Agenda packet — Woodland City Council, May 19, 2026 (part 5 of 7)

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-12 Draft SEIR groundwater to meet water demands. The water demand and supply projections in the GSP include the future build-out scenarios for all the incorporated cities in the subbasin (including the Woodland 2035 General Plan), as well as existing and projected development in the unincorporated areas of the subbasin (including the Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities). The Yolo Subbasin is not in a condition of overdraft, and the GSP includes a program of management actions designed to ensure groundwater sustainability during the plan’s mandated planning timeframe (Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency 2022). For the reasons explained above, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Yolo Subbasin GSP. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to 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 4.9-5: Place Housing Within a 100- or 200-Year Flood Hazard Area As Mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary Or Flood Insurance Rate Map or Other Flood Hazard Delineation Map As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.9-50 through 4.9-58), new development could be proposed for areas of the City that are subject to 100- and/or 200-year flood hazards. However, all proposed development within 100-year flood zones is required to comply with the City’s Flood Management Ordinance, Title 17 Chapter 17.88 of the Woodland Municipal Code, which establishes specific standards and procedures for development. As required by SB 5, 2035 General Plan Policy 8.B.3 prohibits subdivisions, development agreements, or permits that would place development within a 200-year flood hazard zone unless the City makes explicit findings that either existing flood management facilities provide an adequate level of protection from flooding, the City has conditioned the project to provide an adequate level of protection, or the local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will provide adequate protection. General Plan Policy 8.B.4 requires project applicants to secure an encroachment permit from the CVFPB for any project that falls within the jurisdiction of the Board (e.g. levees, regulated streams, and designated floodways). General Plan Policy 8.B.5 requires installation of protective structures or other design measures to protect proposed building and development sites from the effects of flooding (similar to the requirements of Woodland Municipal Code Title 17 Chapter 17.88). General Plan Policy 8.B.6 prohibits the construction of facilities essential for emergencies and large buildings of public assembly in the 200-year floodplain, unless the structure and road access are free from flood inundation. General Plan Policy 8.B.7 requires that new flood management projects or development within areas subject to flooding ensure that floodwaters will not be diverted into adjacent property to increase flood hazards on properties located elsewhere unless secured through a flood easement or fee title buyout. Impacts would be less than significant.

Although some of the area within one mile of the existing ULL lies within 100- and 200-year flood zones as described in the Updates to the Environmental Setting section, the proposed project does not include the construction of housing. For example, most of the Clark Pacific utility lines would be installed within 100- and 200-year flood zones, but does not include the construction of housing. Similarly, housing is not proposed as part of the Bayer utility improvements. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and the impact attributable to the proposed project would not occur, given housing would not be developed. 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.

Page 430 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.8-13 Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.9-6: Place Within a 100- or 200-year Flood Hazard Areas Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.9-58 through 4.9-60), and for the same reasons described above in Impact 4.9-5, impacts from placing buildings or other structures associated with new development under the 2035 General Plan that could impede or redirect flood flows within 100- or 200-year flood hazard areas would be less than significant.

Where construction of pipelines would occur within 100- and 200- year flood zones, as described in Impact 4.9-5 for Clark Pacific alignment, pipelines would not impede or redirect flood flows because they would be installed underground. Construction of a utility extension alignment to an existing business that could be located to the northeast, east, or southeast, could occur in a flood zones, and thus there is a risk for release of pollutants during construction if the area were to be inundated. Applicants are required to notify the County (as part of permit application) whether any materials would be stockpiled or stored in a floodplain and if so, requires containment measures like temporary berms to prevent releases of pollutants. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and the impact attributable to the proposed project would not occur, given the pipelines would be underground. 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 4.9-7: Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Flooding, Including Flooding as a Result of the Failure of a Levee or Dam
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.9-61 through 4.9-63), new development in the city’s Planning Area could be proposed within areas that are classified as 100- or 200-year flood zones, or that are subject to flooding from failure of existing levees, or (although highly unlikely) flooding from failure of the Indian Valley Dam. All new development proposed within FEMA special flood hazard zones (i.e., 100-year flood hazard) would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s Flood Management Ordinance, Title 17 Chapter 17.88 of the Woodland Municipal Code, which establishes specific standards and procedures for development. SB 5 established a 200-year flood (0.5 percent annual exceedance probability) as the minimum urban level of flood protection. It also required cities and counties in the Central Valley to amend their general plans and their zoning ordinances to conform to the CVFPP. SB 5 restricts approval of development agreements and subdivision maps in CVFPP 200-year flood hazard zones with a potential flood depth of 3 feet or more, unless certain findings are made. Per SB 5, the City may not issue building permits within 200-year flood zones designated by the CVFPP where the predicted flood depth would be 3 feet or more unless the Urban Level of Flood Protection Criteria developed by DWR (DWR 2013) has been provided; unless the City certifies based on substantial evidence that “adequate progress” has been made toward provision of the Urban Level of Flood Protection Criteria; or that conditions imposed on the project will provide for an urban level of flood protection.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Exhibit 4.9-3 on page 4.9-11, and Exhibit 4.9-5 on page 4.9-53) identifies the 200-year floodplain which is potentially subject to Urban Level of Flood Protection requirements (i.e., where flood depths of 3 feet or greater could occur). As required by SB 5, 2035 General Plan Policy 8.B.3 prohibits subdivisions, development agreements, or permits that would place development within a 200-year flood hazard zone can be approved unless the City makes explicit findings that either existing flood management facilities provide an adequate level of protection from flooding, the City has conditioned the project to provide an adequate level of protection, or the local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will provide adequate protection. The 2035 General Plan also includes other policies

Page 431 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-14 Draft SEIR that would reduce flood risks including 8.B.11 (conduct a site-specific analysis related to potential levee failure) and 8.A.4 (require new development in dam inundation areas to consider risks from dam failure), along with Policies 8.B.1 through 8.B.10. Impacts would be less than significant.

Although most of the proposed Clark Facility utility line alignment is within both a 100-year floodplain and a 200-year floodplain with a potential flood depth of 3 feet or more, the proposed project does not include the construction of housing or any other buildings. Similarly, although the northernmost end of the proposed Bayer sewer pipeline alignment would be installed within an area classified by FEMA as a moderate flood hazard (Zone X), the proposed project does include the construction of housing or any other buildings. As noted in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” project-related construction would occur from May to November, and therefore would not occur during the winter rainy season when flooding could occur. Furthermore, because the proposed utility pipelines of Clark Pacific, Bayer, or an existing commercial facility within one mile of the existing ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026 would be installed underground, operation of the pipelines would not be subject to flood hazards. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to 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.

Page 432 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.9-1 Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning, Population & Housing

4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING, POPULATION AND HOUSING
Section 4.10, “Land Use Planning, Population and Housing,” of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.10-1 through 4.10-32) described existing conditions with regard to land use in the Planning Area from implementation of City’s General Plan. This section also identified population, housing conditions, and employment in Woodland and analyzed the potential for the General Plan to affect population, housing conditions, and employment. Where appropriate, mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts were identified. That information is hereby incorporated by reference into this SEIR.

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.

4.9.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.10-8 through 4.10-20). Sections title “Yolo County 2030 General Plan” (pages 4.10-10 to 4.10-16) and “City of Woodland General Plan” (pages 4.10-16 to 4.10-20) describe various General Plan policies that govern development within each jurisdiction. The regulatory setting is also updated in the material that follows to include specific regulations related to the proposed project.

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
Government Code section 56133 requires that districts and cities obtain the Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approval of any new or extended services outside the agency’s existing boundaries. For the Commission to approve any requests, the area to be served must either be (1) within the sphere of influence (“SOI”) of the agency and annexation of the territory is anticipated; or (2) services are needed outside an agency’s SOI to respond to an existing or impending public health or safety threat (e.g. failing well or septic system).

Projects must comply with LAFCo’s Out of Agency Service Review policies (Section 3.0) and Agricultural Conservation Policies (Section 4.0) (LAFCo 2025a). The City must apply for and obtain LAFCo approval before providing new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries. Initiation of the process can also be made by application from the prospective recipient of the services with agreement of the agency. These policies are included below.

