Woodland City Council
May 19, 2026

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR 3-1 Errata
3 ERRATA
Chapter 3 presents revisions to the Draft SEIR. These revisions are editorial in nature and do not constitute substantial modifications to the Draft SEIR. The revisions are identified by the page number and section that they occur in the Draft SEIR and are identified in underline and strikeout.

3.1 DRAFT SEIR PAGE 1-4: SECTION 1.4.2 SIGNIFICANT AND

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified the following areas where, after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, implementation of the General Plan may nonetheless result in impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

The City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified the following resource areas where, even with feasible mitigation measures, implementation of the General Plan may nonetheless result in impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level (pages 6-51 to 6-52):
► Aesthetics and Visual Resources: Impact 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 ► Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Impact 4.2-1 and 4.2-3 ► Air Quality: Impact 4.3-1, 4.3-2, and 4.3-3
► Cultural Resources: Impact 4.6-1 and 4.6-2
► Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality: Impact 4.9-7
► Land Use Planning, Population and Housing: Impact 4.10-2 and 4.10-3 ► Noise and Vibration: Impact 4.11-1, 4.11-2, and 4.11-3 Therefore, as concluded in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the impacts identified above would be significant and unavoidable (pages 6-51 to 6-52). These conclusions would not change as a result of the proposed project as documented in Chapter 4 of this SEIR and the proposed project would not result in new significant and unavoidable impacts on these resources. Implementation of the proposed project 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.

3.2 DRAFT SEIR PAGE 4.2-1: SECTION 4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was presented on pages 4.3-14 to 4.3-18. The regulatory setting is updated in the material that follows. The information provided below does not lead to a new impact or increase in severity of any impact in relation to the proposed project.

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
The General Plan Planning Area and proposed project are in the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). Since certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the air quality plans for the region have been updated. The most current update for the YSAQMD Air Quality Attainment Plan to address the regional nonattainment status for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards was adopted in May 2019 (YSAQMD

AECOM
Errata 3-2
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
2019). Additionally, YSAQMD worked with the other local air districts within the Sacramento Region1 to develop the Sacramento Regional 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (SMAQMD OEHHA 2017) and the Sacramento Regional 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (SMAQMD OEHHA 2023). These regional plans describe and demonstrate how the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area is meeting requirements under the federal Clean Air Act in demonstrating reasonable further progress and attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. These regional plans primarily target long- term operational sources, particularly stationary and industrial sources, as well as mobile source emissions, but also include strategies to reduce construction-related emissions. The respective air districts develop Rules and Regulations to implement the air quality plans and achieve the federal and State ambient air quality standards.

The updates to the regional air quality plans and air district Rules and Regulations have not substantively changed in any way that affects the regulatory setting or findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

3.3 DRAFT SEIR PAGE 4.3-3: UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

SETTING
Although biological resource conditions have evolved since certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, none of those changes would lead to a new impact or increase in severity of any impact in relation to the proposed project. Information contained in this section is based on a biological reconnaissance field survey, updated database searches, review of the General Plan and CAP EIR and a review of the Yolo HCP/NCCP and Yolo HCP/NCCP EIS/EIR. Information from both the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and the Yolo HCP/NCCP is used to characterize the environmental setting because the proposed project is an amendment to the existing City of Woodland General Plan that would allow activities within County lands under the jurisdiction of the HCP/NCCP. A biological reconnaissance field survey was conducted on July 30, 2025, by AECOM field biologist of the proposed Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments, which included a 500-foot survey buffer. Appendix E, Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results, of this SEIR documents the survey. The habitat types documented in the field were generally mapped to General Plan habitat types. A desktop review was also conducted of the Yolo HCP/NCCP land cover types and modeled habitat for the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments. A desktop review was also performed of the Yolo HCP/NCCP to identify common habitat types described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR that could be within one mile of the existing ULL and the land cover types described in the Yolo HCP/NCCP mapped within one mile of the existing ULL. Finally, a desktop review was performed to identify Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled habitat for covered species within one mile of the existing ULL. Species analysis was based on updated database searches of California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW CNDDB 2025), California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2025), USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (USFWS IPAC 2025), and Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled habitat. 1 El Dorado County Air Quality Management District, Feather River Air Quality Management District, and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR 3-3 Errata

3.4 DRAFT SEIR PAGE 8-1: SECTON 8.3 CHAPTER 3. PROJECT

DESCRIPTION

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.

3.6 DRAFT SEIR PAGE 8-2: SECTION 8.56 SECTION 4.3. BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Bumble Bee Watch. No Date. Available at: https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/ Accessed on October 6, 2025.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025. CNDDB: California Natural Diversity Database; Nine-Quad Search of the Davis, Eldorado Bend, Grays Bend, Knights Landing, Madison, Merritt, Winters, Woodland, and Zamora. 7.5-minute Quadrangles. Project species list can be generated online at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed on September 9, 2025.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants; Two-Quad Search of the Woodland and Grays Bend 7.5-minute Quadrangles. Project species can be generated online at: https://rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed on July 21, 2025.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge or Fill Materials into Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019 and Revised April 6, 2021.

Yolo Habitat Conservancy. 2025. Geomapper. Available at: Yolo Habitat Conservancy Geomapper Accessed:

October 2025.

Yolo Habitat Conservancy. n.d. Overview of the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Available at:
https://www.yolohabitatconservancy.org/_files/ugd/8f41bd_25d71974d7db4063afb21e687a44699f.pdf Accessed on: September 28, 2025.

Yolo Habitat Conservancy. 2018. Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan:

Chapter 2. Available at: 8f41bd_ab0c1c4cb0684d06b361bd45fd93b9dd.pdf Accessed on: October 18, 2025.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025a. IPaC: Information for Planning and Consulting. Project species list can be generated online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on: October 6, 2025.

AECOM
Errata 3-4
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR

3.7 DRAFT SEIR PAGES 8-4 AND 8-5: SECTION 8.1011 SECTION 4.8.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
City's Post Construction Standard Plan (2015) ???City of Woodland. 2015. Post Construction Standard Plan.

Available at: https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1006/Post-Construction- Standard-Plan-PDF?bidId=.
———. City of Woodland Community Development Department. 2025. Lower Cache Creek Feasibility Study (LCCFS). Available: https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/1196/Lower-Cache-Creek-Feasibility-Study- LCCF. Accessed September 10, 2025.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR 4-1 List of Preparers
4 LIST OF PREPARERS OF THE FINAL SEIR

4.1 CITY OF WOODLAND
Erika Bumgardner, AICP ........................................................................ Deputy Community Development Director Tim Busch ............................................................................ Principal Utilities Engineer, Public Works Department

4.2 AECOM
J. Matthew Gerken............................................................................ Project Director, Senior Environmental Planner Nicole Williams ............................................................................... Project Manager, Senior Environmental Planner Emily Biro ............................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner Deborah Jew ............................................................................................................. Document Production Specialist

4.3 APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVES
George Gough ............................................................................................................ Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC Mike Winningham ............................................................. Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC, Capital Project Manager Erik Winje ..................................................................................................... Clark Pacific, Preconstruction Manager

ATTACHMENT A

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND

COMMENT LETTERS

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR A1-1 Notice of Avalability and Comment Letters A1 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A1.1 FOR THE CITY OF WOODLAND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO POLICY 2.A.1
Notice is hereby given that the City of Woodland (hereinafter “City”), as lead agency, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has completed a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the City of Woodland General Plan Amendment: Policy 2.A.1 (the “proposed project”). A description of the project is provided below. The City invites comments on the adequacy and completeness of the environmental analysis described in the Draft SEIR from Friday, December 19, 2025, through Monday, February 2, 2026.

A1.1.1 PROJECT LOCATION:

The project area encompasses the portion of the adjoining Yolo County unincorporated area that falls within a distance of one mile of the City’s voter-adopted Urban Limit Line (ULL), and existing commercial facilities that are located within one mile from the voter-adopted Urban Limit Line (see Figure 1).

A1.1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW & DESCRIPTION:

In discharging its duties under Section 15021 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City 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 (the “proposed project”). This environmental document supplements the City’s 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan [CAP] EIR; State Clearinghouse #2013032015, adopted and certified on May 16th, 2017).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if proposed changes meet the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and if only minor additions and changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate. The SEIR has been 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 proposed project would allow the City to provide utilities (i.e., potable water, wastewater, or recycled water) up to one mile beyond the existing 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 City is considering including a measure on the November 2026 ballot that would amend the ULL to allow the expansion of existing City utilities to 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.

AECOM
Notice of Availability and Comment Letters
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
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 (located at 37437 CA-16, Woodland, CA 95695) and Clark Pacific (located at 40600 County Road 18C, Woodland, CA 95776) (see Figures 1, 2 and 3). The ballot measure would not require either Bayer or Clark Pacific to extend utility facilities and services.

A1.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWING FINDINGS:

The Draft SEIR describes environmental effects associated with the proposed project, including the physical environmental impacts of extending City utilities to Bayer and Clark Pacific. The analysis in the Draft SEIR shows the proposed project would have no new significant environmental impacts and not increase in the severity of any of the significant and unavoidable impacts disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

No hazardous materials sites included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (the “Cortese List”) are present. The proposed project is not located on a Superfund or other National Priorities List site and therefore would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through exposure to such sites.

A1.1.4 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY & COMMENT PERIOD:

The Draft SEIR may be viewed on or after Friday, December 19, 2025, on the City’s website https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/1687/Urban-Limit-Line-Amendment.

The public comment period begins on Friday, December 19, 2025 and ends at 4:00 PM on Monday, February 2, 2026. Please limit comments to environmental issues only.

All letters should be directed to: Erika Bumgardner, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director, Community Development Department; 300 First Street, Woodland, CA 95695.

Comments may also be submitted electronically by 4:00pm on Monday, February 2, 2026, to [email protected].

Public Meeting: The proposed project will be discussed at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on January 15, 2026.

A1-2

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR A1-3 Notice of Avalability and Comment Letters Figure 1: Proposed Project Vicinity Map

AECOM
Notice of Availability and Comment Letters
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
Figure 2: Proposed Project Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments A1-4

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR A1-5 Notice of Avalability and Comment Letters Figure 3: Proposed Project Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC Utility Extension Alignments

COMMENT LETTERS

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR Notice of Avalability and Comment Letters
Letter No. 1 Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission

AECOM
Notice of Availability and Comment Letters
General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR
Letter No. 2 Yolo County Farm Bureau

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR Notice of Avalability and Comment Letters

ATTACHMENT B

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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 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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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 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.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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.

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.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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 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:

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) • 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.

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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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 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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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.
• 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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) (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 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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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 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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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.
• 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 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.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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
• 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,

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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 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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
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:
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 c. area for archaeological resources.
d. 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.
e. 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.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) f. 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.
g. 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. h. 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.
i. 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.
j. 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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) 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 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 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.

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

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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
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) (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.
• 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:

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Final SEIR B1-22 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) ▪ 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.

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

AECOM General Plan Amendment Executive Summary 1-2 Draft SEIR Figure 1.2-1 Proposed Project Vicinity Map

General Plan Amendment AECOM Draft SEIR 3-5 Project Description Figure 3.1-3 Proposed Project Bayer Utility Extension Alignments

AECOM General Plan Amendment Project Description 3-4 Draft SEIR Figure 3.1-2 Proposed Project Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments

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

PUBLIC DRAFT

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
P R E P A R E D F O R :

City of Woodland
Community Development Department
300 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
December 2025

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

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

1.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 1-3

1.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................... 1-3

1.4.1 Summary of Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 1-4

1.4.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ............................................................................. 1-4

1.5 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.6 Potential Areas of Controversy/Issues to Be Resolved ................................................................... 1-5

1.7 How to Comment on this Draft SEIR .............................................................................................. 1-6 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 The California Environmental Quality Act ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Type of EIR .................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report ................................................................ 2-2

2.1.3 Scope and Focus of this Supplemental EIR .................................................................... 2-3

2.1.4 Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR .......... 2-4

2.1.5 Document Format ........................................................................................................... 2-6

2.2 Intended Use of this EIR ................................................................................................................. 2-7

2.2.1 Making Effective Comments .......................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.2 Submitting Comments .................................................................................................... 2-7

2.3 Final EIR.......................................................................................................................................... 2-7 3 Project Description .................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Project Setting .................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Location .......................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 3-6

3.2.1 General Plan Vision Statement ....................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.2 General Plan’s Guiding Principles .................................................................................. 3-6

3.3 Proposed Project .............................................................................................................................. 3-7

3.3.1 Changes to Policy 2.A.1 ................................................................................................. 3-8

3.3.2 Extension and Use of Utilities ........................................................................................ 3-8

3.4 Required Approvals ....................................................................................................................... 3-11 4 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.0 Approach to the Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................ 4-1

4.0.1 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.0.2 Section Contents ............................................................................................................. 4-2

4.0.3 Determining the Level of Significance ........................................................................... 4-3

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Table of Contents ii Draft SEIR

4.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.1.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 4.1-3

4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 4.2-3

4.3 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.3-30

4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy ....................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 4.4-2

4.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 4.5-4

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ............................................................................ 4.6-1

4.6.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 4.6-3

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................ 4.7-1

4.7.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 4.7-3

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 4.8-6

4.9 Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing ........................................................................ 4.9-1

4.9.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 4.9-3

4.10 Noise and Vibration .................................................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.2 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.10-2

4.11 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.2 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.11-3 5 Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 General Plan Vision Statement ....................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 General Plan’s Guiding Principles .................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Alternatives Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 5-2 6 Other CEQA Considerations .................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Cumulative Context ........................................................................................................ 6-1

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR iii Table of Contents

6.1.2 Cumulative Impact ......................................................................................................... 6-3

6.1.3 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................... 6-4

6.1.4 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 6-5

6.1.5 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 6-6

6.1.6 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................... 6-7

6.1.7 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources.............................................................. 6-8

6.1.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy ......................................................................... 6-9

6.1.9 Hazardous Materials and Toxics .................................................................................. 6-10

6.1.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 6-11

6.1.11 Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing .............................................................. 6-14

6.1.12 Noise and Vibration ...................................................................................................... 6-15

6.1.13 Utilities ......................................................................................................................... 6-15

6.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts .............................................................................................................. 6-17

6.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ............................................................................................ 6-21

6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes that Cannot Be Avoided if the Project is Implemented .................................................................................................................................. 6-21 7 List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 City of Woodland ............................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2 AECOM ........................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3 Applicant Representatives ............................................................................................................... 7-1 8 References ................................................................................................................................................ 8-1

