapse the burrow to prevent reoccupation. Burrows will be excavated using hand tools. During excavation, an escape route will be maintained at all times. This may include inserting an artificial structure, such as piping, into the burrow to prevent collapsing until the entire burrow can be excavated and it can be determined that no owls are trapped inside the burrow. The Conservancy may allow other methods of passive or active relocation, based on best available science, if approved by the wildlife agencies. Artificial burrows will be constructed prior to exclusion and will be created less than 300 feet from the existing burrows on lands that are protected as part of the reserve system Mitigation Measure 4.4-2o, Bat Protection and Roost Avoidance A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction bat habitat assessment of all trees and structures within 100 feet of proposed construction areas. The assessment will identify potential roosting features. If suitable root habitat is present, the biologist shall conduct evening and/or dawn acoustic emergency surveys within 14 days before the start of construction to determine occupancy. If active day or maternity roosts are identified a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be established around the roost until it is no longer in use.

Biological Resources Impact 4.4-3: Loss and
Degradation of Riparian Habitat or
Other Sensitive Natural
Communities
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures1
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities: The buffers for each sensitive natural community are as follows1

i The Conservancy will maintain a checklist of passive relocation techniques. CDFW will approve the initial list, and the Conservancy will update as needed in coordination with CDFW.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-15 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) • Alkali prairie and vernal pools: The area necessary to provide the hydrologic conditions needed to support the wetlands within these natural communities (250 feet). Covered activities will avoid vernal pools or alkali seasonal wetlands by 250 feet [Alkali seasonal wetlands are seasonal wetlands within the alkali prairie natural community], or other distance based on site specific topography to avoid indirect hydrologic effects. A buffer of less than 250 feet around vernal pools or alkali seasonal wetlands will be subject to wildlife agency concurrence that effects will be avoided. Considerations that may warrant a buffer of less than 250 feet may include topography (i.e., if the surrounding microwatershed extends less than 250 feet from the pool or wetland), intervening hydrologic barriers such as roads or canals, or other factors indicating that the proposed disturbance area does not contribute to the pool’s hydrology. Other considerations may include temporary disturbance during the dry season where measures are implemented to avoid disturbance of the underlying claypan or hardpan, and the area is returned to pre- project conditions prior to the following rainy season. • Valley foothill riparian: One hundred feet from canopy drip-line. If avoidance is infeasible, a lesser buffer or encroachment into the sensitive natural community may be allowed if approved by the Conservancy and the wildlife agencies, based on the criteria listed in AMM1. Transportation or utility crossings may encroach into this sensitive natural community provided effects are minimized and all other applicable AMMs are followed.
• Lacustrine and riverine: Outside urban planning units, 100 feet from the top of banks [Defined as the area within which water is contained in a channel.]. Within urban planning units, 25 feet from the top of the banks.
• Fresh emergent wetland: Fifty feet from the edge of the natural community.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-3f – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters1
Project proponents will comply with stormwater management plans that regulate development as part of compliance with regulations under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Covered activities that result in any fill of waters or wetlands will also comply with requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and Regional Board regulations. Other than requirements for buffers, minimizing project footprint, and species-specific measures for wetland-dependent covered species, this HCP/NCCP does not include specific best management practices for protecting wetlands and waters because they may conflict with measures required by the USACE, State Board, Regional Board, and CDFW.

Biological Resources Impact 4.4-4: Loss and
Degradation of Federally Protected
Wetlands
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a – Implement Implementation Program Biological Resources 3 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

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-16 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) 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.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b – Coordinate with Regulatory Agencies If a qualified biologist identifies waterways or other aquatic habitats within a utility extension alignment that would be disturbed, applicants will coordinate with the Central Valley RWQCB and USACE. The required coordination with these regulatory agencies will confirm the identified waterway(s) or other aquatic habitat(s) require a delineation and confirm implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-4c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters
Biological Resources Impact 4.4-7: Conflict with an
Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
Natural Community Conservation
Plan
Mitigation Measures 4.4-7a – Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a Mitigation Measure 4.4-7b – Implement of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b: Implement Policy 7.B.5., Policy 7.B.7, and Policy 7.B.11
• Policy 7.B.5 Open Space for Conservation. Where appropriate, permanently protect as open space areas of natural resource value, including sensitive habitat types (e.g., alkali sink and prairie, freshwater wetlands, freshwater marsh, riparian forest, drainages), wetland preserves, riparian corridors, woodlands, special-status plant occurrences, and floodplains. Support the maintenance of open space and natural areas that are interconnected and of sufficient size to protect biodiversity, accommodate wildlife movement, and sustain ecosystems. Maintain connectivity between open space areas designated for habitat conservation values within the Planning Area as well as linkages to adjacent habitats outside of the Planning Area, such as Willow Slough, Cache Creek, and habitat preserves to the east. • Policy 7.B.7 Woodland Regional Park. Protect and maintain Woodland Regional Park as an important wildlife preserve and habitat for rare native special-status plants and allow for public access that is compatible with and promotes public education of the site’s habitat value. • 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.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a Cultural and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Impact 4.6-1: Cause a Substantial
Adverse Change in the
Significance of Archaeological or
Historical Resources as defined in
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: Implementation Program Cultural 1 Projects that could have significant adverse impacts to potentially significant archaeological resources shall be required to assess impacts and provide feasible mitigation. The following steps, or those deemed equally effective by the City, will be followed:

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-17 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 a. Request information from the California Native American Heritage Commission to obtain a review of the Sacred Lands File and a list of local Native American groups and individuals that may have specific knowledge of cultural resources in the area that could be affected by project implementation. Each Native American group and individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission will be contacted to obtain any available information on cultural resources in the project area. Additional consultation with relevant tribal representatives may be appropriate depending on the relatively level of cultural sensitivity.
b. Request updated information from the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System to determine whether the project area has been previously surveyed and whether archaeological resources were identified. In the event the records indicate that no previous survey has been conducted or existing survey data is greater than five years old, the applicant will retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to assess the adequacy of the existing data (if any) and assess the archaeological sensitivity of the project area. If the survey did not meet current professional standards or regulatory guidelines, or relies on outdated information, a qualified archaeologist will make a recommendation on whether a survey is warranted based on the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological resources.
c. If a survey is warranted, it will include all necessary background research in addition to an archaeological pedestrian survey. Based on findings of the survey, additional technical studies may be required, such as geoarchaeological sensitivity analysis, or other analysis scaled according to the nature of the individual project. A report will document the results of the survey and provide appropriate management recommendations, and include recordation of identified archaeological resources on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation site record forms and cultural resources reports.
d. Management recommendations may include, but are not limited to additional studies to evaluate identified sites or archaeological monitoring at locations determined by a qualified archaeologist to be sensitive for subsurface cultural resource deposits.
e. Once approved by the City, provide the Northwest Information Center with appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation site record forms and cultural resources reports for any resources identified. Any subsequent reports completed as a result of additional technical work will likewise be submitted to the Northwest Information Center.
f. If no archeological resources are identified that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, mitigation is complete as there would be no adverse change to documented archeological resources. The exception would be in the event of the discovery of a previously unknown archaeological site inadvertently exposed during project implementation. In such an event, a qualified archaeologist will be retained to assess the discovery and provide management recommendations as necessary. g. When a project will impact a known archaeological site, and avoidance is not a feasible option, a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the eligibility of the site for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. If the archaeological site is found to be a historical resource as per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(3), the qualified archaeologist shall recommend further mitigative treatment which could include preservation in place or data recovery.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-18 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) h. If a site to be tested is prehistoric, local tribal representatives should be afforded the opportunity to monitor the ground-disturbing activities. Appropriate mitigation may include curation of artifacts removed during subsurface testing.
i. If significant archaeological resources that meet the definition of historical or unique archaeological resources are identified in the project area, the preferred mitigation of impacts is preservation in place. If impacts cannot be avoided through project design, appropriate and feasible treatment measures are required, which may consist of, but are not limited to actions, such as data recovery excavations. If only part of a site will be impacted by a project, data recovery will only be necessary for that portion of the site. Data recovery will not be required if the implementing agency determines prior testing and studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from the resources. Studies and reports resulting from the data recovery shall be deposited with the Northwest Information Center.

Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c: Implementation Program Cultural 2 For projects that could adversely affect a potential historic resources:
a. Consult the City’s Historic Resources Inventory and, as necessary, seek updated information from the North Central Information Center or other applicable data repositories to determine whether the project area has been surveyed, and whether historic built environment resources were identified. b. If a survey of the property or the area in which the property is located has not been conducted , a qualified architectural historian shall conduct a study of the project area for the presence of historic built environment resources.
c. If a study is required, it will evaluate the significance of built environment resources greater than 50 years in age that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities. The study may include a field survey; background, archival and historic research; and consultation with local historical societies, museums or other interested parties; as necessary.
d. If necessary, the qualified architectural historian’s study will recommend appropriate protection or mitigative treatment, if any, and include recordation of identified built environment resources on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) series 523 forms. Recommended treatment for historical resources identified in the report shall be implemented. e. If no significant historic built environment resources are identified in the study or prior survey of the project area that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, there is no adverse change to documented historical built environment resources and no further action is required. f. If a significant historic built environment resource could be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, avoidance shall be considered the primary mitigation option. If avoidance is not feasible, then the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of the historical resource, conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties will reduce impacts to an acceptable level. If adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards cannot avoid materially altering in an adverse

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-19 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) manner the physical characteristics or historic character of the surrounding environmental setting that contribute to a resource’s historic significance, additional mitigation may be required. g. If avoidance is not feasible and minimizing impacts through adherence to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is not feasible, documentation is required using, as appropriate, Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and/or Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) guidelines.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d: Implementation Program Cultural 3 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 archaeologistii 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 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

ii 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.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-20 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) 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.

Impact 4.6-2: Disturb human
remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries
Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: Implementation Program Cultural 4 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
(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.

Geology, Soils, and
Paleontological
Resources
Impact 4.7-4: Loss or Damage to
Paleontological Resources During
Earth-Moving Activities
Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: 2035 General Plan Implementation Program Paleontological Resources 1 • 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.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-21 Attachment B
Resource Topic Area
SEIR Impact Number – Impact
Description
Applicable Mitigation Measures and Implementation Programs to serve as Conditions of Approval (Numbering corresponds to the Numbering used in the Draft SEIR) • 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 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.

Noise Impact 4.11-1: Temporary
Construction Noise
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: Implementation Program Noise 1 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 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.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Final SEIR B1-22 Attachment B
Table notes:

1. This mitigation measure has requirements described in part or in full in the Yolo HCP/NCCP EIS/EIR Appendix C, Avoidance and Minimization Measures. This appendix is included in the Public Draft SEIR as Appendix F.