Section 3.3 Standards of Evaluation
a) Whether annexation is a reasonable and preferable alternative to LAFCo allowing extended services outside the agency’s jurisdictional boundaries
b) The growth inducing impacts of any proposal
c) Whether the proposed extension of services promotes logical and orderly development of areas within the SOI (i.e. islands, strips and corridors are disfavored)

Page 433 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning, Population & Housing 4.9-2 Draft SEIR d) The agreed upon timetable and stated expectation for annexation to the agency providing the requested service
e) The proposal’s consistency with the policies and plans of all affected agencies f) The ability of the local agency to provide service to the proposed area without detracting from current service levels
g) Whether the proposal contributes to the premature conversion of agricultural land or other open space land
h) Whether the proposal conflicts with or undermines adopted Municipal Service Review determinations and/or recommendations
i) Other factors determined to be relevant by the Commission or staff LAFCo’s Agricultural Policy Statement is: “Agriculture is a vital and essential part of the Yolo County economy and environment. Agriculture shapes the way Yolo County residents and visitors view themselves and the quality of their lives. Accordingly, boundary changes for urban development should only be proposed, evaluated, and approved in a manner which, to the fullest extent feasible, is consistent with the continuing growth and vitality of agriculture within the county.” LAFCo’s review criteria to support the agricultural policy statement includes:
a) Existing developed areas should be maintained and renewed b) Vacant land within developed areas should be developed before agricultural land is annexed for non- agricultural purposes
c) Land substantially surrounded by existing agency boundaries should be annexed before other lands d) Urban development should be restricted in agricultural areas. For example, agricultural land should not be annexed for non-agricultural purposes when feasible alternatives exist e) The continued productivity and viability of agricultural land surrounding existing communities should be promoted, by preventing the premature conversion of agricultural land to other uses and, to the extent feasible, minimizing conflicts between agricultural and other land uses f) Development near agricultural land should not adversely affect the economic viability or constrain the lawful, responsible practices of the agricultural operations g) Where feasible, non-prime land should be annexed before prime land h) A land’s current zoning, pre-zoning, or land use designation is one of the factors the Commission will consider in determining whether mitigation will be required for the loss of agricultural land. A land’s zoning, pre-zoning, or land use designation in the city’s or County’s general plan does not automatically exempt it from mitigation.

Page 434 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.9-3 Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning, Population & Housing

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.10-1 through 4.10-8), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable to the proposed project, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting provides data related to the acres and percentages of the different types of land uses within the City’s Planning Area (Table 4.10-1, page 4.10-2) and a discussion of the existing pattern of development in the City related to each of these land uses (pages 4.10-2 through 4.10-5). The setting also provides data related to the number and type of housing units in the City, the number and types of jobs in the City, and the relationship between jobs and housing (pages 4.10-5 through 4.10-8).

As noted in the environmental setting, the majority of land surrounding Woodland is designated Agriculture by the Yolo County General Plan (pages 4.10-11). There are some parcels to the east and northwest of Woodland that are designated Industrial, Public and Quasi-Public, Commercial General, or Residential Rural (pages 4.10- 11). The entire General Plan Land Use Map is shown in Exhibit 4.10-2 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and the areas of the County Land Use Map that are within the 2035 General Plan Planning Area are shown in Exhibit 4.10-3 of the 2035 CAP EIR (pages 4.10-11 and 4.10-12).

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
No updates to the environmental setting are required.

4.9.2 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 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The proposed project would result in a significant impact related to land use or population and housing if it would:
► Physically divide an established community;
► Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; ► Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; ► Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure); ► Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or
► Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Page 435 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning, Population & Housing 4.9-4 Draft SEIR Impacts associated with conflicts with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan are addressed in Section 4.3, “Biological Resources.” 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 4.10-1: Physically Divide an Established Community As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.10-22 through 4.10-24), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan would not introduce new development, in either the form of new communities or major transportation facilities, that would physically divide an established community. New development projected in the 2035 General Plan is primarily focused on infill and redevelopment. There are three projected new growth areas (SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3, as shown in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 3.7-1 (page 3- 23]), but these areas are contiguous with the existing developed areas of the City. New roadway improvements are mostly in undeveloped areas where new infrastructure would not divide existing communities. Policy 2.A.8 requires the City to transform corridors to connect the city’s neighborhoods, and Policy 3.A.10 requires the City to eliminate barriers and gaps in the existing transportation network to improve multi-modal connectivity. Policies

2.I.6 and 3.I.5 require the City to pursue the option of relocating the railroads in the city to locations outside of existing neighborhoods. Policy 3.A.8 discourages the construction of six-lane roads, which due to their width have the potential to divide communities. Policy 3.I.1 requires the City to work with the County on developing truck routes for areas adjacent to the City, rather than through the City, which would otherwise have a greater potential to impact existing communities. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that the impact of physical division of an existing community would be less than significant.

The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be installed underground in rural areas comprised of agricultural and industrial land uses. Other areas within one mile outside of the ULL where utility lines could be installed also consist primarily of agricultural land with a few industrial land uses; these areas do not include any established communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community.

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 4.10-2: Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an Agency with Jurisdiction over the Project (Including, but not Limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning Ordinance) Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.10-24 through 4.10-26), the County has jurisdiction over unincorporated land, including that which lies inside the Planning Area. The Yolo County 2030 General Plan and County regulations apply in these unincorporated areas within the City’s Planning Area (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibits 4.10-2 and 4.10-3 (pages 4.10-12 and 4.10-13]). Some of the City’s proposed land use designations differ from the County General Plan. Through the master planning and annexation process, this discrepancy would be rectified when growth in unincorporated areas is pursued in the future. The 2035 General Plan Policy 2.B.6 prevents conflict between land use designations by requiring annexation, or that a conditional service agreement be executed agreeing to annex when deemed appropriate by the City, before provision of City services to unincorporated areas. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that the impact related to conflicts with policies and regulations would be less than significant. Conflicts with policies would not generally

Page 436 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.9-5 Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning, Population & Housing lead to an adverse physical environmental impact. The City will require the proposed project to demonstrate compliance with applicable regulations and to be consistent with the City’s General Plan. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and this SEIR present a comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts, and there is no conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation that would lead to a significant impact that is not addressed in the resource-specific analysis sections.

The proposed project would not change the boundary of the existing ULL and would not annex existing County lands to the City. Policy 2.B.6, Other Development in Unincorporated Areas within the ULL, is not applicable to the proposed project because the proposed project would maintain the existing ULL and would not change the land uses or zoning designations of the parcels to which utilities are extended. For example, the land use designations and zoning of Clark Pacific and Bayer (Agriculture (A-N], Industrial (I-H] Table 3.3-2 in this SEIR) would remain and the County would continue to have jurisdiction over these areas. There would be no conflict between the City General Plan and the County General Plan.

Pursuant to Government Code section 56133, the City would apply for and obtain LAFCo approval before providing new or extended services outside the existing ULL to Clark Pacific, Bayer, or any other existing commercial facility in operation prior to November 3, 2026 within one mile of the existing ULL. The potable water interruptions and reductions in potable water quality associated with the use of groundwater wells at Clark Pacific and Bayer and the lifespans of the septic systems constitute an on-going and impending public health or safety threat (e.g. failing well or septic system) pursuant to Government Code section 56133. Without connection to the City utilities, each facility would continue to face substantial challenges without significant upgrades or expansions to the existing groundwater wells and septic systems at both locations.

As described in Chapter 3, “Project Description, Clark Pacific and Bayer experienced decreasing water quality recently and have taken their groundwater wells off-line multiple times. Bayer performs weekly internal tests for nitrates, and their water system operator conducts monthly testing for other drinking water contaminants of concern, which is a condition of Bayer’s state drinking water permit (Gough, pers. comm. 2025). Since 2021, there have been three occasions when outside water has been brought to Bayer, while the groundwater well(s) are off-line (Gough, pers. comm. 2025). These interruptions lasted from a day to three weeks until the system is repaired and certified as meeting applicable safety standards (Gough, pers. comm. 2025). Two of the occasions were due to de-pressurization events and one was due to a line break. Under these scenarios, contaminants can infect the entire water system (Gough, pers. comm. 2025). When such an interruption occurs, Bayer automatically issues boiled water notice until testing results indicate that it is safe to resume consumption (Gough, pers. comm. 2025). Clark Pacific has also experienced an increase in frequency of water supply disruptions due to the aging groundwater wells (Winje, pers. comm. 2025). Potable water is provided through the use of five water softeners and five reverse osmosis systems to reduce high levels of total dissolved solids and nitrates. These systems require substantial maintenance to remain compliant and operational (Winje, pers. comm. 2025). The casing on a fire suppression well is currently deteriorating, and over the past five years, significant service work has been performed to keep it operational in case of a fire emergency (Winje, pers. comm. 2025).