8.1 Chapter 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 Chapter 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.3 Section 4.1. Agriculture Resources ................................................................................................. 8-1

8.4 Section 4.2. Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.5 Section 4.3. Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 8-2

8.6 Section 4.4. GreenHouse Gas Emissions and Energy ..................................................................... 8-2

8.7 Section 4.5. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................... 8-3

8.8 Section 4.6. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ........................................................... 8-3

8.9 Section 4.7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 8-3

8.10 Section 4.8. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................... 8-4

8.11 Section 4.9. Land use and Planning, Population and Housing ........................................................ 8-5

8.12 Section 4.10. Noise and Vibrations ................................................................................................. 8-6

8.13 Section 4.11. Utilities ...................................................................................................................... 8-6

8.14 Chapter 6. Other CEQA Considerations .......................................................................................... 8-7

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Table of Contents iv Draft SEIR

APPENDICES
Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 Appendix B Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
Appendix C Draft Ballot Language
Appendix D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Appendix E Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Appendix F Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan EIS/EIR, Appendix C, Avoidance and Minimization Measures
TABLES
Table 3.2-1 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Table 3.3-1 Summary of Proposed Utility Extensions and Existing Land Uses ............................................. 3-9 Table 3.3-2 Current and Future Annual Potable Water Demand (AFY) ....................................................... 3-10 Table 3.3-3 Current and Future Wastewater Generation (GPD) ................................................................... 3-10 Table 4.1-1 CEQA Important Farmland1—Bayer and Clark Pacific Utility Alignments ............................. 4.1-2 Table 4.1-2 Summary of Important Farmland Conversion in Yolo County 2014–2020 .............................. 4.1-3 Table 4.2-1 Bayer Construction-Related Emissions ..................................................................................... 4.2-5 Table 4.2-2 Clark Pacific Construction-Related Emissions ......................................................................... 4.2-6 Table 4.2-3 Total Construction-Related Emissions ...................................................................................... 4.2-6 Table 4.3-1 Natural Communities and Habitat Types: Clark Pacific and Bayer Utility Extension Alignments ................................................................................................................................ 4.3-5 Table 4.3-2 Natural Communities and Habitat Types: Within One Mile of the Existing Urban Limit Line ............................................................................................................................................ 4.3-7 Table 4.3-3 Presence of Yolo HCP/NCCP Modeled Habitat for Covered Special-Status Species ............ 4.3-15 Table 4.3-4 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur ...................................................................... 4.3-17 Table 4.3-5 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur ................................................................. 4.3-21 Table 4.4-1 Modeled Construction Fuel Consumption ................................................................................. 4.4-6 Table 4.9-1 LAFCo Out of Agency Service Review Policies - Standards of Evaluation ............................. 4.9-6 Table 4.9-2 LAFCo Agricultural Conservation Policies - Review Criteria .................................................. 4.9-7 Table 4.10-1 Modeled. Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet (Leq) by Activity .......................................... 4.10-4 Table 4.11-1 Current and Future Annual Potable Water Demand (AFY) .................................................... 4.11-7

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR v Table of Contents

FIGURES
Figure 1.2-1 Proposed Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 3.1-1 Proposed Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.1-2 Proposed Project Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments ..................................................... 3-4 Figure 3.1-3 Proposed Project Bayer Utility Extension Alignments ................................................................ 3-5 Figure 4.3-1 Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments and General Plan Habitat Types ........................ 4.3-11 Figure 4.3-2 Bayer Utility Extension Alignments and General Plan Habitat Types.................................... 4.3-12 Figure 4.3-3 Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments and Yolo HCP/NCCP Land Cover Types ......... 4.3-13 Figure 4.3-4 Bayer Utility Extension Alignments and Yolo HCP/NCCP Land Cover Types ..................... 4.3-14 Figure 4.3-5 CNDDB Occurrences .............................................................................................................. 4.3-16 Figure 6.2-1 Existing Businesses within One Mile of Existing Urban Limit Line ......................................... 6-19

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Table of Contents vi Draft SEIR

ACRONYMS AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS
µm micrometer
2035 General Plan and CAP EIR 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report A-1 Agricultural General
AB Assembly Bill
AFY acre feet per year
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AMM avoidance and minimization measures
A-N Agriculture
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CAAP Climate Action & Adaptation Plan
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CalTrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CASQA California Stormwater Quality Associations
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Central Valley RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CEQA Guidelines California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines City City of Woodland
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide-equivalents
County Yolo County
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CVFPP Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibels
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DWR California Department of Water Resources
DWWSP Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project
EC electroconductivity
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR vii Table of Contents
g ground acceleration
General Plan amendment Policy 2.A.1 in the General Plan GHGs greenhouse gases
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWP global warming potential
I Interstate
I-H Industrial
IS Initial Study
LAFCo Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission
lbs/day pounds per day
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
LID Low Impact Development
M-2 Heavy Industrial
MEI maximally exposed individual
mgd million gallons a day
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MS4 Permit Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems MT metric tons
MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NOP notice of preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OS Open Space
P Primary Number
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PM10 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns proposed project Policy 2.A.1 in the General Plan
PVC polyvinyl chloride
ROG reactive organic gases
RWTF Regional Water Treatment Facility
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEIR Supplemental EIR
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SOI sphere of influence
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads
tpy tons per year

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Table of Contents viii Draft SEIR
U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
ULL Urban Limit Line
USA North 811 Underground Service Alert of Northern California USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WPCF Water Pollution Control Facility
Yolo HCP/NCCP Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan YSAQMD Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 1-1 Executive Summary
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This summary is provided in accordance with Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). As stated in Section 15123(a), “an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical.” As required by the CEQA Guidelines, this chapter includes (1) a summary description of the proposed project, (2) a synopsis of environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures, (3) identification of the alternatives evaluated and of the environmentally superior alternative, and (4) a discussion of the areas of controversy associated with the project.

As explained in more detail in Chapter 1, this is a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) that supplements the previously certified City of Woodland (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 the City’s General Plan. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, this SEIR provides the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the proposed project. The proposed project evaluated in this SEIR includes potential amendment to the City’s General Plan Policy 2.A.1, as described below in more detail.

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, “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 Urban Limit Line (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 application s 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 commercial facilities up to one mile beyond the existing 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.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Executive Summary 1-2 Draft SEIR

Figure 1.2-1 Proposed Project Vicinity Map

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 1-3 Executive Summary
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.

1.3 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.

1.4 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of the City’s existing General Plan would result in a number of significant impacts on the environment. At the same time, the General Plan includes many policies that are intended to minimize or mitigate these potential impacts. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR summarized the impacts and mitigation measures of the City’s existing General Plan. Please see Appendix A of this SEIR, which is Table 2-1 from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Each of the mitigation measures identified in the General Plan and CAP EIR, as applicable, would continue to apply to the proposed project, if applicable.

The analysis in this SEIR considers the policies set forth in the 2035 General Plan and CAP in evaluating impacts and providing supplementation information necessary to address the impacts of the General Plan amendment. The analysis in this SEIR shows the General Plan amendment will have no new significant impacts and no increase in severity in impacts from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Executive Summary 1-4 Draft SEIR

1.4.1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR summarized the impacts and mitigation measures certified and approved by the City as part of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (see Appendix A). This SEIR provides information necessary to address the impacts of the General Plan amendment.

The following environmental topic areas are not the focus of this SEIR as the General Plan amendment would not affect these resources and there would be no new significant impacts and no increase in severity in impacts previously disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (discussed further in Section 1.1.4, Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR). ► Aesthetics
► Mineral Resources
► Public Services
► Recreation
► Transportation
► Wildfire
► Alternatives

1.4.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified the following areas where, after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, implementation of the General Plan may nonetheless result in impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

The City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified the following resource areas where, even with feasible mitigation measures, implementation of the General Plan may nonetheless result in impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level (pages 6-51 to 6-52):
► Aesthetics and Visual Resources: Impact 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 ► Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Impact 4.2-1 and 4.2-3 ► Air Quality: Impact 4.3-1, 4.3-2, and 4.3-3
► Cultural Resources: Impact 4.6-1 and 4.6-2
► Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality: Impact 4.9-7
► Land Use Planning, Population and Housing: Impact 4.10-2 and 4.10-3 ► Noise and Vibration: Impact 4.11-1, 4.11-2, and 4.11-3 Therefore, as concluded in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the impacts identified above would be significant and unavoidable (pages 6-51 to 6-52). These conclusions would not change as a result of the proposed project as documented in Chapter 4 of this SEIR and the proposed project would not result in new significant and unavoidable impacts on these resources. Implementation of the proposed project 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.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 1-5 Executive Summary

1.5 ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires the EIR to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that (1) meet most or all of the project’s objectives; (2) substantially reduce one or more of its significant effects; and (3) are potentially feasible. 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.

Rather than analyze one specific project, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR analyzes two alternative ways in which growth and development could occur through the planning horizon year (2035). While the Project Alternatives use the same Land Use Diagram, they offer different approaches regarding the timing, location, and sequence under which the Planning Area could build out through 2035, particularly in terms of “greenfield” growth in Specific Plan areas. One Alternative introduces new greenfield growth in the East while the other continues to concentrate new greenfield growth in the South. Hence the two Alternatives are termed the East Alternative and the South Alternative. The vast majority of policies in the 2035 General Plan were the same for both the East and South Alternatives, including Policy 2.A.1.

The proposed General Plan amendment would not increase the severity of any impacts as they were disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Since there are no new impacts associated with the proposed project and since there are no impacts that would increase in severity with implementation of the proposed project, this SEIR does not include any new alternatives for analysis. 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) 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 proposed project would not make the alternatives analysis provided in Chapter 5 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR inadequate, and no changes to Chapter 5 are needed.

1.6 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 recommends that the Executive Summary include a summary of areas of controversy known to the lead agency. A notice of preparation (NOP) on this SEIR was prepared that requested comments from affected agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of the SEIR (Appendix B). 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 19, 2025. Appendix B of this SEIR includes comments received on the NOP. No comments were received at the scoping meeting. NOP comments have been considered and addressed in the respective technical sections in Chapter 4, “Impact Analysis,” of this SEIR and are summarized in Section 2.1.3, “Scope and Focus of this Supplemental EIR” of this SEIR. Topics mentioned in response to the NOP include:
► Potential impacts to agricultural resources
► Potential growth inducing effects
► Potential land use effects
► Potential cultural resources and Tribal Cultural Resources effects ► Potential surface water and water quality effects

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Executive Summary 1-6 Draft SEIR
► Potential cumulative effects
► Project approvals and use of an SEIR

1.7 HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS DRAFT SEIR
This Supplemental EIR is being circulated for a 45-day public review period. During this time, members of public and agencies can submit written comments on the Supplemental EIR to the address provided below.

Erika Bumgardner, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director City of Woodland
300 1st Street, Woodland CA, 95695
[email protected]
Comments should be focused on the adequacy and completeness of the SEIR. “Adequacy” is defined as the thoroughness of the EIR in addressing significant adverse physical environmental effects, identifying mitigation measures for those impacts, feasible alternatives that would reduce or avoid potentially significant effects, and supplying enough information for public officials to make decisions about the merits of the project.

After the end of the public review period and as part of preparing the Final SEIR, the City will prepare written responses to all comments pertaining to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR in addressing potentially significant adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed project. The Final SEIR will consist of the Draft SEIR, comments received, written responses to comments, and a list of commenters. It may also contain additional information necessary to respond to the comments.

The City Council will consider certification of the Final SEIR prior to taking action on the General Plan amendment. At that time, the Council will adopt findings regarding the disposition of each significant effect identified in the Final SEIR, if necessary, as well as a statement of overriding considerations describing the specific benefits that outweigh the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, if necessary.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 2-1 Introduction
2 INTRODUCTION
The City of Woodland (City) is proposing to amend Policy 2.A.1 in the General Plan (“the proposed project”).

The amendment would allow the City to provide utilities up to one mile beyond the Urban Limit Line (ULL) to commercial facilities operating prior to November 3, 2026. 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 existing ULL. The ULL boundary and provisions of services outside the ULL may only be modified by another vote by the people. The City is considering and evaluating an amendment to Policy 2.A.1 in this Supplemental General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to potentially include a ballot measure on the November 2026 ballot that would amend the existing ULL to allow the expansion of existing utilities to existing commercial facilities operating prior to November 3, 2026, and located up to one mile beyond the existing ULL.

This SEIR has been 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.

2.1 THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This SEIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (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 this SEIR to evaluate the environmental impacts of implementation of the proposed project.

2.1.1 TYPE OF EIR
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 discretionary 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 significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Introduction 2-2 Draft SEIR
(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.

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 SEIR, 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.

This SEIR supplements the previously certified City of Woodland 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (State Clearinghouse #2013032015). 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 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.

2.1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The CEQA Guidelines charge public agencies with the responsibility of avoiding or minimizing environmental damage that could result from implementation of a project, where feasible. As part of this responsibility, public agencies are required to balance various public objectives, including economic and social issues, in addition to the environmental issues addressed in a CEQA document.

The purpose of an EIR is neither to recommend approval nor denial of a project. An EIR is an informational document used in the planning and decision-making process by the lead agency and responsible and trustee agencies. An EIR describes the significant environmental impacts of a project, identifies potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant impacts, and describes potentially feasible alternatives to the project that can

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 2-3 Introduction
reduce or avoid significant environmental effects. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental effects in deciding whether to carry out a project.

If significant environmental effects are identified, the lead agency must adopt findings indicating whether feasible mitigation measures or alternatives exist that can avoid or reduce those effects. If the environmental impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable, the lead agency may still approve the project if it determines that social, economic, legal, technological, or other factors override the unavoidable impacts. The lead agency would then be required to prepare a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” that discusses the specific reasons for approving the project.

In making its decision about the proposed project, the City considers the information in this SEIR, comments received on the SEIR, and responses to those comments, information in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and technical appendices, along with materials cited in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and this SEIR, to support the analysis presented herein.

2.1.3 SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THIS 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 this 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 this 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 this 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

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Introduction 2-4 Draft SEIR
► Utilities
► Other CEQA Required Sections, including Growth Inducing Effects

2.1.4 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THIS

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
As discussed above, the focus of this SEIR is on those environmental topics listed above where additional information is needed as a supplement to the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR to address the proposed project.