AMM = Avoidance and Minimization Measures
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
City = City of Woodland
FESA = Federal Endangered Species Act
GM = General Measures
HCP = Habitat Conservation Plan
ITP = Incidental Take Permit
NCCP = Natural Community Conservation Planning
NCCPA = Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
USFWS = U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

82093.00001\45009965.2
RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODLAND AMENDING GENERAL PLAN POLICY 2.A.1 TO CREATE AN EXCEPTION TO

THE RESTRICTION ON THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC SERVICES BEYOND

THE URBAN LIMIT LINE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS
WHEREAS, in June 2006, Woodland voters adopted Measure A, which amended the General Plan to establish a permanent Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) to circumscribe urban development and preserve agricultural lands surrounding the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the passage of the June 2006 Measure A, the General Plan prohibits extending public services and facilities beyond the ULL; and WHEREAS, the ULL may be amended or repealed only by a majority vote of Woodland voters; and
WHEREAS, the City has received requests from Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC, located at 37437 CA-16, and Clark Pacific, located at 40600 County Road 18C, for City water, recycled water, and/or wastewater services to support existing commercial facilities located outside the ULL but within one mile of the ULL; and
WHEREAS, Bayer and Clark Pacific are existing employment centers within the City’s sphere of influence and adjacent to the City’s planning area, and both facilities currently rely on private wells and wastewater systems; and
WHEREAS, the City is proposing a General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 (Exhibit A) to create a limited exception to the prohibition on extending public services beyond the ULL for existing commercial facilities located on parcels wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, subject to voter approval of an amendment to the ULL; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would not itself approve any utility extension project, and future utility service to eligible properties would require execution of applicable service agreements and City Council approval for such service agreements; and WHEREAS, if approved by the voters and implemented through Council-approved service agreements, the proposed amendment would allow limited sewer, potable water, treated water, and recycled water facility extensions to serve eligible existing commercial facilities; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is intended to support existing employment centers, reduce demand on groundwater aquifers, reduce reliance on onsite groundwater and septic systems,

82093.00001\45009965.2
improve groundwater management and quality, and limit potential growth-inducing effects by narrowly defining eligible facilities; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Draft SEIR”) was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 to supplement the City’s certified 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from December 19, 2025, through February 2, 2026, and the City received written comments from the Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission and the Yolo County Farm Bureau; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed hearing on January 15, 2026, where City staff provided a presentation on the Draft Supplemental EIR, as well as the proposed General Plan amendment, to solicit additional public input on the draft document during the CEQA 45-day public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Final SEIR”) includes responses to comments, minor editorial errata, and analysis concluding that the proposed project would result in no new significant environmental impacts and would not increase the severity of significant and unavoidable impacts previously disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, mitigation measures from the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR continue to apply and the City may condition approval for any future utility service agreements under the proposed amendment on addressing concerns related to biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology/soils/paleontological resources, noise, and other resource areas as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered the staff report, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the proposed ULL ballot measure, the Final SEIR, all written and oral testimony, and the whole of the record, and voted on a 5-0 vote with two members absent to recommend City Council certify the SEIR, approve the proposed General Plan amendment to Policy 2.A.1 contingent upon voter approval of an amendment to the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative, and place a ballot measure on the November 2026 ballot to amend the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 2026, as required by law to consider all of the information presented by staff and public testimony presented in writing and at the meeting pertaining to the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1, including the associated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the amendment; and WHEREAS, the public were able to participate and comment at the duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 2026, and on said date the public hearing was opened, held and closed.

82093.00001\45009965.2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Woodland hereby approves the proposed General Plan amendment to Policy 2.A.1, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, contingent upon voter approval of amendment to the Woodland Urban Limit Initiative, based upon the following findings:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. CEQA Findings. The City Council finds, based on the whole of the record, that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed General Plan amendment to Policy 2.A.1 has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and the proposed project would result in no new significant environmental impacts and would not increase the severity of any significant and unavoidable impacts previously disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR; and the mitigation measures from the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR continue to apply, as applicable, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program provides a feasible mechanism for implementation and monitoring of those measures.

SECTION 3. Findings Supporting the General Plan Amendment. The City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the purposes and policies of the General Plan because it:

A. Provides a narrow, voter-approved mechanism to serve existing commercial facilities without authorizing general urban expansion beyond the ULL;
B. Supports retention of existing employment centers and economic activity within a mile of the City’s planning area;
C. Promotes groundwater sustainability and improved groundwater management by reducing reliance on private wells and wastewater systems;
D. Allows for more coordinated, reliable, and efficient utility service if the City Council approves service agreements for future utility service extensions; and E. Maintains the integrity of the ULL by requiring voter approval of any amendment to the ULL Initiative and by limiting eligibility to existing commercial facilities within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026.

SECTION 4. No Project-Level Approval. This Resolution does not approve any specific utility extension, construction project, service agreement, development project, annexation, sphere of influence amendment, or land use entitlement. Any future project or service agreement shall be subject to all required review and approvals, including CEQA review as applicable.

82093.00001\45009965.2
SECTION 5. Voter Approval Contingency. The proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy

2.A.1 shall not be effective unless and until the action is ratified by the voters in a municipal election to be held on November 3, 2026.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Woodland at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of May, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

__________________________________
Mayra Vega, Mayor Pro Tempore

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________________ _________________________________ Marissa Kersey, City Clerk Ethan Walsh, City Attorney

82093.00001\45009965.2

EXHIBIT A

Draft Amendment to ULL Policy language in General Plan
(Proposed amendment text underlined)

Policy 2.A.1 Urban Limit Line. A permanent Urban Limit Line (ULL) is established around Woodland to permanently circumscribe urban development and comply with provisions for agricultural lands.

Public services and facilities shall not extend beyond the permanent Urban Limit Line, with the exception of sewer, water, and recycled water facilities to serve existing commercial facilities located on parcels with a boundary that falls wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The City shall take such administrative steps as may be required to implement Policy 2.A.1. The City shall also identify funding for implementing a permanent urban limit line, including mitigation for developing on agricultural land. The City shall continually reevaluate residential land use densities, housing policies, and zoning to determine the potential for increased residential densities for both infill sites and undeveloped land within the Urban Limit Line.