In addition to the water supply issues, both facilities have experienced a decrease in the performance of the septic systems. Bayer’s septic system ages in range from 53 to 12 years old (Gough, pers. comm. 2025). The age has resulted in the need for substantial maintenance recently and a need for replacement to maintain existing capacity (Gough, pers. comm. 2025). The septic system at Clark Pacific operates beyond its design capacity because of fluctuating staff levels and the age of the system (Winje, pers. comm. 2025). Continual maintenance is required to

Page 437 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning, Population & Housing 4.9-6 Draft SEIR keep it operational, and without City’s existing utilities, increasing the capacity of the leach field and expanding the septic system would be required (Winje, pers. comm. 2025).

Table 4.9-1 demonstrates that the proposed project is consistent with LAFCo’s Out of Agency Review policies (Section 3.3 Standards of Evaluation) and Table 4.9-2 demonstrates that the proposed project is consistent with Agricultural Conservation Policies (Section 4.4 Review Criteria) of LAFCo. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to 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.

Table 4.9-1 LAFCo Out of Agency Service Review Policies - Standards of Evaluation Section Description Evaluation

3.3a Whether annexation is a
reasonable and preferable
alternative to LAFCo allowing
extended services outside the
agency’s jurisdictional
boundaries
Annexation of land is not a reasonable and preferrable alternative to extending utilities within one mile beyond the existing ULL because annexation would create disjointed isolated islands or corridors of City jurisdiction outside the existing City ULL, which is disfavored under Section 3.3c, and since the City does not wish to establish prezoning or take other actions that would lead to development outside of the ULL.

3.3b The growth inducing impacts of
any proposal
As noted in the Section 6.2, Growth Inducing, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce growth because utilities would be sized to meet the needs of existing commercial facilities; the utilities would only be extended to existing commercial facilities and there are relatively few existing businesses located within a mile of the existing ULL and even fewer businesses that would meet the definition of a commercial facility; there would be no land use designation, prezoning, or zoning change under the proposed project that would allow additional development; the existing land and commercial facilities would remain under the land use authority and within the jurisdiction of the County.

3.3c Whether the proposed extension
of services promotes logical
and orderly development of
areas within the SOI (i.e.
islands, strips and corridors are
disfavored
The proposed project would not result in the direct development of areas within the SOI or outside of the SOI because of the reasons identified above.

3.3d The agreed upon timetable and
stated expectation for
annexation to the agency
providing the requested service
The proposed project would not include annexation; therefore, this standard of review is not applicable.

3.3e The proposal’s consistency with
the policies and plans of all
affected agencies
Approval of the proposed project by the City Council is required to allow the people of the City of Woodland to vote on extending utilities past the existing ULL to existing commercial facilities, as allowed under Policy 2.A.1. Upon approval of the general plan amendment by the City Council and approval by voters in November of 2026, the proposed project would be consistent with the policies and plans of the City. The proposed project does not include or require any change to Yolo County General Plan land use designations or zoning.

3.3f The ability of the local agency
to provide service to the
proposed area without
detracting from current service
levels
As described in Section 4.11, Utilities, the City can provide services to Clark Pacific, Bayer, or other existing commercial facilities within one mile of the existing ULL without detracting from current service levels.

Page 438 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.9-7 Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning, Population & Housing Section Description Evaluation

3.3g Whether the proposal
contributes to the premature
conversion of agricultural land
or other open space land
The proposed project would not contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural land or other open space land because the proposed project is not changing land use designations or zoning and utility extensions would be underground such that surface activities like agricultural production could occur and/or would occur primarily within the rights-of-way of existing roads, where agricultural land is limited. As discussed in Section 4.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the proposed project would not result in a permanent conversion or loss of agricultural land.

3.3h Whether the proposal conflicts
with or undermines adopted
Municipal Service Review
determinations and/or
recommendations
The proposed project would not conflict or undermine the adopted Municipal Service Review determinations or recommendations associated with water services, recycled water services, or wastewater services in the 2018 Final Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of Woodland (LAFCo 2019) or in the recent LAFCo Municipal Services Review/Sphere of Influence Study (LAFCo 2025b)
Notes:

LAFCO = Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission; UUL = Urban Limit Line Table 4.9-2 LAFCo Agricultural Conservation Policies - Review Criteria Section Description Evaluation

4.4a Existing developed areas should be maintained and
renewed
Existing developed areas would be maintained under the
proposed project.

4.4b Vacant land within developed areas should be
developed before agricultural land is annexed for
non-agricultural purposes
The proposed project would not involve development or
annexation of vacant land; therefore, this review criteria is inapplicable.

4.4c Land substantially surrounded by existing agency
boundaries should be annexed before other lands
The proposed project does not involve annexation;
therefore, this review criteria is inapplicable.

4.4d Urban development should be restricted in
agricultural areas. For example, agricultural land
should not be annexed for non-agricultural purposes
when feasible alternatives exist
The proposed project would not involve urban
development and agricultural lands would not be annexed for non-agricultural purposes under the proposed project; therefore, this review criteria is inapplicable.

4.4e The continued productivity and viability of
agricultural land surrounding existing communities
should be promoted, by preventing the premature
conversion of agricultural land to other uses and, to
the extent feasible, minimizing conflicts between
agricultural and other land uses
The proposed project would not result in premature
conversion of agricultural land to other uses and would not conflict with existing agricultural land as discussed in Section 4.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources; the
proposed project would support the agricultural land
surrounding the Bayer facility.

4.4f Development near agricultural land should not
adversely affect the economic viability or constrain
the lawful, responsible practices of the agricultural
operations
The proposed project would not involve development and
would support the economic viability of the agricultural land surrounding the Bayer facility.

4.4g Where feasible, non-prime land should be annexed
before prime land
The proposed project would not annex land; therefore,
this review criteria is inapplicable.

4.4h A land’s current zoning, pre-zoning, or land use
designation is one of the factors the Commission will
consider in determining whether mitigation will be
required for the loss of agricultural land. A land’s
zoning, pre-zoning, or land use designation in the
city’s or County’s general plan does not
automatically exempt it from mitigation
The proposed project would not change existing land use designations or zoning and as discussed in Section 4.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the proposed project would not result in a permanent conversion or loss of
agricultural land.

Notes:

City = City of Woodland, County = Yolo County; LAFCO = Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission; UUL = Urban Limit Line

Page 439 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning, Population & Housing 4.9-8 Draft SEIR Impact 4.10-3: Impacts Related to Inducing Population Growth As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.10-26 through 4.10-30), the 2035 General Plan plans for population growth associated with future development of residential land uses and indirectly through future development of commercial, retail, office, and industrial uses throughout the City’s Planning Area. The General Plan Land Use Element encourages infill development – particularly in the Downtown Area and along mixed-use transportation corridors. The 2035 General Plan also anticipates development of currently undeveloped areas (SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3, as shown in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 3.7-1 (page 3-23]), but these areas are contiguous with the existing developed areas of the City. 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Table 4.10-7 (page 4.10-27) shows the existing and planned population growth through the General Plan planning horizon. The goals, policies, and implementation programs of the 2035 General Plan provide a framework to accommodate long-term growth and conservation within the City’s Planning Area. However, population growth could exceed the SACOG regional planning projections and such growth could result in indirect physical environmental impacts. Because the purpose of the 2035 General Plan itself is to provide for future development of new housing and employment opportunities, there is no feasible mitigation available. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that this impact is significant and unavoidable.

The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be designed with sufficient capacity only to serve each respective facility. Similarly, if other requests for extension of utility lines within one mile of the existing ULL were presented to the City for potential approval, though none are anticipated by the City at this time, such extensions would be sized to serve only the respective facility. Because the pipelines would be sized to serve only each individual facility, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth, and thus there would be no impact. Furthermore, the proposed project would not alter the anticipated development capacity for the City within the City’s planning horizon, and thereby would not result in a change in population growth. Given the above, impacts related to inducing population growth 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.