The following discussion describes other environmental topics that are not the focus of this SEIR, since the proposed changes to 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR would clearly have no bearing on these environmental impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not change impacts related to the following environmental topics from what has already been analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Therefore, these environmental topics are briefly discussed below and are not discussed further in this SEIR. ► Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined there would be less than significant impacts on scenic vistas and scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. The proposed project would not change these impact determinations or increase the severity of them because as identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR there are no designated or eligible State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of Woodland and none within the proximity to the proposed project (page 4.1-22). And as noted in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, Woodland’s relatively flat topography results in few scenic vistas (page 4.1-22) and the proposed project would not interfere with views of the flat agricultural lands or foothills to the east or west. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined impacts on existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings would be significant and creation of new sources of substantial light or glare would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would not change the impact determination associated with light or glare or increase the impact severity because the proposed project would not use nighttime lighting and because the proposed project consists of installation of underground pipelines in existing agricultural fields or public rights of way. Finally, once constructed, the proposed project would consist of underground pipelines that would have no ability to affect scenic vistas, State Scenic Highways, visual resources, visual character or quality, or light or glare. Aesthetics and visual resources are not discussed further in this SEIR.
► Mineral Resources: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined there would be no impacts to mineral resources because there are no areas of known mineral resources within the General Plan Planning Area (i.e., areas that have been classified as MRZ-2 by the California Division of Mines and Geology). The General Plan amendment does not propose any new areas for development, including areas that may otherwise be available for mineral resource extraction. There is an existing area to the north/northwest that is within 1 mile of the ULL that is classified as MRZ-2 and/or within the area covered by the Cache Creek mining plan; this is not within the proposed utility extension alignments for either Bayer or Clark Pacific. If another existing commercial business located north/northwest and within 1 mile of the existing ULL were to request underground utility service, construction could occur within the MRZ-2 area. However, utilities would be installed within existing road rights-of-way, through existing agricultural land, or within private land areas owned by the individual commercial facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR with respect to mineral resources. This topic is not discussed further in this SEIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 2-5 Introduction
► Public Services and Recreation: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined impacts to fire protection services, police protection services, and parks and recreation services would be less than significant. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined impacts to schools and other public facilities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would not change these impact determinations or increase the severity of them because the proposed project would not use existing fire services, police services, school services, or other governments services, given the proposed project would extend existing underground utilities to commercial facilities within one mile of the existing ULL within existing agricultural lands or public rights of way and extending utilities would not require public services. Furthermore, county land use designations and zoning would not change, no new school students would be generated and thus there would be no effect on the need for school facilities or services. Public Services is not discussed further in this SEIR. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined impacts related to increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities or impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project would not change these impact determinations or increase the severity of them because the proposed project would not affect existing or proposed recreational facilities, given it would extend existing underground utilities to commercial facilities outside the ULL within existing agricultural lands or public rights of way and utility extensions would not use recreational facilities. Recreation is not discussed further in this SEIR.
► Transportation and Circulation: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined impacts on transportation and circulation would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would not change these impact determinations or increase the severity of these impacts. The proposed project would result in minor construction worker trips during construction of the underground pipelines but would not substantially increase Vehicle Miles Traveled because these would not be permanent trips and because once operational the proposed project would not generate trips.

Furthermore, the construction of utilities will be required to implement traffic control plans consistent with City policies/standard practices which are designed to avoid temporary traffic hazards. Finally, area roadways would not be modified and thus there would be no increase in hazards due to a design feature. Transportation and circulation are not discussed further in this SEIR. ► Hazardous Materials and Toxics: Wildfire: The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR evaluated the potential for wildfire risk, finding a less-than-significant impact. The 2035 General Plan explains how Goal 5.B and Policies 5.B.1 through 5.B.10, and Goal 8.C and Policies 8.C.1 through 8.C.5 which relate to the provision of adequate fire protection facilities and services, work to avoid a significant impact. The California State Fire Marshall updated the Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones across the state in 2025, including the County and the City. The City of Woodland has no Fire Hazard Severity Zone in a Local Responsibility Area, and remains outside of a designated very high, high, or moderate fire hazard severity zone in either local responsibility area or state responsibility area (CalFire 2025). The proposed project would be constructed in existing agricultural lands that are regularly maintained or existing public rights-of-way.

Once operational, the utilities would be underground. Construction and operation of the proposed project would have no impact on exacerbating wildfire risk, and it would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR with respect to wildfire risk.

This topic is not discussed further in this SEIR.
► Alternatives: The General Plan amendment does not change the findings regarding potentially significant impacts associated with implementing the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As such, there is no need for any

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Introduction 2-6 Draft SEIR
new alternative that would reduce potential impacts that have arisen based on the proposed changes. The alternatives analysis in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR remains adequate for addressing General Plan amendment and a supplemental alternatives analysis is not included as part of this SEIR.

2.1.5 DOCUMENT FORMAT
The content and format of this SEIR is designed to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15122 through 15132). This 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” presents an overview of the project and alternatives and associated environmental impacts/consequences; a listing of environmental impacts/consequences and mitigation measures; and known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved. ► Chapter 2, “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 3, “Project Description,” describes the regional location and setting, background and history, project objectives, project characteristics, and the relationship of the proposed project to related plans and regulations.
► Chapter 4, “Impact Analysis,” is divided into sections corresponding to the environmental topics listed above. The introduction to the Impact Analysis explains the approach to the environmental setting, identifies the documents incorporated by reference, presents the section contents, and provides definitions of the types of environmental impacts. The impact analysis examines the impacts that would occur with implementation General Plan amendment and compares the impacts of the General Plan amendment to those previously analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The analysis incorporates by reference applicable portions of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Each of the remaining sections is devoted to a particular environmental topic area and describes the baseline, or existing environmental setting; regulatory setting; thresholds for determining significance; and then provides an analysis of environmental impacts, identifies mitigation measures that would avoid, eliminate, or reduce potentially significant or significant impacts to a less-than-significant level, where available and feasible; and identifies the significance of the proposed project after implementation of mitigation.
► Chapter 5, “Alternatives Analysis” addresses the relative impacts of alternatives to the proposed project. As noted, the alternatives analysis in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR remains adequate for addressing General Plan amendment and a supplemental alternatives analysis and has not been revised as a part of this SEIR.
► Chapter 6, “Other CEQA Considerations,” addresses cumulative impacts, the potential for the project to foster economic or population growth, or remove obstacles to growth, discusses any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that would result from project implementation, and discusses any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that could be caused by the project. ► Chapter 7, “List of Preparers,” lists individuals who were involved in preparing this SEIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 2-7 Introduction
► Chapter 8, “References,” provides a bibliography of sources cited in the SEIR.

2.2 INTENDED USE OF THIS EIR
The City Council will use the SEIR to inform themselves of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project before considering a recommendation or an action on the proposed project. The City Council will also consider other information and testimony submitted during deliberations on the proposed project. This SEIR is prepared for the purpose of analyzing the environmental impacts of the General Plan amendment to Policy 2.A.1 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. In addition, the following is a list of agencies that may utilize this EIR. ► Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (Responsible Agency: service boundary change approval under Government Code 56133);
► Yolo County (issuance of grading permits);
► 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).

2.2.1 MAKING EFFECTIVE COMMENTS
The City will accept written comments during the review period described below. Please focus your comments on the adequacy of the Draft SEIR.

2.2.2 SUBMITTING COMMENTS
The Draft SEIR will be available for public review for the statutory 45-day public review period. During that time, agency representatives and members of the public will have the ability to submit written comments on the Draft SEIR to the address provided below.

Erika Bumgardner, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director City of Woodland
300 1st Street, Woodland CA
[email protected]

2.3 FINAL EIR
After the end of the public review period and as part of preparing the Final SEIR, the City will prepare written responses to all environmental issues raised through the public review process. The Final SEIR will present the comments received, written responses to comments, a complete list of commenters, and revisions made to the Draft SEIR in response to comments received. It may also contain additional information necessary to respond to the comments.

The City of Woodland City Council will consider certification of the Final SEIR prior to considering any action on the proposed project. The City Council will consider the adoption of findings regarding the disposition of each

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Introduction 2-8 Draft SEIR
significant effect identified in the Final SEIR, if necessary, as well as a statement of overriding considerations describing the specific benefits that outweigh significant and unavoidable impacts, if necessary.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 3-1 Project Description
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is an update to the 2035 General Plan and CAP to amend Policy 2.A.1.

3.1 PROJECT SETTING

3.1.1 BACKGROUND
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, “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 Urban Limit Line (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 application s 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 commercial facilities up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. It is anticipated at this time that the two existing commercial facilities to use the utility extension if the ballot meas ure passes would be Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC ( Bayer) and Clark Pacific. The ballot measure would not require either Bayer or Clark Pacific to extend utility facilities and services.

The two commercial facilities have been located outside of the City for decades. Bayer Crop Science’s site is located west of Woodland on Highway 16 and develops new fruit and vegetable varieties for growers in California, the United States and around the world. The facility employs 230 full-time employees and contractors with more than one hundred additional seasonal contractors during peak periods. Approximately 72 employees and contractors have a Woodland address. Clark Pacific is a full-scale design-manufacturer-builder and delivers prefabricated building systems for the West Coast. Located on the historic Spreckels Sugar and Best Ranch property to the north of Road 18C, Clark Pacific employs over 300 engineers, plant, and field personnel with approximately 80 living within Woodland city limits. Bayer and Clark Pacific regularly engage with local venders. In 2023, Bayer spent approximately $1,450,513 on goods and services from Woodland businesses, with Clark Pacific spending an additional $1,440,000.

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 and boron, as well as hexavalent chromium. The groundwater is pumped via existing wells and requires treatment to meet the U.S. EPA’s 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 to these commercial facilities would allow a reduction of the use of groundwater because potable water would be supplied by the City, which receives its water supply primarily from the surface water of the Sacramento River through the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency; an improvement in groundwater quality because the septic systems of both commercial facilities would no longer be used; more efficient use of onsite

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Project Description 3-2 Draft SEIR
space by eliminating the physical space required by wells and purification systems; and, increase the utility revenue of the City through the payment of water and wastewater rates by Bayer and Clark Pacific. In addition, having Bayer and Clark Pacific use existing City water and wastewater is consistent with the SWRCB and Central Valley RWQCB’s support of consolidation of systems in support of reliable water supplies and an increase in water quality in California.

It is expected the City and applicant(s) would entertain a will-serve agreement or a utility services agreement.

Under an agreement, the City would consent to allow the applicant to connect to the City’s existing utility infrastructure (i.e., potable water, non-potable water, recycled water, and/or sewer). The extension of water and wastewater services would be the responsibility of the applicant, and the agreement would only obligate the City, should the applicant make the connection (consistent with the City’s public works improvement standards), to deliver the agreed upon amount/volume of water and recycled water and collection and treatment of waste water.

The setting and background described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is relevant and was used to inform the analysis presented in this SEIR.

3.1.2 LOCATION
The City of Woodland is located in Yolo County, approximately 20 miles north of Sacramento. The Planning Area for the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was defined as: limits of the existing Urban Limit Line, which included some lands within the County at the time of the preparation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The proposed project includes a project area within one mile of the existing ULL and utility extension alignments from the City limits extending west to Bayer and north to the Clark Pacific Facility. The Bayer facility is located to the west of Woodland on Highway 16 and County Road 98 (37437 CA-16, Woodland, CA 95695; APN: 025- 470-038-000). It is approximately 210 acres. The Clark Pacific facility is located on the north side of Road 18C (located at 40600 County Road 18C, Woodland, CA 95776; APN: 027-250-028-000) and is approximately 143 acres (Figure 3.1-1). The Bayer utility alignments would extend from approximately Road 98 and West Lincoln Avenue west across an existing agricultural field (Figure 3.1-2). The Clark Pacific utility alignments would extend north from the intersection of Churchill Downs Road and Road 101 to the intersection of Road 18C and Road 101 and turn westward along Road 18C until it reached Clark Pacific (Figure 3.1-3). The Bayer utility alignments are approximately 6,000 feet in length and the Clark Pacific utility alignments are approximately 8,700 feet in length.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 3-3 Project Description

Figure 3.1-1 Proposed Project Vicinity Map

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Project Description 3-4 Draft SEIR

Figure 3.1-2 Proposed Project Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 3-5 Project Description

Figure 3.1-3 Proposed Project Bayer Utility Extension Alignments

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Project Description 3-6 Draft SEIR

3.2 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.

3.2.1 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.

3.2.2 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 3.2-1.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 3-7 Project Description
Table 3.2-1 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.

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.

3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project evaluated in this SEIR includes General Plan amendment to Policy 2.A.1 and the construction and operation of extended utility pipelines to Bayer and Clark Pacific.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Project Description 3-8 Draft SEIR

3.3.1 CHANGES TO POLICY 2.A.1
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… Appendix C includes draft ballot measure text.

3.3.2 EXTENSION AND USE OF UTILITIES
The proposed project would allow existing commercial facilities located up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, to extend and use City utilities. 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. There would be no land use designation, prezoning, or zoning change under the proposed project that would allow additional development. The County of Yolo would have authority over activities within their jurisdiction and may have ministerial approval or discretionary approval associated with the construction or operation of utility extensions. Land use and zoning designations within one mile of the existing ULL are primarily agriculture land use (AG) and Agriculture Intensive (A-N) zones (Yolo County 2025a and Yolo County 2025b).

The City would evaluate potential utility extension alignments through an application process and would execute a service agreement with a potential applicant. The application process and service agreement would confirm utility extensions that could be provided by the City and confirm consistency with City General Plan policies, as well as establish any conditions of approval that may be needed prior to construction or connection to the City existing utilities. Under the proposed project, a utility extension would be sized to serve only the respective existing commercial facility of an applicant because the proposed project is applicable to existing commercial facilities in operation prior to November 3, 2026. It is reasonable to assume the proposed project would primarily disturb areas along the public right-of-way of existing roads and areas within the footprint of existing commercial facilities in operation prior to November 3, 2026 because extension of utilities would connect to existing utilities, which are typically located along roads and within intersections. Clark Pacific and Bayer are currently the two project applicants with commercial facilities applying for utility extensions at the time of the preparation of this SEIR as part of the proposed project. It is unknown if utilities would be extended to other existing commercial facilities within one mile of the existing ULL, which type of utilities might be extended, and the location to which utilities would be extended. This information is unknown because the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors (Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts, of this SEIR). Therefore, the details associated with the utility extension alignments of Clark Pacific and Bayer are further described below and evaluated in this SEIR.

Figure 3.1-1, Figure 3.1-2, and Figure 3.1-3 depict the utility extension alignments of Clark Pacific and Bayer.