The City shall continually review existing non-residential zoning to determine the potential for conversion to higher density residential uses within the permanent Urban Limit Line. The City will encourage and support appropriately located agricultural and wildlife conservation easements to support implementation of the permanent urban limit line.

This policy enacts Woodland Measure A (Ballot of June 2006), Urban Limit Line, and can only be modified by the voters.

CITY OF WOODLAND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: POLICY 2.A.1

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.: 2013032015
P R E P A R E D F O R :

City of Woodland
Community Development Department
3 00 1st Street
Woodland, CA 95695
Project Manager: Erika Bumgardner, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director

P R E P A R
E D B Y :

AECOM
2020 L Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95811
Contact: J. Matthew Gerken, Project Manager
(916) 414-5800
April 2026

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 The California Environmental Quality Act ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 1-4

1.3.1 General Plan Vision Statement ....................................................................................... 1-4

1.3.2 General Plan’s Guiding Principles .................................................................................. 1-4

1.3.3 Scope and Focus of the Public Draft Supplemental EIR ................................................ 1-5

1.4 Intended Use of the Final SEIR ....................................................................................................... 1-6

1.5 Final SEIR Document Format ......................................................................................................... 1-8 2 Response to Comments ........................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Public Meeting ................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Written Comments ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 Errata ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Draft SEIR Page 1-4: Section 1.4.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ..................................... 3-1

3.2 Draft SEIR Page 4.2-1: Section 4.2.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................. 3-1

3.3 Draft SEIR Page 4.3-3: Updates to the Environmental Setting ....................................................... 3-2

3.4 Draft SEIR Page 8-1: Secton 8.3 Chapter 3. Project Description .................................................... 3-3

3.5 Draft SEIR Page 8-1 to 8-7: Section Number 8.4 through Section Number 8.14: Increase Section Numbers by One Number to Reflect the Addition of Section 8.3 Heading .................................... 3-3

3.6 Draft SEIR Page 8-2: Section 8.56 Section 4.3. Biological Resources ........................................... 3-3

3.7 Draft SEIR Pages 8-4 and 8-5: Section 8.1011 Section 4.8. Hydrology and Water Quality ........... 3-4 4 List of Preparers of the Final SEIR ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 City of Woodland ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 AECOM ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Applicant Representatives ............................................................................................................... 4-1

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Comment Letters Received on the Draft SEIR Attachment B Summary of General Plan Implementation Programs and Mitigation Measures

AECOM
Table of Contents ii
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
TABLES
Table 1.3-1 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Table 2.2-1 List of Comment Letters ............................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2.2-2 Written Comments and Responses ............................................................................................... 2-2 FIGURE
Figure 1.2-1 Proposed Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................... 1-3

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR iii Table of Contents

ACRONYMS AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS
2035 General Plan and CAP EIR 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
Bayer Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC
CAP Climate Action Plan
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Central Valley RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Woodland
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
County County of Yolo
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GPA General Plan Amendment
IPAC Information for Planning and Consulting Database
LAFCo Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission
lead agency City of Woodland
NOA notice of availability
NOP notice of preparation
proposed project City of Woodland General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ULL Urban Limit Line
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Yolo HCP/NCCP Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan YSAQMD Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR 1-1 Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Woodland (City) prepared a Public Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) evaluating a potential General Plan amendment to General Plan Policy 2.A.1 (proposed project). The City circulated the Draft SEIR for the required 45-day public comment period between December 19, 2025 and February 2, 2026. The Draft and Final SEIR supplement the previously certified City 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR; State Clearinghouse #2013032015). As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Draft SEIR provides additional information necessary to address the proposed project. The proposed project would allow the City to provide utilities (i.e., potable water, wastewater or recycled water) up to one mile beyond the Urban Limit Line (ULL) to existing commercial facilities in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The City’s current boundaries are circumscribed by a permanent ULL established by a vote of the people in 2006. The approved initiative placed restrictions on the provision of utility services outside the ULL. The ULL boundary and provisions of utility services outside the ULL may only be modified by another vote by the people. Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 would be subject to voter approval of an amendment to the ULL.

The Draft SEIR was prepared to provide additional information needed to address the proposed project, in addition to that which was provided in the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The City received applications to extend utilities beyond the current ULL, and it is anticipated at this time that two existing commercial facilities located within unincorporated Yolo County, would make use of the utility extension, if the ballot measure passes.

These two existing commercial facilities are Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC (Bayer) (located at 37437 CA-16, Woodland, CA 95695) and Clark Pacific (located at 40600 County Road 18C, Woodland, CA 95776). The Draft SEIR and this Final SEIR provide all information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the proposed project.

1.1 THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Draft SEIR and this Final SEIR were prepared in compliance with the CEQA of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b)(1), “the lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.” The City of Woodland, as the lead agency, directed the preparation of the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR to evaluate the environmental impacts of implementation of the proposed project.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City has proposed an amendment to Policy 2.A.1 in the General Plan (“the proposed project” or General Plan amendment). As described in Chapter 3 As described in Chapter 3, “Project Description” and Chapter 6, “Other CEQA Considerations”, of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the City’s ultimate boundaries are circumscribed by a permanent ULL established by a vote of the people in 2006. The approved initiative placed restrictions on the provision of services outside of the ULL. The ULL boundary and provisions of services outside the ULL may only be modified by another vote by the people. The City received applications to extend utilities past the ULL, the extension of which would require a ballot measure amending existing General Plan Policy 2.A.1. The amendment would permit the extension of sewer, water, and recycled water utility facilities to serve existing

AECOM
Introduction 1-2
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
commercial facilities up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026.