Impact 4.10-4: Displace Substantial Numbers of People or Existing Housing, Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.10-31 through 4.10-32), the 2035 General Plan does not propose converting established residential areas to a nonresidential land use or changing the land use or development character of existing developed residential areas. Rather, the 2035 General Plan includes policies and programs that facilitate additional residential development opportunities and a variety of housing types on undeveloped land, vacant land, underutilized parcels, and through infill and redevelopment within opportunity sites. Compliance with the 2035 General Plan policies such as 9.A.3, 9.A.10, 9.B.1, and 9.D.2 would ensure that new development would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that the impact related to displacement of people or existing housing would be less than significant.

The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be installed underground within agricultural cropland and industrial facilities, and therefore would not displace any people or housing. Because the land one mile from the existing ULL consists primarily of agricultural land and a few industrial facilities, if other utility line alignments within one mile of the existing ULL were presented to the City for potential approval, they also would

Page 440 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.9-9 Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning, Population & Housing not displace any people or housing. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and the impact attributable to the proposed project would not occur, given the location 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.

Page 441 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.10-1 Impact Analysis – Noise and Vibrations

4.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
Section 4.11, “Noise and Vibration,” of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR included a summary of noise fundamentals, a description of ambient noise conditions, a summary of applicable regulations related to noise and vibration, and an analysis of the potential impacts resulting from the implementation of the General Plan (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, 4.11-1 to 4.11-90). That information is hereby incorporated by reference.

4.10.1 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 4.11-3 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR). The regulatory setting describes the policies of the Yolo County General Plan and City of Woodland General Plan related to noise, as well as the noise ordinance of the City of Woodland (pages

4.11-31 to 4.11-36).

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed project area overlaps with unincorporated Yolo County and is therefore subject to the noise standards established in the Yolo County Code of Ordinances, Section 10-8.416 (Noise: General Standard). This section sets enforceable exterior noise limits for all properties in the County. During daytime hours, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., noise levels may not exceed 80 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) at property boundaries and may not exceed 60 dBA Leq at off-site residences or other noise-sensitive land uses.

During nighttime hours, from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., noise levels may not exceed 65 dBA Leq at property boundaries. In addition, noise levels at residential properties may not exceed 60 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), measured at the property line or occupied structures. These standards are intended to ensure compatibility between land uses and protect sensitive receptors throughout unincorporated Yolo County.

Compliance with these thresholds is required for all projects, including temporary construction activities.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.11-1 through 4.11-27), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable to the proposed project, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting provides fundamentals of environmental noise, existing noise- sensitive uses, existing noise sources, and existing ambient noise levels. Specifically, Section 4.11.2.2 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR describes noise generating activities in more rural parts of the Planning Area (including 25% of the Planning Area being located in unincorporated Yolo County). The primary sources of noise related to farming activity include tractors, harvesters, and crop-dusting aircraft (page 4.11-25). Typical noise levels from tractors, as measured at a distance of 50 feet, range from about 75 decibel (dB) to 95 dB with an average of 84 dB (page 4.11-25). These noise levels should be representative of noise levels from other wheeled and tracked farm equipment. Using a source level of 84 dB at 50 feet, and assuming nominal point-source at attenuation of 6 dB per doubling of distance, the distance to noise level contours are as shown in Table 4.11-5 (page 4.11-25). Some agricultural operations can occur during noise sensitive times of the day and involve

Page 442 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Noise and Vibrations 4.10-2 Draft SEIR substantial noise levels (page 4.11-27). The operation of heavy-duty equipment associated with agricultural activities typically results in noise levels of approximately 75 dB Leq at 50 feet (page 4.11-27). The closest distances between proposed noise-sensitive land uses and agricultural land uses would be approximately 50 to 200 feet in several locations (page 4.11-27). Based on the above noise levels and a typical noise-attenuation rate of 6.0 dB per doubling of distance, existing exterior noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors approximately 50 to 200 feet from existing agricultural activities could exceed 75 and 63 dB Leq, respectively (page 4.11-27). Sensitive receptors described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR include single family and multi-family residences (page 4.11-7). Exhibit 4.11-3 identifies existing noise sensitive uses in Woodland. Exhibit 4.11-4 identifies residential areas that represent noise sensitive uses, along with commercial, agricultural, industrial, and other uses that could be sources of noise.

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
At noted above and described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the propose project area is primarily comprised of existing agricultural lands and land uses or surrounded by existing agricultural lands. As described in Section 4.2 “Air Quality” of this SEIR 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 where a portion of the proposed sewer and water pipelines. These sensitive land uses (i.e., residents) are similar to those described in the environmental setting of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and are subjected to the types of noise generated uses described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

4.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would result in:
► generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
► generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels;

18The thresholds of significance for noise impacts used in this analysis reflect the current CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist.

While these thresholds have been updated in format and wording since adoption of the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP) EIR, they have not substantively changed. The analysis in this document continues to evaluate all temporary or permanent noise-related issues and potential ground-born vibration issues considered in the General Plan EIR for consistency and a comprehensive environmental review.

Page 443 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.10-3 Impact Analysis – Noise and Vibrations ► exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport or aircraft noise levels (for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport).

To improve the readability of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the City organized the checklist questions into four impacts addressing: (1) short-term, construction-related impacts; (2) long-term noise exposure impacts; (3) vibration-related impacts; and (4) airport compatibility related impacts. Therefore, the impacts and the numbering in the section below correspond to those impacts and numbers used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for ease of reference.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.11-1: Temporary Construction Noise
As described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, temporary construction noise near sensitive receptors would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: Implementation Program Noise 1 (Implementation Program 8.13 of the 2035 General Plan, Appendix A, City of Woodland 2017) because it would limit construction activities to designated timeframes, reduce idling times for equipment, and require all feasible strategies to reduce noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses within certain distances of construction (page 4.11- 50). However, for construction sites that are adjacent to noise-sensitive uses, there still could be a substantial temporary increase in noise levels that could lead to adverse noise-related impacts, particularly those areas that would facilitate infill development in the Downtown area and along major corridors (page 4.11-51). Therefore, impacts associated with exposing noise-sensitive land uses to short-term (construction) noise would remain significant and unavoidable (page 4.11-51).

Construction activities along the Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extension alignments would generate temporary, noise levels above ambient standards in proximity to sensitive receptors. Table 4.10-1 summarizes modeled maximum noise levels by proposed construction activity based on the standard equipment and rate of pipeline installation. At both sites, the loudest activities include grading, excavation, and sub-grade utility installation, with noise levels of approximately 87 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Other activities, such as paving, decommissioning existing infrastructure, and clearing, range between 72 and 85 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Given that nearby residential receptors would be located 50 to 100 feet from pipeline installation, modeled levels would remain in a similar range (attenuating by roughly 3 to 6 dB with doubling of distance). With respect to short-term increases above ambient noise levels, the proposed project area is located near Monitoring Location ST-08, where short-term ambient noise measurements ranged from 53 to 61 dBA Leq (as shown in Table 4.11-3 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR). Construction noise levels generated by the proposed project would exceed these existing ambient levels.

Page 444 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Noise and Vibrations 4.10-4 Draft SEIR Table 4.10-1 Modeled. Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet (Leq) by Activity Activity Bayer Clark Pacific Sensitive Receptors Present Groundwater Well decommissioning 72 72 No
Septic tank decommissioning 84 84 No
Retention pond decommissioning 82 -- No
Pipeline Installation: Grubbing & Land Clearing 82 82 Yes Pipeline Installation: Grading & Excavation 87 87 Yes
Pipeline Installation: Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 87 87 Yes Pipeline Installation: Paving 85 85 Yes
Table Note: Leq = Equivalent Sound Level
The Woodland General Plan establishes that non-transportation noise sources should not exceed 70 dBA during the day and 65 dBA at night at noise-sensitive receptors. Construction noise is inherently temporary and is typically exempt from these operational noise limits. Measured or modeled noise levels during extension of the utilities would exceed 70 dBA at nearby residences during daytime work, representing a potentially significant temporary noise impact. The City of Woodland Municipal Code restricts construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays, unless a permit for extended hours is granted. Yolo County Code Section 10-8.416 limits exterior noise levels to 80 dBA Leq during daytime hours (6:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m.) and 65 dBA Leq at night (6:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m.), with a maximum of 60 dBA Leq or CNEL at noise-sensitive land uses at any time. Compliance with these standards and required construction hours would minimize disruption to nearby sensitive receptors during nighttime periods. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: Implementation Program Noise 1 (Implementation Program 8.13 of the 2035 General Plan, Appendix A, City of Woodland 2017) from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, which includes standard noise-reducing practices, including equipment mufflers, stationary equipment placement away from property lines, and compliance with required work hours, would minimize construction noise exposure. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to 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 4.11-2: Operational Noise
Implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP would result in development throughout the Planning Area that would result in a permanent increase in ambient noise in some areas (pages 4.11-52 to 4.11-60). Long-term noise exposure impacts by establishing noise compatibility standards and requiring new development to include certain measures and strategies to achieve acceptable noise environments, wherever feasible (page 4.11-58).