Extension of utility pipelines for each existing commercial facility would be within one mile of the existing ULL

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 3-9 Project Description
and would traverse lands that are primarily adjacent to existing roads (within the public-right-of-way) or existing agricultural land within the County. Table 3.3-1 summarizes the existing land use, existing land use designation, and Existing Zoning of each utility extension alignment.

Table 3.3-1 Summary of Proposed Utility Extensions and Existing Land Uses Proposed Utility Extension Existing Land Use
Existing Land
Use Designation Existing Zoning
Bayer Facility Agricultural R&D Facility AG Agricultural Intensive (A-N) Bayer Alignment Road 98 Sewer Pipeline Developed Road AG Agricultural Intensive (A-N) Bayer Sewer Pipeline Alignment Agriculture AG Agricultural Intensive (A-N) Bayer Water Pipeline Alignment Agriculture AG Cities Jurisdiction & Agricultural Intensive (A-N)
Clark Pacific Facility Pre-Fabricated Building
Materials Commercial Facility
IN Heavy Industrial (I-H)
Clark Pacific Alignment Road 101 and
Road 18C Water/Sewer Pipeline
Developed Road/ Agriculture AG, OS, IN Agricultural Intensive (A-N), Heavy Industrial (I-H),
Public Open Space (POS)
Source: AECOM 2025
Table Notes: County land use designations and zoning
AG = agriculture
City = City of Woodland
IN = Industrial
OS = open space
Construction may not occur at the same time for each commercial facility, and the timing would be determined by each business. Construction of the pipeline alignments would require a disturbance of a total of 25 feet in width (typically 5 feet one side and 20 feet other side). Pipelines would be buried at depths of approximately 3 to 8 feet deep. This depth would be suitable for infrastructure operation and would allow continued land uses (e.g., agriculture) to occur on the surface. For the purposes of the proposed project, it is assumed that construction would take place within a single construction period during May through November, and would occur after November 2026. Construction would require the following types of pieces of equipment: graders, rollers, excavators, crawler tractors, signal boards, dozers, forklifts, pumps, air compressors, generators, and paving equipment. Construction is expected to require between 7 and 33 construction workers per day for extension of the utilities to the Bayer property and between 6 and 19 construction workers per day for extension of the utilities to the Clark Pacific Property. The pipelines are anticipated to range in diameter of 4’’ to 8’’ of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) material, with the water pipeline being the largest. The pipelines would be installed following the City’s Engineering Standards. For the purposes of this environmental document, it is assumed that construction of the Bayer utilities would occur independently from the Clark Pacific utilities. It is assumed that approximately 400 to 500 feet of pipeline could be installed per day, with several days for connections and pressure testing and several days for land clearing and repaving, as needed. Therefore, it is anticipated construction for the Bayer utility extension would be between 17 and 20 working days and construction for Clark Pacific utility extension would be between 25 and 29 working days. Once construction is complete, the land surface would be returned to its current uses (e.g., farm road, public road shoulder).

It is anticipated, for the purposes of the proposed project, that potable water would be provided to both commercial facilities, non-potable recycled water would be provided to Clark Pacific, and wastewater services would be provided to both commercial facilities. The extension of utilities would cover anticipated current and future water and non-potable recycled water demand, and wastewater generation. Table 3.3-2 provides a summary

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Project Description 3-10 Draft SEIR
of anticipated current and future annual potable water demand and Table 3.3-3 provides wastewater generation.

Clark Pacific would use non-potable recycled water for processing purposes. Clark Pacific estimates approximately 32 acre feet per year (AFY) of process water is currently needed and approximately 48 AFY of process water would be needed in the future. Clark Pacific future water use and wastewater generation are constrained by the limits of the existing plant site. By eliminating the existing septic system and groundwater wells, onsite space would be more efficiently used and allow a slight incremental increase in future water use, but future wastewater generation would remain approximately the same. Similarly, Bayer is limited by the existing agricultural land, and therefore a slight increase in water use and wastewater generation is anticipated.

Table 3.3-2 Current and Future Annual Potable Water Demand (AFY) Company Current Future
Bayer 25 31
Clark Pacific 5 7
Table Note: AFY = acre feet per year
Table 3.3-3 Current and Future Wastewater Generation (GPD) Company Current Future
Bayer 5,080 5,932
Clark Pacific 4,333 4,333
Table Note: GPD = gallons per day
Currently there are two groundwater wells at Bayer and three groundwater wells at Clark Pacific. These wells are generally located inside the facilities and adjacent to agricultural fields. One of the groundwater wells at Bayer would be decommissioned, and two of the groundwater wells at Clark Pacific would be decommissioned. The septic systems located at each facility are also located away from facilities and in adjacent agricultural fields to provide for sufficient distance for the leach fields. There is one retention pond on site at Bayer, also away from existing facilities. The retention pond is currently unlined and retains water from Bayer processes. It is approximately 250 feet in length, 25 feet wide, by 10 feet deep.

It is anticipated that the decommissioning of existing groundwater wells and wastewater utility facilities at the two existing commercial facilities would ultimately occur, but the timing of such decommissioning is unknown.

The County of Yolo would have jurisdiction associated with the decommissioning of existing water well(s), septic system(s), or Bayer’s retention pond at the site(s). Existing well(s) would be decommissioned pursuant to the Water Well Abandonment Permit to be granted by the Yolo County Department of Community Services Environmental Health Division, which is not a discretionary action by the County. The method for decommissioning the groundwater wells would depend on the characteristics of each well (e.g., depth, diameter, and type of casing) and a technical inspection prior to decommissioning; however, it is assumed the pump would be removed, part of the casing would be removed, and the groundwater wells would be filled with concrete.

Existing septic system(s) would be decommissioned pursuant to the Septic Abandonment Permit to be granted by the Yolo County Department of Community Services Environmental Health Division, which is not a discretionary action by the County. It is assumed the septic tanks would be pumped out and then abandoned in place (burial method), as this is the most common method. It is assumed existing leach fields would remain in the ground as built as it is not generally a requirement of Yolo County Environmental Health to remove a leach field. Should the retention pond be decommissioned it would be filled in with soil fill and compacted. It is assumed the retention pond would be decommissioned for the purposes of this environmental document.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 3-11 Project Description

3.4 REQUIRED APPROVALS
This SEIR is prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR] Section 15000 et seq.). The City of Woodland, as lead agency for the proposed project under CEQA, has the principal responsibility for certification of the SEIR and adopting and implementing the General Plan amendment.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4-1 Impact Analysis
4 IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.0 APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR describe impacts associated with implementation of the City’s existing General Plan. This SEIR uses this same organization, including the numbering of environmental impact sections, though, as noted above under Section 1.4.1, for several environmental topic areas, there are no new significant impacts and no increase in severity in impacts.

Based on the analysis presented in Section 1.4.1, and given the nature of the proposed project, the focus of analysis and reporting in this SEIR is on the following topics1. The topics follow the organization of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, however, may have different section numbers in this SEIR because of resources that were dismissed in Section 1.4.1.
► Agricultural Resources (Section 4.2 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Air Quality (Section 4.3 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Biological Resources (Section 4.4 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy (Section 4.5 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 4.6 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources (Section 4.7 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 4.8 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 4.9 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Land Use Planning/Population and Housing (Section 4.10 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Noise and Vibration (Section 4.11 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) ► Utilities (Section 4.14 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) Chapter 5 of this SEIR addresses alternatives and Chapter 6 of this SEIR includes a discussion of other analyses required under CEQA, including cumulative and growth-inducing impacts.

4.0.1 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 encourages incorporation by reference of previously analyzed and publicly circulated information. CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(c) states that the incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized, where possible, or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized, and the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described.

This SEIR hereby incorporates by reference the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013032015).

1 Since the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was certified, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist was updated. Among those updates was the additional of questions related to energy use, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Energy is addressed in the greenhouse gas emissions section of this SEIR. Also added as a part of these relatively recent changes was a new section with questions related to wildfire. Wildfire is addressed in this SEIR under the heading, hazardous materials and toxins, in Section 1.1.4. Tribal cultural resources was added as a separate section in Appendix G and is addressed as a part of cultural resources in this SEIR. If thresholds were updated they are noted in each of the resource sections in Chapter 4.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis 4-2 Draft SEIR
Digital copies of the General Plan EIR are on the City of Woodland’s website, at https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/1000/Documents.

This document is also available for review at the City of Woodland during normal business hours:

Community Development Department, Planning Division
300 First Street
Woodland, CA 95695
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR analyzed the adoption and implementation of the City of Woodland 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR provides a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development accommodated under the General Plan and implementation of policies established within the General Plan. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR presents feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant and significant impacts. Each mitigation measure is a procedure, program, or technique that requires City action, either alone or in collaboration with other agencies or organizations. Some of the implementation programs are processes or procedures that the City currently administers (such as development project review), while others identify new programs or projects.

Where information from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is incorporated by reference in this SEIR, the relationship of the referenced material to the analyses in this SEIR is explained in each topic-specific resource section and page numbers are provided. Updates to environmental setting, impact, and mitigation discussions in this SEIR are provided where information has been modified since preparation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR that is relevant to the impact analysis. Updates are focused on utility placement beyond the Planning Area addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, “Supplement to an EIR.”

4.0.2 SECTION CONTENTS
Sections 4.1 through 4.11 of this SEIR are each organized into the following major components:
► Existing Conditions (Regulatory Setting and Environmental Setting): This subsection describes federal, State, regional, and local plans, policies, regulations, and laws that may apply to the environmental topic under evaluation as it relates to the proposed project. This SEIR summarizes updated federal, State, regional, and local plans, policies, regulations, and laws that have been adopted since preparation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. This subsection also provides an overview of the existing physical environmental setting (i.e., the environmental baseline) as it relates to the proposed project. This SEIR provides updates to the environmental setting where changes have occurred since the adoption of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, if relevant to the proposed project.
► Environmental Impacts (Significance Thresholds, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures):

The significance criteria (or “thresholds of significance”) are provided to define the level at which an impact would be considered potentially significant or significant in accordance with CEQA. Thresholds may be quantitative or qualitative. They may be based on agency or professional standards or on legislative or regulatory requirements relevant to the impact analysis. Generally, the thresholds of significance are derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; factual or scientific information and data; and regulatory standards. The thresholds used in this SEIR are either consistent with, or the same as, those

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4-3 Impact Analysis
thresholds used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. If modifications to thresholds were made for the purposes of this SEIR, this subsection describes the modifications relative to each resource. This subsection also provides analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project described in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” of this SEIR. The impact analysis examines the impacts that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. The analysis evaluates potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The analysis broadly addresses potential impacts associated with extending existing utilities within one mile of the existing ULL as proposed under the change to Policy 2.A.1, with a focus on the proposed utility alignment extensions of Clark Pacific and Bayer. Finally, as necessary, this subsection identifies feasible mitigation measures. For this SEIR, these mitigation measures are primarily the same as those measures included in the General Plan EIR; however, mitigation measures specific to the General Plan amendment are identified where needed to reduce impacts. Given the scope of the proposed project evaluated in this SEIR mitigation measures and mitigating programs that are relevant for extension of utilities are discussed. The mitigation measures identified in this SEIR would equally apply to, and would reduce or avoid impacts associated with, possible future uses of the General Plan amendment to extend utilities to commercial facilities not specifically identified in this SEIR that exist prior to November 3, 2026 within one mile of the existing ULL. Therefore, the environmental impact analysis and proposed mitigation measures in this SEIR broadly address the proposed change to Policy 2.A.1.

4.0.3 DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
For each potential environmental impact identified in this SEIR, a statement of the level of significance of the impact is provided, as was provided in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Impacts are assessed as one of the following categories:
► The term “no impact” is used when the environmental resource being discussed would not be adversely affected by implementation of the proposed project. It means no change from existing conditions. This impact level does not need mitigation.
► A “less-than-significant impact” would cause a minor, but acceptable change in the physical environment.

This impact level does not require mitigation, even if feasible, under CEQA. ► A “significant impact” would have a substantial adverse effect on the physical environment, but can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. Impacts may also be considered “potentially significant” if the analysis cannot definitively conclude that an impact would occur as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. Under CEQA, mitigation measures must be provided, where feasible, to reduce the magnitude of significant or potentially significant impacts. ► A “significant and unavoidable impact” would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no known feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Under CEQA, a project with significant and unavoidable impacts may be approved, but the lead agency (in this case, the City) must prepare a “statement of overriding considerations” in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, explaining how the benefits of the project outweigh the potential for significant impacts.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.1-1 Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Section 4.2, “Agriculture and Forestry Resources,” of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR described the agricultural and forestry resources within the Planning Area, analyzed the potential impacts on agricultural resources from the 2035 General Plan and CAP, and identified mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, where applicable (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-42). That information is hereby incorporated by reference.

This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the proposed project, where applicable.

4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The “Regulatory Setting” in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR remains unchanged as it relates to potential effects associated with the proposed project and is hereby incorporated by reference (Section 4.2.3 on pages 4.2- 11 through 4.2-27).

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
No updates to the regulatory setting are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-10), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable to the proposed project and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting provides information related to the locations and acreages of Important Farmland classifications assigned by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) for the City and the Planning Area based on 2012 data (Exhibit 4.2-1 and Table 4.2-1 on pages 4.2-3 and 4.2-5, respectively). The setting also provides data related to the change in acreage of agricultural land uses in the Planning Area between 1984 and 2014, as well as the market value of agricultural products sold in Yolo County from 1994 to 2014 (page 4.2-6 and 4.2-7). The setting included data showing that although there were no Williamson Act contracts within the Planning Area as of 2016, there were several Williamson Act contracts outside of but adjacent to the Planning Area (Exhibit 4.2-2 on page 4.2-9).

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Table 3.2-1 in this SEIR (Chapter 3, “Project Description,”) summarizes the existing land use, existing land use designation of the County, and existing zoning of the County for the existing and proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities. Land use and zoning designation within one mile beyond the existing ULL is similar to those presented in Table 3.2-1 of this SEIR and is primarily comprised of unincorporated county land designated as agriculture land use and agriculture intensive, or heavy industrial. These land use and zoning designations have not changed since the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was prepared.

Important Farmland is classified by the DOC as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. Under CEQA, Important Farmland consists of the DOC

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.1-2 Draft SEIR designations for Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland (defined as “agricultural land” or “farmland” in California Public Resources Code Sections 21060.1 and 21095, and CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). Important Farmland data from the DOC’s FMMP for the County was most recently updated in 2020. A review of this data indicates that most land within one mile outside of the ULL to the north, west, and south of the City is classified as Prime Farmland, while land east of the City is primarily classified as Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2020a).