The proposed general plan amendment would add the following text to existing Policy 2.A.1:

A permanent Urban Limit Line (ULL) is established around Woodland to permanently circumscribe urban development and comply with provisions for agricultural lands. Public services and facilities shall not extend beyond the permanent Urban Limit Line, with the exception of sewer, water, and recycled water facilities to serve existing commercial facilities located on parcels with a boundary that falls wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026…
It is anticipated at this time that two existing commercial facilities would make use of the utility extension if the ballot measure passes. These two existing commercial facilities are Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC (located at 37437 CA-16, Woodland, CA 95695; Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)]: 025-470-038-000) and Clark Pacific (located at 40600 County Road 18C, Woodland, CA 95776; APN: 027-250-028-000) Figure 1.2-1). The ballot measure would not require either Bayer or Clark Pacific to extend utility facilities and services.

Bayer and Clark Pacific are seeking extension of the City’s water and wastewater services beyond the ULL for several reasons. In the case of Bayer, the existing source of potable and processing water is groundwater, which is high in nitrates, boron, as well as other constituents of concern (e.g., hexavalent chromium). The groundwater is pumped via existing wells and requires treatment to meet the Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) drinking water guidelines as well as extensive buffering to minimize damage to laboratory equipment and other mechanical systems. Bayer’s septic system and retention pond are also at capacity. Clark Pacific is experiencing similar issues with both the quality of well water and septic system capacity. Clark Pacific is also interested in recycled water for processing needs. Extending the City’s water and wastewater services would allow a reduction of the use of groundwater because potable water would be supplied by the City; an improvement in groundwater quality because the septic systems of both commercial facilities would no longer be used; more efficient use of onsite space by eliminating the physical space required by wells and purification systems; and, an increase in the revenue of the City through the payment of water and wastewater rates by Bayer and Clark Pacific. In addition, the extension of utilities and the use of City water and wastewater services by Bayer and Clark Pacific is consistent with state and regional activities related to safe drinking water and groundwater management. The extension of utilities is consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Central Valley RWQCB) support of consolidation of systems in support of reliable water supplies and an increase in water quality in California. The extension of utilities is also consistent with the Yolo Sustainable Groundwater Agency activities in reducing groundwater demands within the groundwater basin.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR 1-3 Introduction
Figure 1.2-1 Proposed Project Vicinity Map

AECOM
Introduction 1-4
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As noted in Section 3 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, “Project Description,” the project objectives include the City’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles for the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The vision statement is an aspirational description of what the community would like to be in the future, in this case, looking forward to 2035, and represents a compilation of input from the community through the public process. Guiding principles are shared values that will be used to develop policies that would, once implemented, achieve the vision. These are included below. The General Plan amendment evaluated in this SEIR is consistent with the following applicable Project Objectives that were included in the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR: Quality and Character, Economic Development, Agricultural Heritage, Environmental Stewardship, and Health and Recreation (see Table 3-1). This is because the proposed project would continue to support the economic diversity of the City of Woodland and the agricultural heritage of the surrounding area because existing commercial facilities support agriculture; use of groundwater would decrease, and the groundwater quality would increase; and the overall quality of drinking water at existing commercial facilities would improve.

1.3.1 GENERAL PLAN VISION STATEMENT
The 2035 General Plan Vision Statement is:

In 2035, Woodland is a highly desirable community to live, learn, work and recreate. It has maintained its small-town feel while maturing into an attractive, vibrant, and sustainable city that celebrates its architectural heritage and cultural diversity. W oodland is a healthy community with livable neighborhoods, a thriving downtown, well maintained infrastructure, excellent schools and recreational amenities connected by a seamless network of trails and paths.

The city is the region’s center of agricultural technology and food production and is recognized globally as a leader in sustainable agriculture. The community is prosperous and fiscally sound, offering abundant employment opportunities to its diverse and creative workforce.

Woodland has become a destination for visitors seeking to experience its unique agricultural, historical, recreational, cultural and entertainment amenities.

1.3.2 GENERAL PLAN’S GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The General Plan’s Guiding Principles highlight the most critical shared values that were used in developing the policies and implementation measures in the 2035 General Plan. The applicable guiding principles to the proposed project are described below in Table 1.3-1.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR 1-5 Introduction
Table 1.3-1 Summary
Guiding Principles Proposed Project Applicability
Quality and Character: Retain and enhance Woodland’s
quality of life, its distinctive identity and small-town characteristics
Existing commercial facilities receiving City utilities would continue to support the economic diversity of the City of Woodland.

Economic Development: Foster economic growth and
diversification with a range of employment opportunities for all residents
Existing commercial facilities receiving City utilities would continue to support the economic diversity of the City of Woodland.

Agricultural Heritage: Preserve and protect prime
agricultural lands and their uses within and surrounding the community
Existing commercial facilities that could be served by the general plan amendment (e.g., Bayer) include those that support the agricultural heritage surrounding the community.

Environmental Stewardship: Foster a sustainable
community for the next generation and protect and
improve the quality of the natural environment
Use of City utilities would reduce the volume of groundwater pumped, resulting in better conditions for the groundwater basin and would reduce the use of septic tanks, overall reducing the amount of nutrients entering the groundwater basin.

Health and Recreation: Provide all residents with
opportunities to live an active, healthy, and green lifestyle Drinking water quality of existing commercial facilities would be improved through the use of City water supply.

Table Note
City = City of Woodland
The guiding principles that are not applicable to the proposed project include those listed below. The principles are not applicable because the proposed project does not include changes in land use or zoning; the development of houses, or the public services, education services or safety services that support housing development; and, would not be located in historic downtown.
► Orderly Development: Promote new growth while achieving an orderly pattern of community development, consistent with economic, social, fiscal and environmental needs. ► Mobility Options: Coordinate land use and transportation planning to provide a range of attractive and viable transportation options, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit. ► Housing Choice: Provide a variety of housing types to meet the needs for all generations and income levels. ► Historic Downtown: Strengthen the historic downtown district as the City’s center of shopping, dining, entertainment and employment.
► Public Services: Provide realistic, supportable and appropriate levels of public service that are sustainable and fiscally sound.
► Safety: Ensure that Woodland remains a safe place to live, protected from natural and manmade hazards. ► Quality Education: Foster quality educational and enrichment opportunities.