Despite the implementation of policies in the 2035 General Plan and Mitigation Measures 4.11-2a and 4.11-2b the City cannot demonstrate that adverse operational noise exposure impacts could be avoided in all cases; therefore, impacts associated with permanent increases in ambient noise due to operations would be significant and unavoidable (page 4.11-60).

The proposed project involves temporary construction activities and would not include any new permanent facilities or features (e.g., stationary noise-generating equipment or mechanical systems) that would generate operational noise. The proposed project does not include any changes in land use designations or zoning that would result in a potential permanent change in existing ambient noise levels. As such, there would be no long-

Page 445 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.10-5 Impact Analysis – Noise and Vibrations term operational noise sources associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no operational noise impact. Impacts related to operational noise 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 reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is 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 4.11-3: Groundborne Vibration from Construction Activities The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that construction vibration may cause short-term annoyance at nearby receptors but would not result in structural damage when activities are conducted in accordance with standard construction practices and applicable regulations (page 4.11-60 to 4.11-63). Construction and demolition activities associated with future projects implemented have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used, the location of construction activities relative to sensitive receptors, and operations/activities involved (page 4.11-60). Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance (page

4.11-60). The type and density of soil can also affect the transmission of energy (page 4.11-60). Construction of could cause temporary, short-term disruptive vibration for locations near sensitive receptors (page 4.11-62).

Impacts associated with ground-born vibrations were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-3a, Implementation Program Vibration 1, and Mitigation Measure

4.11-3b, Implement Mitigation Measure 4.11-1.

The proposed project would involve typical construction equipment such as dozers, excavators, graders, pavers, and trucks, which can generate localized groundborne vibration. The nature and scale of construction activities are similar to those analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, except that there would be no pile driving associated with the proposed project. Thus vibration levels generated by the project would be lower than those described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The rate of construction would be approximately 400 to 500 feet of pipeline installation per day and would only occur during daytime hours, thus minimizing the duration of groundborn vibration within the construction areas and to daytime. Impacts related groundborn vibrations and the proposed project would not be significant and unavoidable as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR because of the nature of construction. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe vibration impacts than those previously addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.11-3: Excessive Airport Noise
There are several airports within the vicinity of the Planning Area evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Watts Woodland Airport is located approximately 3.1 miles west of the Woodland city limits. The Sacramento International Airport is situated roughly five miles northeast of the city limits, and Yolo County Airport is approximately five miles southwest of the city limits. As shown in Exhibit 4.8-3, there is a small portion of the eastern side of the Planning Area within the “Secondary Approach Area” defined in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) as having “locations where aircraft regularly fly below 3,000 feet. The most recent noise contour data for Watts Woodland Airport and Yolo County Airport, as provided in the Yolo County 2030 General Plan (2009a) and General Plan EIR (2009b), and noise contours for Sacramento International Airport from the Sacramento International Airport Master Plan (Sacramento County 2004) indicate the General Plan Planning Area is outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise contour for all three airports and impacts related to excessive airport noise would be less than significant.

Page 446 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Noise and Vibrations 4.10-6 Draft SEIR Because the proposed project would not include new facilities or land uses that would generate or attract substantial aviation activity, the proposed project would not result in new or increased exposure of people to excessive aircraft noise. Additionally, the proposed project does not include any changes in land use designations or zoning that would result in a potential conflict with airport land use plan noise contours or noise impacts.

Finally, the proposed project area is not within two miles of a public airport, or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and no new sensitive receptors would be introduced in these areas. As reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR the conclusion of impacts related to excessive airport noise 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 nor impacts related to severe noise from aircraft, airport, or airstrip operations that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Page 447 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.11-1 Impact Analysis – Utilities

4.11 UTILITIES
Section 4.14, “Utilities,” of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR included a description of conditions of public utilities, including water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste disposal in Woodland, and identified the related potential environmental impacts and development constraints upon implementation of the General Plan (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.14-1 to 4.14-56). That information is hereby incorporated by reference.

4.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting in the General Plan EIR was presented on pages 3.12-7 to 3.12-10 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. With respect to wastewater, water supply, stormwater, and solid waste, the 2035 General Plan includes policies that ensure adequate public facilities and services, including wastewater and wastewater infrastructure and treatment facilities. The regulatory setting is updated in the material that follows.

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
Since the preparation of the General Plan EIR, the City updated the Urban Water Management Plan in 2020, as Urban Water Management Plans are required to be updated every five years. Additional details regarding the Urban Water Management Plan are provided in the section below titled Updates to the Environmental Setting.

As noted in Section 4.8 of this SEIR, Hydrology and Water Quality, groundwater is managed under the adopted Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) (Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency 2022), which was approved by DWR in 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.14-1 to 4.14-15), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable the proposed project, and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Water Supply and Demand
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR describes the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency’s Regional Water Treatment Facility (RWTF) as the primary source of drinking water for Woodland residents and has a dedicated capacity of 18 million gallons a day (mgd) of supply from the water treatment plant and an additional 2,000,000 gallons of storage.19 The City operates three aquifer storage & recovery wells as a backup to the surface water supply and supplements surface water during times of high demand or reduced surface water availability. The

19 The Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency is a joint powers authority responsible for managing the surface water supply for the Cities of Wood land and Davis and UC Davis. It was formed in 2009 to construct and manage the Regional Water Treatment Facility (State Clearinghouse #2006042175). It owns and operates the existing surface water diversion, conveyance system, RWTF, and several existing aquifer storage and recovery wells that were developed after 2015 (State Clearinghouse #: 2015012062). The Agency serves more than two-thirds of the urban population of Yolo County, CA. It also serves UC Davis. In March of 2020, the Joint Powers agreement was amended to include Yolo County (Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, 2020).

Page 448 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Utilities 4.11-2 Draft SEIR
City further operates several groundwater wells to supplement was supply during a severe drought or emergency.

Table 4.14-2 summarizes the volumes of existing water supply for the City of Woodland (page 4.14-4). Based on the analysis in the 2015 UWMP that assumes a population of 75,000 in Woodland in 2035, the supply of surface water and groundwater meets water demand through 2035, as shown in Tables 4.14-4 and 4.14-5 (page 4.14-47).

Wastewater Treatment and Capacity
Woodland’s wastewater collection system conveys wastewater by gravity pipelines to the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) located east of the city along County Road 24, where it is treated and then discharged to a large, unimproved channel (page 4.14-7). Treated wastewater eventually drains to the Tule Canal on the east side of the Yolo Bypass (page 4.14-7, and Exhibit 4.14-2, City’s existing wastewater infrastructure system). The wastewater treatment capacity is approximately 10.4 mgd (page 4.14-7). Wastewater quality has historically had high electroconductivity (EC), but improved after switching to surface water (page 4.14-11). Expansion of the WPCF is required to be completed over the planning horizon of the General Plan. The current conditions, current capacity, and future capacity of the WPCF are shown in Table 5-21 of the General Plan and CAP EIR, which documents the average inflow of the WPCF is 5 MGD, with an existing capacity of 6.1 MGD and a proposed future capacity of 9.2 MGD (page 5-60).

Stormwater and Solid Waste
The existing setting of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR also describes the existing stormwater facilities and solid waste facilities that serve the City (pages 4.14-11 to 4.14-15). The storm drain system is a combination of gutters, ditches, and catch basins throughout the City (Exhibit 4.14-3). Solid waste disposal is provided by an agreement with Waste Management and solid waste is processed at the Yolo County Landfill, which has a 79- year disposal capacity (page 4.14-15).