The acreages of Important Farmland (as defined by CEQA) for the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility line alignments are shown in Table 4.1-1. As described in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” the proposed pipelines would consist of 4-inch and 8-inch diameter PVC; however, the total width of construction disturbance for the pipeline alignments would be 25 feet. The acreages shown in Table 4.1-1 include this 25-foot-wide corridor for all pipeline alignments.

Table 4.1-1 CEQA Important Farmland1—Bayer and Clark Pacific Utility Alignments Alignment Location
Prime Farmland
(Acres)
Unique Farmland
(Acres)
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Acres)
Bayer Water Main West of County Road 98 3.869 0 0
Bayer Sewer Main West of County Road 98 3.089 0.025 0
Bayer Total 6.958 0.025 0
Clark Pacific Water/ Sewer
Main
South of County Road 18C, East
and West of County Road 101 8.898 0 0
Clark Pacific Total 8.898 0 0
Total Both Facility
Alignments

15.856 0.025 0
Table Notes
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
DOC = California Department of Conservation
1 Important Farmland consists of the DOC designations for Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland (defined as “agricultural land” or “farmland” in California Public Resources Code Sections 21060.1 and 21095, and CEQA Guidelines Appendix G).

Source: Data Compiled by AECOM in 2025
The approximately 15.8 acres of Prime Farmland in the Bayer and Clark Pacific utility line alignments represents approximately 0.006 percent of the total Prime Farmland countywide.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the approximately 6.9 acres of Prime Farmland and 0.02 acre of Unique Farmland in the Bayer utility line alignments consist of land that is owned by Bayer as part of its Vegetables Research and Development Center, which is centered around development of new vegetable varieties while seeking new solutions to help achieve more sustainable harvests. The Bayer farming team at the Woodland facility has implemented a ‘green farm strategy,’ which is a holistic approach employing more efficient use of irrigation and fertilization, reduced tillage, plus companion cropping for integrated pest management and improved biodiversity and soil health. Improved agricultural practices can have multiple benefits including reduced greenhouse gas emissions plus carbon dioxide (CO2) removal, thereby contributing to reducing climate change.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR presented data related to changes in Important Farmland mapped by the DOC in the County from 1984 to 2014. Farmland conversion data for the County is currently available through 2020 (DOC 2020b). Table 4.1-2 shows the conversion of Important Farmland (as defined by CEQA) mapped by

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.1-3 Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry Resources the DOC in the County between 2014 and 2020. As shown in Table 4.1-2, between 2014 and 2020, the amount of land classified as Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland in the County decreased slightly, while the amount of land classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance increased slightly. Agricultural land conversion (both increases and decreases) can occur from a variety of factors, including redistribution of farmland between categories; conversion of fallow land to irrigated cropland after a long drought; conversion due to land left idle or used for dryland grain production for three or more DOC update cycles; installation of new orchards, irrigated pastures, and row crops; and development of agricultural land with urban uses.

Table 4.1-2 Summary of Important Farmland Conversion in Yolo County 2014–2020 Important Farmland
Type 2014 (acres) 2016 (acres) 2018 (acres) 2020 (acres) Net 6-Year
Change (acres)
6-Year Change
(percent)
Prime Farmland 250,345 250,558 243,961 243,748 -6,597 -2.6 Unique Farmland 44,604 46,095 43,932 44,467 -137 -0.3
Farmland of Statewide
Importance 18,861 19,529 19,320 19,985 1,124 5.9
Source: DOC 2020b
Based on the most recent data from the County, most of the land surrounding the City’s Planning Area is held under Williamson Act contracts, including some areas that are within one mile outside of the ULL. However, the Bayer and Clark Pacific utility line alignments would not be installed within land held under a Williamson Act contract (Yolo County 2024).

4.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and are the same as those used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the proposed project, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. A significant impact related to agriculture would occur if the proposed project would:
► 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;
► conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or ► involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Conflict with Existing Zoning for Timberland or Forest Land, Loss or Conversion of Timberland, and other Changes that Could Result in Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use—As described in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Section 4.2.2.4 (pages 4.2-7 and 4.2-8), there are no areas of timberland within the Planning Area. There are also no areas of timberland or forest land within the proposed Bayer or Clark Pacific utility line alignments. Within one mile outside the ULL, there are no areas of timberland but there are areas of

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.1-4 Draft SEIR forest land2 along the banks of Willow Slough and Cache Creek, and within the Cache Creek Settling Basin.

However, urban development (such as buildings that would require utility lines) is not permitted in the Cache Creek Settling Basin, which is a State Plan of Flood Control facility that was constructed to preserve the floodway capacity of the Yolo Bypass. At the time of the release of the NOP for this SEIR, there is no commercial or industrial development on the north side of Cache Creek or the southeast side of Willow Slough within one mile outside the ULL (Figure 6.2-1). Finally, the land that encompasses Willow Slough is zoned for Agriculture- Intensive and the land that encompasses Cache Creek is zoned for Public Open Space3. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact related to conflicts with existing zoning for timberland or forest land, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and this impact is not addressed further in this EIR.

The impact numbering in the section below corresponds to those numbers used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for ease of reference.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.1-1: 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
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.2-28 through 4.2-35), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in areas that are currently used for agriculture in the new growth areas (SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3, shown on 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 3.7-1 (page 3-23]) within the City’s Planning Area. The 2035 General Plan Policy 2.A.1 states that public services and facilities shall not extend beyond the permanent ULL; this policy was enacted, in part, to protect existing agricultural land and can only be changed by a ballot measure supported by a vote of the people. Policy 2.A.3 requires one acre to be permanently conserved for every acre of Important Farmland converted to urban development and the City’s Municipal Code Agricultural Mitigation Section 15.33 specifies requirements for permanent conversion of Important Farmland, which implements Policy 2.A.3 of the General Plan. The focus of the 2035 General Plan on infill and compact development in strategic new growth areas within the ULL aims to minimize the magnitude of farmland conversion and to help protect large tracts of farmland in agricultural areas. However, future development within the new growth areas would result in the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses (i.e., urban development), which would be a significant impact. Consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the project applicants for new development on Important Farmland would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 to apply the 2035 General Plan Policy 2.A.3 with adopted amendments, which requires one acre of Important Farmland to be permanently conserved for every one acre converted to urban development, and requires that the Farmland to be conserved be of the same type as the Farmland converted, and located as close to Woodland as possible. However, it is not possible to fully mitigate for the loss of Prime Farmland, and no other feasible mitigation measures are available; therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

Installation of most of the proposed Bayer utility pipelines would occur in existing dirt farm roads within a 25- foot-wide corridor surrounded by Bayer cropland, which is classified as approximately 6.9 acres of Prime

2 Forest land is defined by Section 12220(g) of the California Public Resources Code as “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” 3 Major publicly owned open space lands, major natural water bodies, agricultural buffer areas, and habitat preserves.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.1-5 Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry Resources Farmland (Table 4.1-1). The west end of both Bayer utility pipeline alignments would be situated within the existing developed area of the Bayer facility, which is classified as approximately 0.02 acre of Unique Farmland (Table 4.1-1). The proposed Bayer utility pipeline alignments from the eastern tie-in point and within the County Road 98 right-of-way are classified as Urban and Built-Up Land4, which is not Important Farmland (DOC 2020a).

The proposed Clark Pacific utility pipelines would be installed within a 25-foot-wide corridor that includes the road rights-of-way of County Roads 18C and 101. Portions of the land adjacent to and south of County Road 18C are classified as Prime Farmland, and all of the land on both sides of County Road 101 is classified as Prime Farmland (DOC 2020a). Approximately 8.8 acres of Prime Farmland along these roadways would be disturbed for the proposed pipeline installation (Table 4.1-1). The remaining areas of disturbance along the proposed Clark Pacific utility alignment are classified primarily as Urban and Built-Up Land, with a small area of Other Land5 (DOC 2020a). Therefore, in total, the proposed project would result in the temporary disturbance of approximately 15.8 acres of Prime Farmland and 0.02 acre of Unique Farmland. The approximately 15.8 acres of Prime Farmland in the Bayer and Clark Pacific utility line alignments represents approximately 0.006 percent of the total Prime Farmland countywide. The Prime Farmland for the Bayer utility alignment is owned by Bayer as part of its vegetable crop research and development center in Woodland. Once construction of the utility lines is complete, land would be restored, and surface activities would resume. Therefore, the proposed project would not permanently convert Important Farmland to non-Farmland Uses as a result of the extension of utilities to Bayer or Clark Pacific. Similarly, it would be expected extension of utilities to other existing business operating prior to November 3, 2026 within one mile of the existing ULL would primarily follow existing public road rights of ways because they would need to connect to existing utility pipelines. If routes through designated Farmland were needed, the disturbance would be temporary, and the utilities would be placed such that agricultural land uses would continue to occur.

General Plan Policy 2.A.1 prohibits City public services and facilities beyond Woodland’s ULL to support the preservation of agricultural land, unless allowed by a vote of the people. However, as described in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” a measure will be placed on the 2026 election ballot to allow the proposed utility extensions for any facility that is operating by November 2026 and within one mile outside of the ULL and if approved by the City Council and the voters, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy. General Plan Policy 2.A.3 with adopted amendments, is applicable to agricultural lands within the existing ULL and the existing ULL is not being modified nor would agricultural lands within the existing ULL be converted to urban development. Important Farmland outside the existing ULL and under jurisdiction of the County would be required to comply with the County’s ag mitigation requirements if a permanent conversion of Important Farmland occurred. The County’s agricultural conservation ordinance (Section 8-2.404 and Section 8.2-405 of the Yolo County Code), which requires replacement of Prime Farmland at a ratio of three acres of conserved farmland to one acre of converted land and replacement of other types of farmland at a ratio of two acres to one; small projects of less than 20 acres may pay an in-lieu fee rather than conserve farmland directly. However, as noted above, the proposed project would not permanently convert Important Farmland to non-Farmland Uses and therefore would not be required to mitigate for the permanent conversion of Important Farmland within the County. Furthermore, as addressed in Section 4.9, “Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing” of this

4 Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. 5 Land that does not meet the criteria of any of the other FMMP categories. Includes low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing, confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines; borrow pits; water bodies smaller than forty acres; and vacant and non-agricultural land larger than 40 acres and surrounded on all sides by urban development.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry Resources 4.1-6 Draft SEIR SEIR, the proposed project would be consistent with Agricultural Conservation Policies (Section 4.4 Review Criteria) and LAFCo would consider their Agricultural Conservation Policy when determining to approve the extension of services outside the existing ULL.

Given the above, impacts on Important Farmland would not be significant and unavoidable as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project 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.

Impact 4.1-2: Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use, or a Williamson Act Contract As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.2-36 through 4.2-38), the 2035 General Plan does not designate land as Agricultural in the Planning Area. However, there are two parcels in the Planning Area that are zoned Agriculture in the Woodland Zoning Code, and there is land within the Planning Area designated by the Yolo County 2030 General Plan for Agriculture. There are no active Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area. 2035 General Plan Policies 7.C.3, 7.C.4, and 8.G.10 reduce the impact of development within the ULL on surrounding farmland. The 2035 General Plan proposes land use designations for land currently within the unincorporated area of the County that would conflict with the land use designations in the Yolo County 2030 General Plan. However, the City’s proposed land use changes would have no effect unless annexation occurred in which case the City would then have jurisdiction, which would ultimately result in rectifying the discrepancy between County and City land use plans in terms of zoning and land use designations, ultimately resulting in a less-than-significant impact (physical environmental impacts from loss or conversion of agricultural land are evaluated in Impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-3). There is no impact from potential conflicts with Williamson Act contracts.

Table 3.3-1 in this SEIR (Chapter 3, “Project Description,”) summarizes the existing land use, existing land use designation of the City or the County, and existing zoning of the City or the County for the existing and proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities. Most of the proposed utility alignments consist of land that is zoned and designated for agricultural use. The land uses and zoning designations within one mile beyond the existing ULL is similar to those presented in Table 3.3-1 and is primarily comprised of unincorporated county land designated as agriculture and agriculture intensive, or heavy industrial. The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be installed underground, and the existing land use and zoning designations would not change. Furthermore, there are no Williamson Act contracts on the parcels where the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be installed. Even if other utility alignments within one mile of the existing ULL were presented to the City for potential approval with installation in parcels under Williamson Act contracts, because the utility lines would be installed underground agriculture would continue on the affected parcels and the Williamson Act status would not be affected. Therefore, as concluded in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, there would be no impact related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and this conclusion would not change as a result of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project 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.

Impact 4.1-3: Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment that, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.2-38 through 4.2-41), urban development has the potential to divide large tracts of agricultural land leaving smaller, less viable tracts of land for farming. Urban

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.1-7 Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry Resources development can result in conflicts at the urban edge with adjacent agricultural practices, and lead to restrictions on the use of agricultural chemicals, complaints regarding noise, dust and odors, trespassing, and vandalism. The Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner requires a buffer between pesticide application and environmentally sensitive areas including residential developments. The farmer has responsibility for providing this buffer, and therefore the buffer potentially limits the amount of land that can be used for agriculture. These conflicts may increase costs of agricultural operations and, together with other factors, encourage the conversion of additional farmland to urban uses. In addition, urban growth may increasingly compete with agriculture for the use of water resources, and may conflict with farm-to-market use and/or operational use of area roadways. 2035 General Plan Policy 7.C.4 requires the City to ensure that urban development within the ULL does not affect the economic viability of adjacent farms outside of the ULL. 2035 General Plan Policies 2.D.2, 6.C.1, and 4.G.2 help strengthen specific segments of the agricultural industry. Policy 4.C.9 explicitly supports the continuation and development of the agricultural industry in Woodland, and Policy 8.G.10 requires the City’s support for both the City’s and the County’s right to farm ordinances. Policy 7.C.2 helps protect existing agriculture within the ULL, and Policy

7.C.3 requires the City to support the County’s agricultural conservation efforts. However, farmland in the Woodland area could still be adversely affected by new development along the urban fringe. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR adopted Mitigation Measure 4.2-3, which added 2035 General Plan Policy 7.C.5 requiring new development that occurs at the edge of the ULL to be set back a minimum of 150 feet from adjacent agricultural land to provide an agricultural buffer. However, adverse impacts could still occur and no other feasible mitigation measures are available. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable (page 4.2-41).