1.3.3 SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THE PUBLIC DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Pursuant to Section 15143 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may limit an EIR’s discussion of environmental impacts to specific issue areas where significant impacts on the environment may occur. This principle has been used to organize the information presented in the Draft SEIR.

AECOM
Introduction 1-6
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
The City used a variety of information to determine which issue areas may require relatively more or less information in supplement to the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR in order to address the proposed project. This information included review of proposed project characteristics, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and comments received from members of the public and from agencies.

A notice of preparation (NOP) on the SEIR was prepared that requested comments from affected agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of the SEIR. The City circulated a NOP for this SEIR starting on August 12, 2025 and ending on September 12, 2025. In addition, the City invited additional comments on the scope of the SEIR at a public meeting held on August 19, 2025. Appendix A of the Draft SEIR includes each comment received on the NOP, along with comments received at the scoping meeting. NOP comments have been considered and those relevant to the environmental analysis have been addressed in this SEIR, as appropriate.

As a result of the review of existing information and the scoping process, it was determined that the following resource areas would have dedicated sections in the Draft SEIR where supplementary information will be provided:
► Agricultural Resources
► Air Quality
► Biological Resources
► Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
► Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
► Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
► Hazards and Hazardous Materials
► Hydrology and Water Quality
► Land Use Planning and Population and Housing
► Noise and Vibration
► Utilities
► Other CEQA Required Sections, including Growth Inducing Effects

1.4 INTENDED USE OF THE FINAL SEIR
The Final SEIR allows the public and the City decision makers an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft SEIR and the Responses to Comments. The Final SEIR serves as the environmental document to inform the City Council’s consideration of the proposed project.

As required by Section 15090(a)(1)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency, in certifying a Final EIR, must make the following three determinations:

1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

2. The Final EIR was presented to the decision -making body of the lead agency, and the decision -making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and

3. The Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR 1-7 Introduction
As required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

An SEIR is used to provide additional information needed to a proposed project that has a certified environmental impact report. The Draft SEIR provides additional information needed to address the proposed changes to the previously certified 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:
(1) any of the conditions described above for Section 15162 would require the preparation of an subsequent EIR, and
(2) only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.

Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines also identifies that a supplemental EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A supplemental EIR may also be circulated for public and agency review by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR.

The Draft SEIR and this Final SEIR supplement the previously certified 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (State Clearinghouse: 2020019010). The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR continues to have utility in addressing direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with implementing the General Plan.

Implementing measures imposed as a part of the General Plan and CAP EIR continue to apply to implementation of the General Plan.

In addition to the City, the following is a list of agencies that may utilize the Draft and Final SEIR for the proposed project.
► Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (Responsible Agency: service boundary change approval under Government Code 56133);
► Yolo County (issuance of grading permits);

AECOM
Introduction 1-8
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
► State Water Resources Control Board (approval of petition of water right change to change the urban boundary for water use limited to Bayer and Clark Pacific); and ► Yolo Habitat Conservancy (implementation of Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan & Natural Community Conservation Plan).

1.5 FINAL SEIR DOCUMENT FORMAT
The Final SEIR is organized into four chapters, described below. ► Chapter 1, “Introduction,” explains the purpose and intended use of this SEIR, provides a brief summary of the project that is being evaluated, identifies the scope and focus of this SEIR, outlines the organization of the document, and provides information on public review process. ► Chapter 2, “Response to Comments,” describes the comment period, public meeting, and the City’s responses to comments.
► Chapter 3, “Errata,” demonstrates in underline and strikeout revisions made to the text in the Draft SEIR. ► Chapter 4, “List of Preparers of Final SEIR,” lists individuals who were involved in preparing the Final SEIR.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR 2-1 Response to Comments
2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
In discharging its duties under Section 15021 of CEQA Guidelines, the City of Woodland (City, as lead agency) has prepared a SEIR, consistent with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, hereinafter the “CEQA Guidelines”), for the City of Woodland General Plan Amendment to Policy

2.A.1 (proposed project). This environmental document supplements the City’s 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR; State Clearinghouse #2013032015 and adopted and certified on May 16th, 2017).

The City issued a notice of availability (NOA) of a Draft SEIR for the proposed project on Friday, December 19, 2025. The proposed project was discussed at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on January 15, 2026. The NOA was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, to the Yolo County Clerk’s office, and to multiple stakeholders and Responsible Agencies. The State CEQA Guidelines provide a 45-day public review period for a Draft SEIR following posting of an NOA, during which time responsible and trustee agencies and the public may submit comments on the scope, content, and adequacy of environmental analysis (Section 15087).

The City received comments in response to the NOA and Draft SEIR in the form of letters submitted via letter/email. The purpose of this report is to document the comments received and identify topics or issues of concern raised by responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public during the 45-day public review period (Friday, December 19, 2025, through Monday, February 2, 2026). The City will consider all comments received during the Draft SEIR public review period and address those pertaining to physical environmental issues in this Final SEIR.

2.1 PUBLIC MEETING
The City held one public comment meeting to inform interested parties about the proposed project and receive public comments on the Public Draft SEIR. This meeting was held at 6:30 pm on January 15, 2026 in the City Council chambers as an informational agenda item at a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. No public comments were made at the public meeting. The Planning Commissioners discussed the proposed project and asked questions of the City staff. The meeting concluded with no action taken by the Planning Commission.