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 2020 UWMP projects potable water demand to be 12,596 AFY in 2025 and 15,646 AFY in 2045 (Table 4-3, City of Woodland 2020). The water supply provided by the RWTF would have a reasonably available volume of 20,160 AFY in 2025 and 24,440 AFY in 2045 (Table 6-12, City of Woodland 2020). These more recent estimates indicate the City’s demand for potable water remains below the projected supply. This excess potable supply is estimated to be approximately 7,600 AF in 2025 and 8,800 AF in 2045.

The City has completed an effort to evaluate all the WPCF major assets and remaining service life and replacement schedule and there is no planned increase in WPCF treatment capacity (Busch, pers. comm. 2025a).

The WPCF has a permitted capacity of 10.2 MGD and a hydraulic capacity of 14.7 MGD and is currently operating in the range of 4-5 MGD (Busch, pers. comm. 2025a). The City will need additional solids handling treatment capacity, but the major infrastructure is already in place, and the City will install air piping and diffusers (Busch, pers. comm. 2025a). The City is collecting development fees for the addition of the 4th aeration ditch to the WPCF treatment system, which would increase solids handling capacity by installing air piping and a diffuse at an existing ditch (Busch, pers. comm. 2025a).

Please see Section 4.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” for updated information regarding groundwater contained in the Yolo Subbasin GSP.

Page 449 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.11-3 Impact Analysis – Utilities

4.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would:
► Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; ► Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; ► Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. ► Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or new or expanded entitlements are needed;
► Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
► Not be served by a landfill with a sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; or
► Violate federal, State, or local statutes and regulations related to solid waste 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 4.14-1: Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP would result in new residential, commercial, office, and industrial development in the Planning Area. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR analyzed the potential increase in volume of wastewater as a result of this growth and if the potential to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is associated with potential increases in wastewater effluent and a decrease in quality of wastewater effluent (pages 4.14-32 to 4.14-36). Expansion of the WPCF is required to be completed over the planning horizon of the General Plan. The current conditions, current capacity, and future capacity of the WPCF are shown in Table 5-21 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 5-60). The WPCF is permitted to treat 10.4 MGD and has a total capacity of approximately 14.7 MGD. At the time of the preparation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the City was increasing the solids capacity of the

Page 450 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Utilities 4.11-4 Draft SEIR
WPCF to serve a residential population20 of 70,000 (13,300 lb./day) (pages 4.14-1 and 4.14-50). In addition, with future conversion of a fourth oxidation ditch to biological treatment technology, the WPCF can treat up to 19,900 lb./day, which could serve approximately 105,000 residents (page 4.14-50). With additional upgrades and modifications to the plant the WPCF could reach its practical limit of 26,000 lb./day (page 4.14-50). Current daily inflows are approximately 4.2 MGD (Busch pers. comm. 2025b). This is generally consistent with the information provided in Table 5-21 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, which presented an average inflow of 5 MGD(Busch pers. comm. 2025b). The upgrades to the WPCF are improving the quality of treated wastewater.

The quality of treated wastewater would further improve through the continued use of the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project (DWWSP) by providing a water supply with low EC content (page 4.14-33). The 2035 General Plan includes policies that ensure adequate public facilities and services, including wastewater infrastructure and treatment facilities, including:
► General Plan Goal 5.H ensures that wastewater treatment facilities are provided in a timely fashion to serve existing and future needs
► General Plan Policies 5.F.1, 5.H.1 and 4.C.10 ensure that there would be sufficient public services, including wastewater treatment facility capacity, to serve existing and new development in Woodland ► General Plan Policies 5.F.2, 5.F.3, 5.F.4, and 5.F.5 address fiscal and funding impacts of new development to ensure there is funding available to support public facilities and services ► General Plan Policies 5.H.2, 5.H.3, 5.H.4, and 5.H.5 address the need to plan for wastewater needs by requiring updates to the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, consideration of the wastewater needs in amendments to the adopted General Plan, active planning for maintenance and repairs, and evaluation and updates to the Capital Improvement Program
► General Plan Policy 5.H.9 requires a reduction in wastewater system demand ► General Plan Police 5.H.10 requires continuation of the industrial pretreatment program.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined the impact regarding exceeding wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable regional water quality control Board would be less than significant.

The proposed project would result in a slight increase in the wastewater effluent treated by the City (see Impact

4.14-5, Wastewater Treatment Capacity Impacts). Bayer and Clark Pacific, and any other existing commercial business within one mile of the existing ULL would be required to comply with existing local, state, and federal regulations for processed wastewater. Furthermore, the City would continue to treat the wastewater from existing commercial facilities at the WPCF, consistent with existing capacity, planned maintenance and upgrades, and local state and federal regulations (see Impact 4.9-1: Violate Water Quality Standards, in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality). Finally, use of City water supply would improve the quality of the wastewater from Bayer and Clark Pacific because of the lower EC as a result of the DWWSP. While there are very few other existing commercial facilities within one mile of the ULL that could benefit from the extension of water and sewer service, if this was to occur, and if the subject facilities discontinued the use of groundwater, this could additionally improve water supply quality and the quality of wastewater. Therefore, as with the 2035 General Plan

20 Residential population is typically used as a proxy to estimate wastewater treatment capacities for non-residential uses.

Page 451 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.11-5 Impact Analysis – Utilities
and CAP, the proposed amendments to the General Plan would not result in exceeding wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable regional water quality control Board. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to 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 4.14-2: Require or Result in the Construction of New Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Effects As discussed in Impact 4.14-1 and Impact 4.14-4, implementation of the General Plan would accommodate future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses in the Planning Area, resulting in additional residents and workers, which would increase the demand for potable water and wastewater services (page 4.14-37 and 4.14-38).

Based on the supply of surface water and groundwater, the City is expected to successfully meet water demand through 2035 (Table 4.14-3). As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the placement of wastewater infrastructure needed for planned development is considered a component of the General Plan and secondary impacts on different environmental resources are addressed in respective 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR sections (page 4.14-38). Multiple goals and policies in the General Plan would reduce water use and ensure water system facilities are provided:
► Goal 5.G is to provide adequate potable water supply and delivery system to meet the needs of the city. • Policy 5.G.1 directs the City to provide an adequate water supply • Policy 5.G.3 requires connection to the City’s water system, unless the City has determined a connection to the City’s potable water system would be infeasible
• Policy 5.G.2 requires preparation of a Water Supply Assessment for significant projects. • Policy 5.G.4 requires periodic updates to the UWMP and the Groundwater Management Plan and is implemented by Implementation Program 5.6
• Policy 5.G.6 requires that water production and supply facilities are in place as a condition of development approval, and is implemented by Implementation Program 5.8 • Policy 5.G.8 and Implementation Program 5.9 supports updates to the Capital Improvement Program to ensure delivery of necessary water infrastructure
• Policies 5.G.5, 5.G.7, 5.G.9, and 7.A.5 reduce the demand on potable water production and delivery systems by requiring the expansion of the recycled water system, maintenance of existing facilities, coordination with regional partners to improve water efficiency and conservation, and updated landscaping regulations
• Policy 7.A.1 requires the City to continue to cooperate with partners on the Surface Water Project to maintain its surface water supply
• Policy 7.A.5 encourages efficient use of water in landscaping. The CAP sets an Objective to support reduced water demand, which is supported by a number of Actions.

Page 452 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Utilities 4.11-6 Draft SEIR
Given the evaluation summarized above and in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, impacts would be less than significant (page 4.14-42)
Based on the analysis contained Impacts 4.14-1, 4.14-4, and 4.14-5 there is sufficient water supply and wastewater treatment capacity to serve Clark Pacific and Bayer. Therefore, the City would not need to construct new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Similar to the analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this SEIR evaluates potential secondary environmental effects on multiple resources of the construction and operation of the new utility pipelines that would be required under the proposed project to convey water and wastewater. As described in Chapter 3, the City has discretion as to whether to extend utility services to other existing commercial facilities within one mile of the existing ULL, and the discretion would be based on the City’s projected volume of water supply and the City’s water infrastructure, consistent with General Plan Policy

5.G.3, which requires the City to determine if a connection to the City’s potable water system would be infeasible.

The discretion would also be based on the volume of wastewater generated and the City’s wastewater treatment infrastructure, consistent with General Plan Goal 5.H, which requires the City ensures that wastewater treatment facilities are provided in a timely fashion to serve existing and future needs. Furthermore, a utility service agreement would be required, obligating the City to deliver an agreed upon amount/volume of utility services.