The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be designed with sufficient capacity only to serve each respective facility. Similarly, if other utility line alignments within one mile of the existing ULL were presented to the City for potential approval, they would be sized to serve only the respective facility. Because the pipelines would be installed underground, and because they would be sized to serve only the respective facility, the proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Given the above, impacts related to other changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use would not be significant and unavoidable, as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Implementation of the proposed project 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.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.2-1 Impact Analysis – Air Quality

4.2 AIR QUALITY
Air quality is defined by the concentration of pollutants related to human and environmental health.

Concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the rate and location of pollutant emissions released by pollution sources, and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, and sunlight. Therefore, ambient air quality conditions within an air basin are influenced by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of air pollutant emissions released by air pollutant sources.

Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” of 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.3-1 to

4.3-48) described the existing air quality conditions, summarized applicable regulations, analyzed the potential short-term construction and long-term operational air quality impacts associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP, and identified mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, where applicable. That information is hereby incorporated by reference.

This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the proposed project, where applicable.

4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was presented on pages 4.3-14 to 4.3-18. The regulatory setting is updated in the material that follows. The information provided below does not lead to a new impact or increase in severity of any impact in relation to the proposed project.

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
The General Plan Planning Area and proposed project are in the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). Since certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the air quality plans for the region have been updated. The most current update for the YSAQMD Air Quality Attainment Plan to address the regional nonattainment status for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards was adopted in May 2019 (YSAQMD 2019). Additionally, YSAQMD worked with the other local air districts within the Sacramento Region6 to develop the Sacramento Regional 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (SMAQMD 2017) and the Sacramento Regional 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (SMAQMD 2023). These regional plans describe and demonstrate how the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area is meeting requirements under the federal Clean Air Act in demonstrating reasonable further progress and attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. These regional plans primarily target long-term operational sources, particularly stationary and industrial sources, as well as mobile source emissions, but also include strategies to reduce construction-related emissions. The respective air districts develop Rules and Regulations to implement the air quality plans and achieve the federal and State ambient air quality standards. The updates to the regional air

6 El Dorado County Air Quality Management District, Feather River Air Quality Management District, and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Air Quality 4.2-2 Draft SEIR
quality plans and air district Rules and Regulations have not substantively changed in any way that affects the regulatory setting or findings of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.3-1 to 4.3-13), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable to the proposed project, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting provides an overview of the climate, topography, and meteorology in the region; describes emissions sources and health effects of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), in addition to sources of odors; summarizes ambient air quality data, the attainment status of air pollutants, and emissions inventories within the region; and describes odor sources within the Planning Area.

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
While the ambient air quality monitoring data and emissions inventories presented in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.3-9 to 4.3-13) were based on data from 2012 to 2014, incremental changes in ambient air quality data and emissions inventories year over year would not occur at a level that would lead to a new impact or increase the severity of an existing impact in relation to the proposed project.

While the proposed project would include the provision of services outside the ULL, and thereby outside the City’s Planning Area as analyzed under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the environmental setting described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is applicable to the proposed project because air quality is evaluated on a regional basis due to the cumulative nature of emissions, the transport of emissions over long distances, and the effect of local meteorology and atmospheric conditions.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR evaluated growth and development that could occur through the General Plan planning horizon in locations across the Planning Area and did not identify specific sensitive receptors. The proposed project would allow for the extension of utilities to existing commercial facilities located up to one mile beyond the existing ULL through primarily rural land. The environmental setting for the proposed project is similar to the rural areas described and evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. For the purposes of this SEIR analysis, nearby sensitive receptors have been identified and would be similarly representative of sensitive receptors within one mile of the existing ULL. There are sensitive receptors within 400 feet of the utility extension to Bayer near County Road 98 and within 350 feet of the utility extension to Clark Pacific along County Roads 101 and 18c. The closest sensitive receptors to the Bayer utility extensions are multi-family residences located adjacent to County Road 98, approximately 90 feet from the location of part of the proposed sewer pipeline. The closest sensitive receptors to the Clark Pacific utility extensions are single family residences located along County Roads 101 and 18c, approximately 70 feet from a portion of the proposed sewer and water pipelines. This analysis considers these nearby receptors in the context of, but greater detail, than was possible at the time of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.2-3 Impact Analysis – Air Quality

4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and are the same as those used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR7. These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. A significant impact to air quality would occur if the proposed project would:
► conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ► result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; ► expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or ► result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

As detailed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and identified above, the proposed project is located within the YSAQMD jurisdictional boundary. Pursuant to the YSAQMD-recommended thresholds for evaluating project-related air quality impacts, implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if it would (YSAQMD 2007):
► generate construction-related criteria air pollutant or precursor emissions that exceed the YSAQMD- recommended thresholds of 10 tons per year (tpy) of reactive organic gases (ROG), 10 tpy of nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 80 pounds per day (lbs/day) of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), or result in a violation of the CO California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ► generate long-term regional criteria air pollutant or precursor emissions that exceed the YSAQMD- recommended thresholds of 10 tpy of ROG, 10 tpy of NOX, and 80 lbs/day of PM10, or result in a violation of the CO California Ambient Air Quality Standards;
► expose the maximally exposed individual (MEI) to TAC emissions that exceed an incremental increase in cancer risk of more than 10 in one million8 and/or a ground-level concentration of non-carcinogenic TAC emissions that would result in a Hazard Index equal to 1 or greater; or ► generate odorous emissions in such quantities as to cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety

7 Appendix G, III. Air Quality, was revised in 2018 following certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR; this revision removed the impact of “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation” from consideration and revised the impact of “create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people”. These changes do not substantively change the approach to analysis applied to the 2035 General Plan EIR and the approach presented in this SEIR evaluation of potential air quality impacts.
8 The YSAQMD notes that this threshold was adopted specifically for the evaluation of stationary source impacts and that it believes that this threshold can provide an accurate and conservative assessment of the significance of mobile source-related impacts from air toxics from mobile sources, such as diesel particulate matter. The YSAQMD also notes that no specific threshold of significance for toxic impacts has been adopted for mobile sources and that the 10 in one million threshold has been used by lead agencies for assessing mobile source impacts.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Air Quality 4.2-4 Draft SEIR
of any such person or the public, or which may cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

For cumulative impacts, YSAQMD states that if a project would be significant on the project-level (i.e., exceed any of the thresholds listed above), it would also be considered significant on a cumulative level (YSAQMD 2007).

As with the approach in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, since there is considerable overlap between the above mentioned threshold questions, this section has been reorganized to improve clarity and readability into four impact statements addressing:
► short-term, construction-related emissions
► long-term, operational emissions
► exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and ► exposure to objectionable odors.

The impact numbering in the section below corresponds to those numbers used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for ease of reference.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.3-1: Generation of Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.3-21 to 4.3-25) implementation of the 2035 General Plan would include construction-related activities such as site preparation, demolition and renovation, building construction, and grading. Construction activities would result in the generation of temporary exhaust emissions (i.e., ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5) from the use of off-road equipment, material delivery trucks, and construction worker vehicles. Fugitive dust (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) would also be generated from construction vehicle and equipment travel on paved and unpaved roadways and from earthwork and material movement, and off-gassing emissions of ROG from the application of architectural coatings (e.g., paint) and asphalt paving. Construction-related emissions associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan were quantified based on an assumed level of development that could occur within one year (2017) and were found to exceed the YSAQMD-recommended thresholds of significance. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified 2035 General Plan policies and additional mitigation measures incorporated into the Final 2035 General Plan that would reduce construction-related impacts. However, because the ability of the General Plan policies and mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions was unknown, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that impacts associated with short-term construction related emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

The proposed project would result in short-term temporary emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors during construction of the extension of utilities associated with the use of off-road equipment, material delivery trucks, and construction worker vehicles for activities such as demolition, site preparation (e.g., grubbing and land clearing), grading and excavation, installation of underground pipelines, and paving.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.29 was used to model construction emissions associated with the proposed project. As described in Section 3.3.2, it is assumed that construction would take place within a single construction period during May through November and would occur after November 2026; therefore, the construction emissions modeling assumes that construction would start in May 2027. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that approximately 400 to 500 feet of pipeline could be installed per day,

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.2-5 Impact Analysis – Air Quality
with several days for land clearing and grubbing and paving. Therefore, there would be a total anticipated construction duration of 20 days for the utility extensions to Bayer and 29 days for the utility extensions to Clark Pacific. It is assumed decommissioning of onsite groundwater wells and wastewater utility facilities at both Bayer and Clark Pacific would occur after construction of the utility extensions is complete, as the extended utilities would need to be in place for each business to continue operating. The construction equipment inventory for the proposed project was developed based on CalEEMod defaults for linear projects based on the length of pipelines for each business and assuming a 25-foot width of horizontal disturbance9. The number of construction worker one-way trips per day is determined based on the number of pieces of equipment by each phase multiplied by 2.5, consistent with the CalEEMod User Guide (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA] 2022). Excavated soil material associated with trenching for the utility extension alignments is assumed to be re-used and there would be no import or export of soil materials or associated haul truck trips. Due to the proximity of the utility extension alignments to existing roads, it is conservatively assumed that 25 percent of the total utility extension area would be repaved following installation of the utility extensions. Decommissioning of the existing retention pond at the Bayer facility is assumed to require import of 2,315 cubic yards of material to fill the volume of the existing pond.

Decommissioning of the groundwater wells and wastewater facilities at each business is assumed to require minimal construction equipment associated with removal of the groundwater well casings and pumps and abandoning septic tanks in place. 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a required Implementation Program Air Quality 1, as incorporated into the Final 2035 General Plan (as Implementation Program 7.18), which included, among other requirements, the requirement of twice daily watering for those projects that could result in short-term impacts to air quality. Therefore, this SEIR analysis incorporates twice daily watering of unpaved roads and exposed construction areas. Additional inputs and assumptions are included in Appendix D.

Table 4.2-1 and Table 4.2-2 summarize the modeled emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the proposed project for the Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities, respectively, and compare the proposed project emissions to the YSAQMD thresholds of significance. Table 4.2-3 presents the total maximum daily emissions assuming concurrent construction of the utility extensions to both Bayer and Clark Pacific. Model reports showing emissions inputs and outputs are included in Appendix D.

Table 4.2-1 Bayer Construction-Related Emissions
Project Component
ROG
(tons per year)
NOX
(tons per year)
PM10
(pounds per day)
PM2.5
(pounds per day)
Utility Extension 0.04 0.4 35.4 5.3
Groundwater Well Decommissioning 0.0004 0.002 0.1 0.06
Septic Tank Decommissioning 0.001 0.01 0.3 0.2
Retention Pond Decommissioning 0.0005 0.01 6.1 1.9
Total Maximum Daily Emissions a, b 0.05 0.4 42.0 7.5
YSAQMD Threshold 10 10 80 --
Exceeds Threshold? No No No --
Source: Appendix D, modeled by AECOM in 2025. YSAQMD 2007 Table Notes: NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns; ROG = reactive organic gases; YSAQMD = Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District a Total maximum daily emissions assume the potential maximum daily emissions associated with each project component would occur on the same day.
b Totals may not sum due to rounding.

9 The equipment list proposed in Section 3.3.2 “Extension and Use of Utilities” of this SEIR is slightly different from that which was modeled (i.e., dozers would likely be used instead of scrapers and scrapers were modeled). However, the difference in modeled equipment does not influence the findings presented in Section 4.2, “Air Quality” or Section 4.4, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy” of this SEIR and does not result in emissions exceedances.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Air Quality 4.2-6 Draft SEIR
Table 4.2-2 Clark Pacific Construction-Related Emissions Project Component
ROG
(tons per year)
NOX
(tons per year)
PM10
(pounds per day)
PM2.5
(pounds per day)
Utility Extension 0.03 0.3 2.6 1.1
Groundwater Well Decommissioning 0.0004 0.02 0.1 0.1
Septic Tank Decommissioning 0.001 0.01 0.3 0.2
Total Maximum Daily Emissions a, b 0.03 0.3 3.1 1.4
YSAQMD Threshold 10 10 80 --
Exceeds Threshold? No No No --
Source: Appendix D, modeled by AECOM in 2025.

Table Notes: NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns; ROG = reactive organic gases; YSAQMD = Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District a Total maximum daily emissions assume the potential maximum daily emissions associated with each project component would occur on the same day.
b Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 4.2-3 Total Construction-Related Emissions
Facility
ROG
(tons per year)
NOX
(tons per year)
PM10
(pounds per day)
PM2.5
(pounds per day)
Bayer 0.05 0.4 42.0 7.5
Clark Pacific 0.03 0.3 3.1 1.4
Total Maximum Daily Emissions a, b 0.08 0.7 45.1 8.9
YSAQMD Threshold 10 10 80 --
Exceeds Threshold? No No No --
Source: Appendix D, modeled by AECOM in 2025.

Table Notes: NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns; ROG = reactive organic gases; YSAQMD = Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District a Total maximum daily emissions assume the potential maximum daily emissions associated with each facility would occur on the s ame day. b Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As shown in Table 4.2-1 and Table 4.2-2, construction-related emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the YSAQMD-recommended thresholds of significance, which have been developed with the intent of ensuring attainment, or to work toward attainment, of the federal and State ambient air quality standards, consistent with the regional air quality plans. If a project would exceed the YSAQMD mass emission thresholds, it may be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the YSAQMD air quality planning efforts.