2.2 WRITTEN COMMENTS
This section provides a synopsis of the written comments received during the 45-day public comment period. A total of two comment letters were received within the 45-days. Table 2.2-1 provides a list of persons who submitted written comment letters on the Public Draft EIR.

Table 2.2-1 List of Comment Letters
Letter No. Commenter Affiliation Date
1 Christine M. Crawford, AICP Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission January 30, 2026 2 Miranda Driver Yolo County Farm Bureau February 2, 2026 Table 2.2-2 provides the comments copied from each letter received and the City’s responses to the comments.

Copies of the comment letters are included in Attachment A.

AECOM
Response to Comments 2-2
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
Table 2.2-2 Written Comments and Responses
Letter No. Comment Response
1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Impact Report (SEIR) for the City of Woodland General Plan Amendment (GPA) to Policy 2.A.1.

This comment provides introductory information to the comment letter. The comment is not about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR environmental analysis.
1 As the SEIR notes, the Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will be a Responsible Agency for this SEIR. If the project is approved by the City Council and voters, LAFCo will use this SEIR to consider any approvals required for extended City services outside its jurisdictional boundary.

LAFCo will review any future applications to extend services outside the City for impacts to agricultural land loss and ensure compliance with our policies. The SEIR notes that the project is required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies and mitigation measures, which Yolo LAFCo reviewed previously to ensure our agency policies are in alignment.

The City acknowledges that any extension of City services beyond existing jurisdictional boundaries will require review and potential approval by Yolo LAFCo as described in the Draft SEIR in Chapter 2, Section

2.2, Intended Use of this EIR and Chapter 4, Section 4.9, Land Use. The City will continue coordination with LAFCo during any future service extension review processes. 1 Thank you again for consulting with Yolo LAFCo. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

This comment provides closing information to the comment letter and does provide a comment on the adequacy of the Draft SEIR environmental analysis.
2 Farm Bureau is a non-governmental, non-profit, voluntary membership, advocacy group whose purpose is to protect and promote agricultural interests throughout Yolo County and to find solutions to the problems facing agricultural businesses and the rural community. Farm Bureau strives to protect and improve the ability of farmers and ranchers engaged in production agriculture to provide a safe, reliable supply of food and fiber through responsible stewardship of the county’s resources.

This comment provides introductory information to the comment letter describing the organization. The comment is not about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR environmental analysis. 2 Farm Bureau appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Woodland’s public draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for a proposed General Plan Amendment (the “Project”). The Project would amend the City’s General Plan to allow the City to provide utilities up to one mile beyond the City’s existing Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) to existing commercial facilities in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The two existing facilities which are discussed in the SEIR are a Bayer facility to the west of town on Highway 16, and a Clark Pacific facility on County Road 18C to the north of town. The SEIR concludes that, with respect to extension of utilities to these two facilities, no new significant environmental impacts are foreseen, and no increase in the severity of any of the significant and unavoidable impacts disclosed in the City’s 2035 General Plan EIR is foreseen.

This comment provides a summary of the project description contained in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR and summarizes the conclusions contained in the Draft SEIR.

Farm Bureau believes that the SEIR is insufficient as an informational CEQA document, insofar as it discloses and acknowledges in a number of places a proposed “expansion project” by Clark-Pacific which is adjacent to the Clark-Pacific facility discussed in the SEIR, but largely dismisses it as “separate and independent” from the proposed Project and therefore not the The Draft SEIR provides sufficient information to the public and decision makers regarding the proposed project and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The comment letter’s referenced County’s Clark Pacific “expansion project” is the Clark Pacific Facility Expansion Project (Expansion Project; SCH #2025031376), which is a separate project proposed within the jurisdiction of Yolo County and is subject to its own separate CEQA review process with Yolo County as the CEQA lead agency (Section 6.1.1, Cumulative Context, pages 6-2 and 6-3 of the Draft SEIR). The Expansion Project has

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR 2-3 Response to Comments
Letter No. Comment Response
subject of significant conjunctive analysis. This “expansion project” is apparently pending its own CEQA review before the County of Yolo, and would involve expansion of the existing Clark-Pacific facility and subdivision of that site into as many as seven parcels.

The SEIR does acknowledge that the “expansion project” has the potential to result in cumulative impacts (page 6-3), but then goes on to dismiss those cumulative impacts. In the section on growth inducing impacts (page 6-20), the SEIR states that the proposed Project would not enable the future “expansion project” for a somewhat confusing list of 3 reasons.

We think the two projects – the proposed Project disposed of in the SEIR, and the “expansion project” immediately adjacent – bear a fuller and more integrated discussion. It appears that extension of the City’s utilities will allow Clark-Pacific to abandon its groundwater wells and leach fields at its existing facility, but the “expansion project” may involve new wells and leach fields on those parcels. Environmental effects associated with those two projects – by the same applicant - should be discussed together, particularly since the “expansion project” appears to already be the subject of a CEQA Initial Study and associated process. It is possible that the proposed Project will in fact enable the “expansion project”, particularly with respect to water resources and utilities, and we think that a proper CEQA document should explore this – since both projects are known and are pending environmental review.

Farm Bureau appreciates your consideration of the foregoing. separate and independent utility from the proposed project. Each project is capable of being implemented without reliance on the other project. Each project has its own objectives, and each project can achieve its own objectives whether or not the other project is approved. The Expansion Project is not needed for the proposed project to be implemented, nor would the proposed project need to be approved for the Expansion Project to be implemented.