The utility services agreement would not be executed without the City confirming the service could be provided within the existing water supply and wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, as concluded in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact 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 nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.14-3: Impacts Related to Construction or Expansion of Stormwater Facilities As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.14-42 through 4.14-46), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which would in turn increase the amount of stormwater runoff. In the new growth areas (SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3), new infrastructure would be needed to accommodate infiltration of stormwater or to convey stormwater to detention basins to prevent flooding. Infill development within the ULL would also increase the amount of stormwater runoff. In addition, the Browns Corner and West Street areas require new or expanded stormwater drainage infrastructure to address ongoing street flooding from excess stormwater runoff. Construction of new or expanded stormwater infrastructure could have adverse effects on the physical environment; however, many of the required improvements would occur within public road rights-of-way and other already disturbed areas within the development footprint of the existing ULL. Within the new growth areas (SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3), new stormwater infrastructure would be installed underground, but construction activities could have adverse environmental impacts. The City has a Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan and requires site-specific operational stormwater compliance with its Post-Construction Standards Plan to reduce potential environmental impacts. Site-specific operational compliance with the City’s stormwater program under the NPDES General Permit for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4 Permit) includes requirements for Low Impact Development and hydromodification management that would include facilities designed to reduce peak stormwater flows. 2035 General Plan Policies 5.I.1 through 5.I.8 would reduce the demand for stormwater facilities and require construction of appropriate stormwater systems. Physical environmental impacts associated with construction of stormwater infrastructure are evaluated throughout all environmental topic areas as part of the overall

Page 453 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.11-7 Impact Analysis – Utilities
development that could occur under the 2035 General Plan. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or expansion of stormwater facilities beyond that addressed in detail throughout the environmental topic-specific sections of the EIR and that the impact was considered less than significant.

The proposed project would not result in the creation of any new impervious surfaces and therefore would not increase stormwater runoff. The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific sewer and water pipelines, and any other sewer or water pipelines that may be proposed within one mile of the existing ULL, would be installed underground.

The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing stormwater facilities, and thus there would be no impact. 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 4.14-4: Water Supply Impacts.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concludes that the potable water supply exceeds demand under the development anticipated by the General Plan during normal water years, single dry years and multiple dry years (page 4.14-49). The potable water demand and supply in a single dry year, meaning a year with the lowest supply available, is shown in Table 4.14-4, which demonstrates that supply exceeds demand between 1,773 AFY and 5,589 AFY depending on the year of the single dry year (page 4.14-47). As shown in Table 4.14-5, Woodland’s water supply is sufficient to meet demand over multiple dry years, as well (page 4.14-47). Furthermore, as identified in Impact 4.14-2, the 2035 General Plan includes goals and policies, and implementation programs, requiring the promotion of water conservation to reduce impacts and the protection of water quality: Goal 7.A protects the qualities and quantities of water resources; Policy 7.4.A supports watershed protection efforts; and, Policies 7.A.2 and 7.A.4 require strategic groundwater management and use of best management practices to protect water quality and are supported by Implementation Program 7.1 (page 4.14-49). The analysis in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR demonstrates there is sufficient water supply to meet the water needed for the growth forecasted in the General Plan (page 4.14-49). Impacts regarding water supply would be less than significant (page 4.14-49).

Table 4.11-1 shows the estimated current and estimated annual potable water use of Bayer and Clark Pacific.

Table 4.11-1 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
Using the more recent 2020 UWMP information, the current and future potable water demand of these two commercial facilities is less than 1% of the projected 2025 City potable water demand of 12,596 AFY and of the projected 2045 City potable water demand of 15,646 (Table 4-3, City of Woodland 2020 and Table 6-12, City of Woodland 2020). The current and future potable water demand of these two commercial facilities is less than 1% of the reasonable available volume of potable water supplied of 20,160 AFY in 2025 and 24,440 AFY in 2045 (Table 6-12, City of Woodland 2020). The current and future water demand of these two commercial facilities are also less than 1% of the projected 2025 and 2045 excess water supply for the City. The City’s potable water demand has typically been lower than that reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (i.e., calendar year

Page 454 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Utilities 4.11-8 Draft SEIR
2023 potable water demand was 9,091 AF and 10,043 AF in 2024) and has seen a slight decline in overall potable water demand even with population growth (Busch pers. comm. 2025b). The City projects the demand for potable water would continue to remain below the expected supply, as documented in the 2020 UWMP. Given the very small amount of potable water needed by each business and the excess water supply of the City, there is sufficient current and future potable water supply to meet the current and potential future demand of each business. It is speculative to quantify any future volume of potable water other existing commercial facilities within one mile of the existing ULL may receive from the City because it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would make the business decision to incur the cost to extend existing potable water services to their location and because the volume of water that a commercial facility uses is specific to their processes and needs. However, as described in Chapter 3, the City has discretion as to whether to extend services and their discretion would be based on the City’s projected volume of water supply, consistent with General Plan Policy 5.G.3, which requires the City to determine if a connection to the City’s potable water system would be infeasible. Furthermore, a utility service agreement would be required, obligating the City to deliver an agreed upon amount/volume of water. The utility service agreement would not be executed without the City confirming water could be provided within the existing water supply. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed existing or future water. Therefore, as concluded in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, this impact 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 nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.14-5: Wastewater Treatment Capacity Impacts
Implementation of the 2035 General Plan would accommodate new residential, commercial, office, and industrial development in the Planning Area, which would increase the demand for wastewater treatment (page 4.14-49).

The projected future hydraulic capacity of the WPCF is about 9.2 mgd for average wastewater flows, which could serve up to 105,000 residents. As detailed in Appendix A to the 2035 General Plan, the City anticipates a maximum of 7,000 new dwelling units under the 2035 General Plan. If each of those dwelling units accommodated the current average household size of 2.71, the maximum buildout could accommodate an additional 19,000 new residents, which, when added to the existing population of approximately 62,000 residents, would not approach the projected hydraulic capacity of the WPCF. There is sufficient hydraulic capacity to serve accommodate projected growth (4.14-40). In addition, the City evaluated projects that would increase the solid capacity and additional improvements to the WPCF (page 4.14-50). The policies in the 2035 General Plan require adequate public facilities and services for all new and existing development in the Planning Area, including wastewater treatment facilities (page 4.14-51). The upgrades in conjunction with the General Plan policies would accommodate additional future growth in the Planning Area City over the planning horizon (page 4.14-51). The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that this impact would be less than significant.

Woodland’s current population as of January 2025 is 61,623 (California Department of Finance 2025). The City has continued to plan for wastewater infrastructure since the preparation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR to accommodate the growth forecasted in the General Plan. The recent master planning effort of the WPCF includes a comprehensive evaluation of the WPCF’s various assets, an assessment of improvements needed to continue providing treatment for Woodland’s growing population, and a prognosis of current regulations and permits and future effects on the City’s wastewater treatment plant. Phase I was completed in Spring 2022 and Phase II was completed in 2024. Increases in WPCF capacity are not expected as a result of the master facility planning efforts (Busch pers. comm. 2025a). Bayer generates approximately 5,080 GPD, of wastewater and Clark

Page 455 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.11-9 Impact Analysis – Utilities
Pacific generates approximately 4,333 GPD of wastewater. Bayer anticipates future wastewater generation to be approximately 5,932 GPD and Clark Pacific anticipates no change in future wastewater generation. There is sufficient permitted unused capacity because the wastewater generation of each business is less than 1% of the available permitted unused capacity of the WPCF. Similar to water supply evaluated under Impact 4.14-4, it is speculative to quantify any future volume of wastewater that might be generated by other existing commercial facilities within one mile of the existing ULL because it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would make the business decision to incur the cost to extend existing wastewater services to their location and the wastewater generated by an individual commercial facility is specific to their business use and processes.

However, as described in Chapter 3, the City has discretion as to whether to extend services and their discretion would be based on the projected volume of wastewater that would need to be treated. Furthermore, a utility service agreement would be required, obligating the City to deliver adequate wastewater services, which would not be executed without the City confirming wastewater services could be provided within the existing wastewater treatment capacity. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that the impact related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. 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 4.14-6: Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Impacts
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.14-51 through 4.14-55), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan would result in an increase in the total population and the number of jobs, thereby increasing the amount of solid waste that would be generated. Solid waste in Woodland that is not diverted is hauled to the Yolo County Central Landfill. The Yolo County Central Landfill had a remaining municipal solid waste disposal capacity of 33,140,373 cubic yards as of July 2022 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle] 2022). Based on historical rates of disposal and projected population, the Central Landfill is expected to reach capacity in the year 2124 (CalRecycle 2022). 2035 General Plan Policies 5.J.1 through 5.J.7 promote the reduction of solid waste, encourage recycling facilities, and require that all development complies with the City of Woodland Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The impact is less than significant.