Therefore, because construction-related emissions would not exceed the YSAQMD-recommended thresholds of significance, construction of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. These types and levels of air quality emissions would be similar to those that could occur if other existing commercial facilities located up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, extend utilities under the proposed project. Given the above, impacts related to short-term construction related emissions would not be significant and unavoidable as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

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.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.2-7 Impact Analysis – Air Quality
Impact 4.3-2: Generation of Long-Term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.3-25 to 4.3-27), implementation of development considered under the 2035 General Plan would include new buildings, structures, paved areas, roadways, utilities, and other improvements which would generate operational emissions from mobile, energy, and area sources. Operational emissions associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan were quantified based on the anticipated types and sizes of land uses for the development scenarios considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and were found to exceed the YSAQMD-recommended thresholds of significance. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified General Plan policies and additional mitigation measures that would reduce operational impacts. However, because the ability of the General Plan policies and mitigation measures to reduce operational emissions to levels below the significance thresholds was unknown, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that impacts associated with long-term operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

The proposed project would operate utility extensions, connecting existing commercial facilities to the City’s existing water and wastewater systems. Water and wastewater services provided by the City through the proposed utility extensions would be within the capacity of the City’s existing water and wastewater systems as described in Section 4.11, “Utilities” of this SEIR, and would not generate operational emissions. As described in Section

3.3.2 of this SEIR and shown in Table 3.3-1 and Table 3.3-2, future annual potable water demand is anticipated to increase slightly at both Bayer and Clark Pacific and future wastewater generation is anticipated to increase slightly at Bayer. However, decommissioning of existing water and wastewater facilities at the two existing commercial facilities would ultimately occur, eliminating related long-term operational emissions from groundwater pumping and eliminating wastewater. Furthermore, extending utilities would not alter the anticipated development capacity of the City within the City’s planning horizon; therefore, extending utilities would not result in a change in total annual operational emissions as analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Any potential increase in operations at Bayer and Clark Pacific associated with increased potable water consumption or wastewater treatment would be minimal compared to existing conditions. Similarly, should other existing commercial facilities extend utilities within one mile of the existing ULL, there would not be a change in total annual operational emissions, as analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Given the above, impacts related to long-term construction related emissions would not be significant and unavoidable as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts related to long-term operational 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 4.3-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR evaluated the potential for vehicle trips associated with development anticipated under the 2035 General Plan to cause carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots and for construction and operation associated with development anticipated under the 2035 General Plan to generate localized air pollutant emissions that could affect existing and proposed sensitive receptors (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages,

4.3-33 to 4.3-45). Consistent with YSAQMD-recommended screening levels, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that CO emissions from local mobile sources would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Air Quality 4.2-8 Draft SEIR
pollutant concentrations and impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, construction activities associated with development anticipated under the 2035 General Plan could generate diesel particulate matter (DPM), identified as a TAC by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, on-site generators, and construction worker vehicles. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR acknowledged that construction emissions would be intermittent and temporary and that DPM is highly dispersive. However, because the duration of construction activities and exact location of sensitive receptors relative to anticipated development could not be known at the time of analysis, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR conservatively assumed that certain construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. General Plan policies and mitigation measures were identified to reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.3-37 to 4.3-45) discusses potential impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to operational TACs, including mobile source emissions along roadways and due to proximity to operational sources of TACs associated with specific future land uses. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found impacts related to exposure of existing and future sensitive land uses to substantial TAC concentrations would be potentially significant; General Plan Policies 7.F.2 and 7.F.3. and Mitigation Measures 4.3-3c and 4.3- 3d (implemented as part of the Final General Plan as Implementation Programs 7.17 and 7.19, respectively) were found to reduce operational impacts related to TACs to a less than significant level.

Proposed Project Construction
The proposed project would require short-term construction activities associated with the utility extensions and minor construction activities onsite at Bayer and Clark Pacific to decommission existing groundwater and wastewater facilities. For both Bayer and Clark Pacific, construction activities associated with the utility extensions would occur closer to sensitive receptors than on-site construction activities related to decommissioning of groundwater and wastewater facilities. The closest sensitive receptors to the Bayer utility alignments are multi-family residences located adjacent to County Road 98, where a portion of the proposed sewer pipeline would be constructed. The closest sensitive receptors to the Clark Pacific utility alignments are single family residences located along County Roads 101 and 18c, where a portion of the proposed sewer and water pipeline would be constructed.

Construction would generate DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel-powered equipment and any diesel- powered trucks serving construction activities. These activities may expose nearby residences to TACs during construction activities, primarily in the form of DPM. More than 90 percent of DPM is less than 1 micrometer (µm) in diameter and thus is a subset of PM2.5. Health risk is a function of the concentration of contaminants in the environment and the duration of exposure to those contaminants. Even in intensive phases of construction, there would not be substantial pollutant concentrations, with the potential exception of the immediate vicinity of the construction site. As shown in the detailed emissions outputs in Appendix D, daily PM2.5 exhaust emissions are estimated to be a maximum of 1.82 pounds per day and an average of approximately 0.08 pounds per day.

Concentrations of mobile-source DPM emissions are typically reduced by approximately 60 percent at a distance of around 300 feet (100 meters) (Zhu and Hinds 2002). While construction of the utility extensions to both Bayer and Clark Pacific may occur within 80 feet of sensitive receptors, construction and associated off-road equipment use would occur linearly at a rate of approximately 400 to 500 feet per day and would extend up to approximately 2,600 feet away from sensitive receptors, limiting the duration of emissions generated at any single location.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.2-9 Impact Analysis – Air Quality
The risks estimated for an exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time.

Health effects from TACs are often described in terms of individual cancer risk, which is based on a 30-year lifetime exposure to TACs (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA] 2015). As described above, construction of the utility extensions to the Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities would occur over approximately 20 days and 29 days, respectively, or less than 0.3 percent of the 30-year lifetime exposure period of evaluation. Construction activities for the proposed project would be short-term and temporary, would vary in activity and equipment intensity over that time, and would take place linearly across the entire utility extension alignments, thereby limiting the amount of time that emitting equipment would be within a distance that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Due to the short-term, intermittent, and temporary nature of construction activities, dispersive nature of TACs, and the fact that construction would occur linearly and not concentrated near sensitive receptors, short-term construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations that would result in a health hazard.

For the reasons described above related to TAC emissions associated with construction of the proposed project, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts related to the potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations nor such impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Proposed Project Operations
The proposed project would not generate operational TAC emissions, as described above in Impact 4.3-2. Any slight increase in potable water consumption at existing commercial facilities due to the transition from on-site septic or water supply systems to connection with the City utility systems, as that described for Bayer and Clark Pacific in Section 3.3.2, would not result in a substantial increase in TAC emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from long-term operational emissions sources is not discussed further. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project 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.

Proposed Project-Related CO Hotspots
Vehicle trips during construction activities would be limited, temporary, and not concentrated at roadways or other areas in which CO concentrations may become elevated. Additionally, there would be no change in long- term operational trips associated with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact related to CO hotspots and given the above, impacts related to CO hotspots and the proposed project would not be less than significant with mitigation as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, as the mitigation measure(s) reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR are not required for the proposed project.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project 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.

Impact 4.3-4: Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.3-45 to 4.3-48) discusses potential impacts related to exposure of a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified construction of proposed land uses, including exhaust odors from diesel engines and volatile organic compound emissions associated with asphalt paving and the application of architectural coatings, as minor sources of odors associated

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Air Quality 4.2-10 Draft SEIR
with implementation of development under the 2035 General Plan that may be considered offensive odors to some individuals. However, because odors associated with diesel fumes would be temporary and would disperse rapidly with distance from the source, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that construction- generated and mobile-source odors would not result in the frequent exposure of on-site receptors to objectionable odor emissions. The General Plan EIR also identified operational sources of odors, such as garbage collection areas and charbroilers associated with commercial uses, as potential minor sources of odors that may be relevant to the existing or future development within the Planning Area. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that compliance with permitting requirements, air district rules and regulations, and state and local requirements would reduce potential odor-related impacts, and impacts would be less than significant.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would predominantly use diesel engines. Exhaust odors from diesel engines and emissions associated with asphalt paving may be considered offensive to some individuals. Surrounding residents may be exposed to such construction-related odors. However, the odors would be short-term and temporary as construction would progress linearly along the alignment or at the existing Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities and would disperse rapidly with distance from the source. Therefore, construction- generated odors would not result in the frequent exposure of receptors to objectionable odor emissions.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable portions of YSAQMD Regulation II Rule 2.5 (Nuisance), which would help ensure that odors generated by short-term construction would not affect a substantial number of people.

Operation of the proposed extended utility pipelines themselves would not be a source of odors. Additionally, as described above, water and wastewater services provided by the City through the proposed utility extensions would be within the capacity of the City’s existing water and wastewater systems and would not result in any new operational emissions sources. The YSAQMD CEQA Handbook (YSAQMD 2007) identifies common types of facilities known to produce odors, such as wastewater treatment facilities; chemical and fiberglass manufacturing facilities; landfills and transfer stations; painting and coating operations; composting and food processing facilities; and petroleum refineries and asphalt plants. As described in Section 3.3.2, the proposed project would allow for the extension of utilities to existing commercial facilities within one mile of the existing ULL, and specifically to Bayer and Clark Pacific, which are not typical odor-generating facilities as identified in the YSAQMD CEQA Handbook. Any potential odors generated by other existing commercial facilities that may extend utilities would be required to comply with YSAQMD rules and permit requirements already applicable to the existing operations of the facilities. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. As concluded in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR impacts related to odor would be less than significant, and this conclusion would not change as a result of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts related to objectionable odors nor such impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-1 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Section 4.4, “Biological Resources,” of 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.4-1 to 4.4-60) described the existing special status species and habitat conditions, summarized applicable regulations, analyzed the potential impacts of the 2035 General Plan and CAP on biological resources, and identified mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, where applicable. That information is hereby incorporated by reference.

This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the proposed project, where applicable.

4.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was presented on pages 4.4-20 to 4.4-28 and is hereby incorporated by reference. The regulatory setting is updated in the material that follows.

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the major federal legislation governing water quality, providing guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, which is described in the Regulatory Setting of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Section 404 of the CWA requires a project applicant to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) before engaging in any activity that involves any discharge of dredged or fill material placed in waters of the United States, including wetlands. Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant applying for a Section 404 permit that may result in a discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. to obtain Section 401 water quality certification (or certification waiver), thereby ensuring that the discharge will comply with provisions of the CWA. The SWRCB and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer the 401-certification program in California. Section 402 of the CWA establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredged or fill material) into waters of the U.S.

The definition of waters of the U.S. establishes the geographic scope for authority under Section 404 of the CWA; however, the CWA does not specifically define “Waters of the United States,” leaving the definition open to statutory interpretation and agency rulemaking. The definition of what constitutes “Waters of the United States” (provided in 33 CFR Section 328.3(a]) has changed multiple times over the past few decades starting with the United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. court ruling in 1985. Subsequent court proceedings, rule makings, and congressional acts in 2001 (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers), 2006 (Rapanos v. United States), 2015 (Clean Water Rule), 2018 (suspension of the Clean Water Rule), 2019 (formal repeal of the Clean Water Rule), 2020 (Navigable Waters Protection Rule), and 2021 (Pasqua Tribe et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency resulting in remand and vacatur of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule and a return to “the pre-2015 regulatory regime”) have attempted to provide greater clarity to the term and its regulatory implementation. A Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States” rule (Rule) (88 CFR 3004–3144) became effective on March 20, 2023, restoring federal jurisdiction over waters that were protected prior to 2015 under the CWA for traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, and upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters. The Rule represented a re-

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-2 Draft SEIR expansion of federal jurisdiction over certain water bodies and wetlands previously exempt pursuant to the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule. The Rule also considered various subsequent court decisions including two notable Supreme Court decisions. However, the applicability of the Rule was substantially affected by a subsequent May 2023 Supreme Court ruling, which reinstated the “Significant Nexus” test and adopted the “Relatively Permanent Standard” test. On May 25, 2023, in Sackett v. USEPA, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case concerning the applicability of the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA to wetlands adjacent to other waters. The USACE and the U.S. EPA issued the Final Rule on August 29, 2023, to address the Sackett decision and amend the revised definition of “Waters of the United States.” The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register and became effective on September 8, 2023.

The City amended the tree ordinance (Title 12 Chapter 12.48 of City of Woodland Municipal Code) in December 2022. The ordinance identifies that the planting and preservation of trees sustains public health by supporting relaxation and reducing stress, increases life-giving oxygen, promotes ecological balance and biodiversity, improves air quality, and tempers the effect of extreme temperatures. Section 12.48.140 of the ordinance specifically discusses encroachment into the drip line area of protected trees during construction. This section states that the existing ground surface within drip line (measured horizontally) of any heritage oak tree10, specimen tree, landmark tree, or established tree11 shall not be excavated, filled, compacted or paved without the consultation and consent of the Community Development Director. Tree wells may be used when advisable.

Excavation adjacent to any heritage oak tree shall not be permitted where material damage to the root system may result, unless approved by an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist. Excavation within an oak tree dripline when approved by the City, may only be performed by a contractor that has an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist on staff and based on a plan prepared by consulting International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist that has been submitted to and approved by the City in advance.

The Yolo County Oak Woodland Conservation and Enhancement Plan promotes voluntary efforts to conserve and enhance the county’s existing oak woodlands to help minimize the effects of land conversion and other factors that disturb the health and longevity of existing oak woodlands.

The Yolo Habitat Conservancy completed the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Yolo HCP/NCCP) in 2018 and began Yolo HCP/NCCP implementation in January 2019 (Yolo Habitat Conservancy n.d.). The Yolo HCP/NCCP is a countywide conservation plan to provide Endangered Species Act permits and associated mitigation for infrastructure (e.g., roads and bridges) and development activities identified for construction over the next 50 years in Yolo County (Yolo Habitat Conservancy n.d.). The Yolo HCP/NCCP coordinates mitigation to maximize benefits to species as well as conserve habitat above and beyond required mitigation for the following 12 identified species: palmate-bracted bird’s beak (Chloropyron palmatum), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). (Yolo Habitat

10 Heritage oak tree: any valley oak tree (Quercus lobata), with a trunk diameter of 33 inches or more at Diameter at Breast Height which is of good quality in terms of health, vigor, growth and conformity to generally accepted horticultural standards of shape for its species. 11 Established Tree: tree of any species with trunk diameter of 12 inches or more at Diameter at Breast Height which is of good quality in terms of health, vigor, growth and conformity to generally accepted horticultural standards of shape for its species.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Conservancy n.d.). The Yolo Habitat Conservancy is a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Yolo, and the cities of Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Woodland (Yolo Habitat Conservancy n.d.).

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.4-1 to 4.4-20), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable to the proposed project, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting describes habitat types, as well as special-status plant and wildlife species and their potential for occurrence within the Planning Area of the General Plan. Habitat types identified in Table

4.4-1 2035 of the General Plan and CAP EIR includes: Developed, Agriculture (other than rice), Rice, Water, Annual Grassland, Detention Basins, Alkali Prairie, Freshwater Wetland, Riparian Forest, and Vernal Pool Complex. Developed (7,953 acres) and agriculture (3,041 acres) make up the largest portion of the Planning Areas habitat types. Results based on the database searches and literature review conducted for the 2035 General Plan and CAP, identified 11 special-status plant species documented or reported in the Planning Area or the vicinity of the County. Of these, eight species are either known to occur or have the potential to occur in suitable habitat within the Planning Area (Exhibit 4.4-3, Table 4.4-12, pages 4.4-11 and 4.4-12). In addition, the results identified 28 wildlife species documented or reported in the Planning Area or the vicinity of the County. Of these, 24 are either known to occur or have the potential to occur in suitable habitat within the Planning Area, including 13 wildlife species listed under CESA or ESA, while the remaining nine are recognized as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected under California law (Exhibit 4.4-3, Table 4.4-3, pages 4.4-15 to 4.4-20).