The decommissioning of the existing Clark-Pacific groundwater wells and septic systems evaluated as part of the City’s proposed project is unrelated to the Expansion Project because the two projects have separate and independent utility. As disclosed in the Draft SEIR, the City’s proposed project (amendment to the City’s General Plan Policy 2.A.1) would only allow for extended water, sewer, and recycled water lines to the existing Clark Pacific facility, regardless of approval and implementation of the Expansion Project (Section 3.3.2, Extension and Use of Utilities, and Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts, of the Draft SEIR). The Draft SEIR fully evaluates the City’s proposed project, including the decommissioning of the Clark-Pacific groundwater wells and septic system. As described in Section 3.1.1, Background, and Impact

4.10-2 of the Draft SEIR, Clark-Pacific has experienced decreasing water quality and increased frequency of water supply disruptions, in part due to the age of the existing groundwater wells. In addition, the septic system has experienced a significant decrease in performance and is operating beyond its capacity due to fluctuating staff levels and the age of the system (Impact 4.10-2 of the Draft SEIR). The Draft SEIR evaluates the decommissioning of two of the existing Clark-Pacific groundwater wells and the existing septic system on environmental resources (Section 3.3.2, Extension and Use of Utilities, and Sections 4.1 through 4.11, of the Draft SEIR). For example, the air quality analysis evaluated potential activities associated with decommissioning the groundwater wells and septic system and the potential to emit air pollutant emissions during the decommissioning (Section 4.2.2, Environmental Impacts, Impact 4.3-1, Tables 4.2-2 of the Draft SEIR). Overall, impacts related to short-term construction related emissions would not be significant and unavoidable as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Impact 4.3-1 of the Draft SEIR). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts related to short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors nor such impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Impact 4.3-1 of the Draft SEIR). As disclosed in Yolo County’s IS/NOP and the Draft EIR for the Expansion Project, the Expansion Project proposes to rely on new groundwater wells and new septic systems (Yolo County 2025; Yolo County 2026; Section 6.1.1, Cumulative Context, of the Draft SEIR). As the lead agency for the Expansion Project, the County has evaluated the environmental effects of the Expansion Project on water resources and utilities, including groundwater, in the Draft EIR released in March 2026.

The Draft SEIR appropriately and adequately considers growth-inducing and cumulative impacts of the proposed project and evaluates the potential for regional urban service expansion, water supply changes, and utilities-related effects. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the Draft SEIR identifies the Expansion Project as a cumulative project in Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Cumulative Impacts, and considers the Expansion Project as a reasonably foreseeable future project in the evaluation of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative effects (Section 6.1.1, Cumulative Context, of the Draft SEIR). The Draft SEIR does not dismiss the potential cumulative impacts attributable to the proposed project as suggested by the commenter, but instead appropriately considers whether two or more individual effects which, when considered together, could be considerable or could compound or increase other environmental impacts.

The cumulative analysis evaluates cumulative impacts that may originate from one project or from separate projects or may originate when impacts from separate projects combine to make a compound impact that is

AECOM
Response to Comments 2-4
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
Letter No. Comment Response
more severe than the impacts would have been had the projects occurred in isolation. Based on the cumulative analysis, there would be no cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact, and cumulative impacts would either not occur or be less than significant for most of the resources evaluated (Sections 6.1.3, Agricultural Resources through Section 6.1.13, Utilities, of the Draft SEIR). For example, for groundwater resources the proposed project would reduce the use of groundwater by abandoning existing groundwater wells and using City water supply, thus improving overall groundwater water quality, reducing reliance on the existing groundwater supply and supporting groundwater sustainability, and not resulting in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a groundwater impact (Section 6.1.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft SEIR). The following resources were identified as requiring mitigation measures in the cumulative analysis: biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources (Section 6.1.5, Biological Resources; Section 6.1.6, Cultural Resources; and Section 6.1.7, Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources, of the Draft SEIR). The Draft SEIR used publicly available information at the time of publication of the Draft SEIR regarding the Expansion Project to evaluate cumulative impacts in all environmental resources evaluated in the SEIR (see Section 6.1.3 through 6.1.13). CEQA does not require the SEIR to analyze a separate, independently initiated project simply because the projects concern the same applicant. Rather, CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis based on what, if any, potential cumulative impacts two or more projects (regardless of the identity of the applicant) may have.

As discussed in Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts, of the Draft SEIR the Expansion Project would not be contingent upon the City’s approval of the extension of utilities under the proposed project. Any future expansion of Clark Pacific facility that may occur should the County approve the Expansion Project would not facilitate or combine with the utility extension in the City’s proposed project. As discussed in Section

3.2, Extension and Use of Utilities, of the Draft SEIR, the extension of utilities under the proposed project would address expected current and future water and non-potable recycled water demand, and wastewater generation at the existing facility. The proposed project utility lines would be sized to accommodate Clark Pacific’s existing needs per their application (Section 3.3.2, Extension and Use of Utilities, of the Draft SEIR). The Draft SEIR concludes that the proposed project would not facilitate or commit the City to serving the separate and independent County project and there would be no new impacts or impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with those direct or indirect growth inducing effects addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Section 6.2, Growth Inducing Impacts, of the Draft SEIR).

Therefore, the Draft SEIR adequately analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed project, and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Table Notes: CAP = Climate Action Plan EIR = Environmental Impact Report Project = proposed General Plan Amendment CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act GPA = General Plan Amendment SEIR = Supplemental Environmental Impact Report City = City of Woodland LAFCo = Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission ULL = Urban Limit Line County = County of Yolo NOP = Notice of Preparation
References:

Yolo County. 2025. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Checklist for Clark Pacific Facility Expansion Project (ZF2023-0005). Available at:
yolocounty.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/84082/638787590994670000. Accessed on: October 15, 2025 Yolo County. 2026. Draft Environmental Impact Report Clark Pacific Facility Expansion Project. SCH#2025031376 Prepared by: Raney Planning & Management, Inc. March. Available at:
yolocounty.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/87245/639081479234670000. Accessed on: March 10, 2026.