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Although biological resource conditions have evolved since certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, none of those changes would lead to a new impact or increase in severity of any impact in relation to the proposed project. Information contained in this section is based on a biological reconnaissance field survey, updated database searches, review of the General Plan and CAP EIR and a review of the Yolo HCP/NCCP and Yolo HCP/NCCP EIS/EIR. Information from both the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and the Yolo HCP/NCCP is used to characterize the environmental setting because the proposed project is an amendment to the existing City of Woodland General Plan that would allow activities within County lands under the jurisdiction of the HCP/NCCP. A biological reconnaissance field survey was conducted on July 30, 2025, by AECOM field biologist of the proposed Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments, which included a 500-foot survey buffer. Appendix E, Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results, of this SEIR documents the survey. The habitat types documented in the field were generally mapped to General Plan habitat types. A desktop review was also conducted of the Yolo HCP/NCCP land cover types and modeled habitat for the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments. A desktop review was also performed of the Yolo HCP/NCCP to identify common habitat types described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR that could be within one mile of the existing ULL and the land cover types described in the Yolo HCP/NCCP mapped within one mile of the existing ULL. Finally, a desktop review was performed to identify Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled habitat for covered species within one mile of the existing ULL. Species analysis was based on updated database searches of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS), USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC), and Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled habitat.

The Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments are located in Yolo HCP/NCCP Planning Unit 11 and the area within one mile of the existing ULL is located in Planning Units 7, 11, 17, and 19 (City of Woodland).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-4 Draft SEIR Natural Communities and habitat types identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and the Yolo HCP/NCCP are summarized below in Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2 of this SEIR. Habitat types identified in the Clark Pacific alignment along County Road 101, County Road 18C, and within the Clark Pacific facility include developed land including horticulture, agriculture, annual grassland, and waters (existing retention pond). The annual grasslands to the north side of Road 18C adjacent to the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment are highly disturbed through regular maintenance via mowing and the retention pond is primarily located behind a locked gate on the north side of Road 18C. The Bayer utility extension alignment is primarily within an agricultural field that is owned and maintained by Bayer. Habitat types identified in the Bayer alignment include developed land, agriculture, annual grassland, riparian forest, and waters (existing retention pond). Seed processing operations at the adjacent Bayer Crop Science facility require water and the use of an onsite wastewater discharge site in the form of a retention pond. The retention pond is located along the east-central edge of the facility. Water is discharged from the Bayer Crop Science facility into this retention pond, which includes aerators spaced approximately 50 feet apart, is approximately 20 feet wide and extends southward for approximately 650 feet. A row of sixteen 20- to 30-foot-high Freemont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) occurs along the west side of the retention pond (riparian woodland), which is otherwise sparsely vegetated. Figure 4.3-1 and Figure 4.3-2 identify the habitat types mapped within and adjacent to the proposed utility extension alignments. Figure 4.3-3 and Figure 4.3-4 depicts the Yolo HCP/NCCP land cover types and natural communities along the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-5 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Table 4.3-1 Natural Communities and Habitat Types: Clark Pacific and Bayer Utility Extension Alignments Natural Community1/
Habitat Type2 Description
Developed1/
Developed Land2
Developed land is the primary habitat within and adjacent to the two proposed utility extension alignments. Developed areas are highly modified consisting of man-made structures and surfaces with landscaped vegetation in maintained areas and weedy vegetation in areas that are subject to frequent ground disturbance. Developed land includes urban vegetation and all areas with structures, graded lots, road and highway medians, anthropogenic drainage canal vegetation, rail rights-of-way, and sewage treatment ponds that do not provide habitat (Yolo County 2018). Wildlife typically observed in disturbed landscapes consists of common species that are well adapted to man-made infrastructure and that take advantage of opportunities for foraging or nesting created as a byproduct of the infrastructure. Disturbed land cover rarely provides suitable habitat for special-status species although they may use it during movement or migration. The horticultural area within the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment is part of developed land because it is landscaping around existing developed areas. These areas are maintained with ornamental trees, shrubs, and turf grass, providing minimal habitat value beyond occasional nesting or roosting opportunities for common bird species. Large trees in landscaped areas may offer raptor perching or nesting potential, but overall horticultural lands are considered highly disturbed and provide only marginal ecological function.

Cultivated Lands Seminatural
Community1,
Other Agriculture1, Semiagricultural
and Incidental to Agriculture1/
Agricultural Lands (excluding Rice) 2
The Bayer utility extension alignment lies within an agricultural field managed for cover crops or hay on a rotational basis, subject to regular disturbance through annual tilling and harvest. Habitat value is limited due to the highly disturbed area, though large trees bordering the field provide passerine and raptor nesting potential. The nearby retention pond offers supplemental, marginal aquatic habitat, given the highly disturbed and developed nature of the facility surrounding the retention pond. Within the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment, agricultural habitat is bordered by drainage ditches and orchards. These areas provide low-value habitat but serve as foraging grounds for raptors.

Water2 Water consists of constructed ponds, including treatment ponds, retention basins, and farm/stock ponds (page 4.4-5). Features identified as water typically contain some amount of permanent surface water. The retention pond at Bayer has no inlet or outlet and retains water from the existing seed processing at Bayer, as needed. The retention pond at Clark Pacific was behind a locked gate and appeared to collect runoff from the adjacent Clark Pacific facility. While the vegetation in these locations provides some substrate for nesting birds, the absence of dense emergent cover such as rushes (Juncus spp.) or cattails (Typha spp.), combined with the artificial design and periodic drainage of the wetland and basin, limits habitat quality. As a result, these features are generally considered of low habitat value for most special-status species, including giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), which depend on more consistent hydrology and well-developed wetland structure to complete their life cycles.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-6 Draft SEIR Natural Community1/
Habitat Type2 Description
Annual Grasslands2 Grasslands are primarily represented by mowed annual grasslands associated with leach fields and roadside rights-of-way. Within the Bayer utility extension alignment, grassland areas are limited because the alignment is largely contained within an agricultural field that is tilled or harvested annually for cover crops or hay. These disturbed conditions result in narrow strips of weedy vegetation along the gravel access road and mowed grassland around facility leach fields. Although habitat value is low, small mammal burrows were noted near the retention pond banks and in soil piles on the western side of the facility, though no special- status species or sign were observed. Large trees in and adjacent to the field provide nesting potential for raptors; one pair of Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) were observed soaring over the northern portion of the field during the survey. Within the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment, marginal grassland habitat occurs primarily in the mowed leach field north of County Road 18C and in patches of annual grassland interspersed with Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii) and large valley oaks (Quercus lobata) along the road corridor. This grassland is highly disturbed due to its proximity to developed land uses, roadside drainage ditches, and adjacent residential areas. Sporadic small mammal burrows were recorded in the drainage ditch, but no special-status species or their sign were observed. Despite the low habitat quality of these disturbed grasslands, the presence of large trees and open foraging space contributes to potential raptor use.

Riparian Woodland2 Riparian Woodland adjacent to the Bayer utility extension alignment is limited to a narrow slip of Fremont cottonwood trees.

Despite being fragmented, these areas provide important structural diversity that supports a variety of wildlife. During surveys, Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) were observed soaring near riparian edges, while species such as Modesto song sparrow (Melospiza melodia mailliardi), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) may utilize riparian thickets for foraging or nesting. Elderberry shrubs (Sambucus nigra) recorded within the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment also provide potential habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), though sign of the species was not identified.

Table Notes
1 Natural Communities are listed in this table as defined in Chapter 2, Existing Ecological Conditions, of the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. 2 Habitat Types are listed in this table as defined in Section 4.4.2.1, Common Habitat Types in the Planning Area and Section 4.4.2.2, Sensitive Habitat Types in the Planning Area and Vicinity of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and based on conditions observed during the field survey. (page 4.4-6.) Source: 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2017) and Yolo Habitat Conservancy Geomapper (2025).

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-7 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Table 4.3-2 Natural Communities and Habitat Types: Within One Mile of the Existing Urban Limit Line Natural Communities1/
Habitat Types2 Description
Developed1/
Developed Land2
There is developed land within one mile of the existing ULL. Developed areas are highly modified consisting of man-made structures and surfaces with landscaped vegetation in maintained areas and weedy vegetation in areas that are subject to frequent ground disturbance.

Developed land includes urban vegetation and all areas with structures, graded lots, road and highway medians, anthropogenic drainage canal vegetation, rail rights-of-way, and sewage treatment ponds that do not provide habitat (Yolo County 2018). Depending on their specific conditions, developed areas can support a number of common native and nonnative wildlife species (e.g., barn swallow [Hirundo rustica], house finch [Haemorhous mexicanus], raccoon [Procyon lotor], Virginia opossum [Didelphis virginiana] and black rat [Rattus rattus]). (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Large trees in urban lands support roosting and nesting of the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) may be found in remnant fields within urban lands (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Cultivated Lands
Seminatural
Community1/
Agricultural Lands
(including Rice) 2
Cultivated lands seminatural community and agricultural lands (including rice) is the primary natural community/habitat type within one mile of the existing ULL. Crop types on cultivated lands change over time with changes in demand, price, and other factors related to the wide variety of food and fiber crops grown in Yolo County (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Crop types include alfalfa, rice, field crops, tuck and berry crops, grain and hay crops, and pastures (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Depending on the crop type and season, cultivated fields can provide marginal or high-value foraging habitat for raptors and special status wildlife species such as the white-tailed kite and Swainson’s hawk (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Freshly cultivated fields, before crop development, provide habitat for mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), and Swainson’s hawk (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Local barren areas around irrigation facilities can also provide habitat for burrowing owls (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Rice provides valuable habitat that varies seasonally for a range of special status wetland and upland special status wildlife species including giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and white-tailed kites (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). These features also serve as habitat corridors that allow them to disperse and move among habitat areas (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Other Agriculture1,
Semiagricultural and
Incidental to
Agriculture1/
Agricultural Lands
(excluding Rice) 2
There are substantial agricultural lands (excluding rice) that comprise other agriculture, semiagricultural and incidental to agriculture within one mile of the existing ULL. Most of the lands within semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural consists of farmsteads and field edges, which provide habitat for Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and western burrowing owl (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Other agricultural land lands can provide buffers between natural communities and nearby development (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Orchards can also support the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Water2 There is water, consisting of constructed ponds, including treatment ponds, retention basins, and farm/stock ponds (page 4.4-5) within one mile of the existing ULL. Features identified as water typically contain some amount of permanent surface water (page 4.4-5). The types of features that are artificial provide generally marginal habitat for special status species because they frequently lack the type of vegetation needed to support special status wildlife species life cycle requirements. Furthermore, artificial ponds in or adjacent to urban areas often support nonnative species, such as red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) and American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), that out-compete or are predators of native species such as northwestern pond turtle (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-8 Draft SEIR Natural Communities1/
Habitat Types2 Description
Annual
Grassland1/Annual
Grasslands2
There are some annual grasslands within one mile of the existing ULL, primarily to the south and east of Woodland. Grasslands are generally subject to some level of periodic maintenance or other types of disturbance, such as disking, mowing, and grazing by cattle or other domestic animals (page 4.4-5). Grasslands are generally found in areas where trees account for less than 10 percent of the cover and the topography consists of flat plains or gently rolling foothills (Yolo County Conservatory 2018). Plants are typically less than three feet tall (Yolo County Conservatory 2018). Most grasslands consist of annual grassland, dominated by nonnative species (Yolo County Conservatory 2018). These nonnative grasses include: foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), Mediterranean barley (H. marinum ssp. gussoneanum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (B. hordeaceous), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), and oat (Avena spp.). Commonly observed forbs include nonnative species such as cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum) and redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and native wildflowers such as valley tassels (Castilleja attenuata), clovers (Trifolium fucatum, T. depauperatum, and T. willdenovii), sea muilla (Muilla maritima), hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta), and several species of peppergrass (Lepidium nitidum, L. latipes, and L. dictyotum) (page 4.4-5). Native herbaceous species associated with grassland include rancher’s fireweed (Amsinckia menziesii), miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata ssp. Perfoliate), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), miniature lupine (Lupinus bicolor), baby blue-eyes (Nemophila menziesii), California plantain (Plantago erecta), vinegar weed (Trichostema lanceolatum), tomcat clover (Trifolium willdenovii), butter-and-eggs (Linaria vulgaris), Ithuriel’s spear (Triteleia laxa), and small fescue (Vulpia microstachys) (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Grasslands can serve as foraging habitat for special status wildlife species, including the pallid bat, purple martin (Progne subis), yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, badger (Taxidea taxus), and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Detention Basins2 There are some detention basins within one mile of the existing ULL. Detention Basins are artificially created depressions in the landscape designed to impound stormwater for short duration in urban or agricultural areas. These basins, therefore, may be temporarily inundated for short periods during and immediately following storms, but they are designed to empty out within a few days and do not hold water for long enough periods to support wetland vegetation or to be categorized as open water. Most of the time, these basins are characterized by ruderal (i.e., weedy) vegetation or agricultural crop. (page 4.4-5.) Given the infrequency in which these features are filled and the typical ruderal vegetation, these features may provide marginal habitat to special status wildlife species. Furthermore, artificial ponds in or adjacent to urban areas often support nonnative species, such as red-eared sliders and American bullfrogs, that out-compete or are predators of native species such as northwestern pond turtle (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Freshwater Marsh2 There very little freshwater marsh within one mile of the existing ULL; this type of habitat is primarily located adjacent to the southern edge Woodland, north of Willow Slough (page 4.4-6.). Freshwater marsh and associated wetlands form in permanently, or nearly permanently, flooded or saturated soils in depressions or at the edges of streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes, as well as ditches and canals. Distinct vegetation zones often form, as rings, strips, or patches, in response to varying water depths and hydroperiods. Freshwater marshes are dominated by large, perennial herbaceous plants, particularly hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus) and cattail (Typha spp.). Cattail and bulrush species typically create dense monotypic stands of vegetation with few herbaceous species present in the understory.