13.40 that regulates recycling of construction and demolition debris. Because the proposed project consists of underground utility lines, project operation would have no effect on landfill capacity. Any other utility pipelines that may be installed within one mile of the existing ULL would be subject to the same conditions as above.

Because the Yolo County Central Landfill had a remaining municipal solid waste disposal capacity of 33,140,373 cubic yards, the landfill has sufficient capacity to accept construction debris from the proposed project. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that the impact related to solid waste disposal capacity would be less than

Page 456 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Utilities 4.11-10 Draft SEIR
significant. 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 4.14-7: Compliance with Federal, State and Local Statutes and Regulations related to Solid Waste As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.14-55 through 4.14-56), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan would result in would result in future residential, commercial, and industrial land uses in the City’s Planning Area, resulting in an increased number of residents and workers. Development and growth would increase the amount of solid waste. CalRecycle estimated that Woodland had a 2023 solid-waste disposal generation rate of 12.1 pounds per employee per day, and an adult population generation rate of 5.5 pounds per person per day (CalRecycle 2023). The City of Woodland Municipal Code (Chapter 13.36) regulates solid waste disposal services and recyclable materials, and Chapter 13.40 regulates recycling of construction and demolition debris. The CALGreen Code requires that 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing be reused or recycled, and requires that at least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste be diverted from landfills. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires local agencies to implement source reduction, recycling, and composting that would result in a minimum of 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills, thereby extending the life of landfills. Assembly Bill 341 subsequently established that at least 75 percent of the solid waste that is generated must be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. 2035 General Plan Policies 5.J.1 through 5.J.7 promote the reduction of solid waste, encourage recycling facilities, and require that all development complies with the City of Woodland Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that the impact related to compliance with solid waste regulations would be less than significant.

Project-related construction would result in site clearing and generation of various construction-related waste, including asphalt pavement, cardboard, wood pallets, scrap metal, and common trash. Most of the soil that is excavated for utility pipeline installation would be reused to backfill the utility line trenches. The remaining soil would be stockpiled for agricultural reuse. The construction contractor and the project applicant would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code, which requires that at least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste be diverted from landfills, along with City of Woodland Municipal Code Chapter 13.40 that regulates recycling of construction and demolition debris. Because the proposed project consists of underground utility lines, project operation would not generate solid waste. Any other utility pipelines that may be installed within one mile of the existing ULL would be subject to the same conditions as above. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded that the impact related to compliance with solid waste regulations would be less than significant. 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.

Page 457 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 5-1 Alternatives Analysis
5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
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.

5.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As noted in Chapter 5 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, “Alternatives,” 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.

5.1.1 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.

5.1.2 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. They include:

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

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

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

Page 458 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Alternatives Analysis 5-2 Draft SEIR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Quality Education: Foster quality educational and enrichment opportunities.

The General Plan amendment is consistent with the Project Objectives that were include in the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

5.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. The proposed project 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 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR are needed.

Page 459 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-1 Other CEQA Considerations
6 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter presents discussions of additional topics required by CEQA: cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes.

6.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of all cumulatively considerable impacts resulting from a proposed project. Section 15355 defines a cumulative impact as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts can originate from one project or from separate projects. Cumulative impacts result when two or more impacts of a project combine and increase the severity or significance of either impact. Cumulative impacts can also be created when impacts from separate projects combine to make a compound impact that is more severe than the impacts would have been had the projects occurred in isolation.

Pursuant to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, “(t)he discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone.” According to State guidance, the discussion in this section is guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness and focuses on the cumulative impacts to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.

The cumulative analysis examines impacts of a proposed project taken together with past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts. The analysis in this section includes:
► a determination of whether the long-term impacts of all related past, present, and future plans and projects would cause a cumulatively significant impact; and
► a determination as to whether implementation of the proposed project would have a “cumulatively considerable” contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

The two above determinations are evaluated throughout the Cumulative Effects analysis using two key terms (1) Cumulative Context and (2) Cumulative Impact. These terms are defined below.

6.1.1 CUMULATIVE CONTEXT
The cumulative context represents past, present, and probable future projects that may have impacts to which a proposed project would contribute. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and this SEIR analysis, uses the plan method based on regional growth projections, which include the City and the County (page 6-2 to 6-3 and Exhibits 6-1 and 6-2) to establish the cumulative context. Now that the 2035 General Plan has been adopted and is being implemented by the City, the development occurring under the General Plan is part of the cumulative context and the cumulative scenario that was previously evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is part of the overall cumulative context for this SEIR. The cumulative scenario evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR considered buildout of the Planning Area for the City (page 6-3 to 6-9), which is part of the cumulative context for this SEIR analysis. The cumulative context for the County remains as described in the 2035 General Plan EIR and CAP, based on growth projections for the area. Using the plan method is appropriate for a General

Page 460 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-2 Draft SEIR
Plan and General Plan amendment given general plans support the planning and development of the City and County. The cumulative context does not include the proposed project (i.e., the proposed amendment to the General Plan and the proposed extension of utilities to Bayer or Clark Pacific).

In addition to planned method described above, a review of the discretionary actions of the County was conducted to determine if commercial facilities are planned within one mile of the existing ULL (Yolo County. n.d). Only one project, Harlan Ranch cell phone tower project for installation of a 140-foot-tall monopole cell tower was identified. The County released a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration on July 2, 2025 for this project (Yolo County 2025a). Given there were no significant impacts or impacts that needed mitigation in the Negative Declaration, and the fact that it would result in highly limited spatially and temporally construction impacts, this project would not contribute to the types impacts for which the proposed project was evaluated and this project combined with the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on resources evaluated for the proposed project in this SEIR. Therefore, the Harlan Ranch cell phone tower project is not considered further as part of the cumulative context.

The cumulative context also includes consideration of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects related to either Clark Pacific or Bayer. The following past projects were identified with respect to Clark Pacific. ► On April 1, 2008, the County certified an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (SCH #2008022124) for the Clark Pacific Project (Zone File 2007- 078), which included approval of a General Plan Amendment of 90 acres from AG to IN, a Rezone from Agricultural General (A-1) to Heavy Industrial (M-2), and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requesting a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use and a Development Agreement (Doc. No. 2008-0012768). ► On July 24, 2012, the County certified the Clark Pacific Expansion Project EIR (SCH# 2011092080), which included the expansion of the Clark Pacific facility to the west, resulting in its existing size and form (Zone File 2011-0029). The Clark Pacific Expansion Project included a Rezone of 58.6 acres from A-1 to M-2, 20 acres from A-1 to Open Space (OS), and six acres from M-2 to OS, consistent with the land use designations in the General Plan. The Clark Pacific Expansion Project also required approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, an amendment to the existing Development Agreement (Doc. No. 2012- 0028850), and the termination of components of the previously approved CUP, such as the operation hours. ► On March 28, 2025, the County released an NOP/IS for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project (ZF #2023- 0005), which would include the expansion of the adjacent existing Clark Pacific facility and subdivision of the site into seven parcels ranging in size from 10.01 to 13.25 acres (Yolo County 2025b). Although the proposed Clark Pacific expansion does not include specific development plans at this time, the future facilities are anticipated to be developed similar to the existing Clark Pacific facility (Yolo County 2025b).

Additionally, the proposed project would include associated internal roadway improvements, utility improvements, and landscaping (Yolo County 2025b). The project would require County approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and a Tentative Subdivision Map. Utilities development of each of the seven proposed parcels would include installation of a private well to establish water service. Installation of new private wells is subject to the Yolo County Water Well Program and review and approval by the Yolo County Environmental Health Division (Yolo County 2025b). With respect to wastewater disposal services, development of each of the seven proposed parcels would include installation of a leach field (Yolo County

Page 461 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-3 Other CEQA Considerations
2025b). Installation of new septic systems is subject to the Yolo County Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Program and review and approval by Yolo County Environmental Health Division (Yolo County 2025b).

Given the first two projects were to align existing uses with the General Plan and allow uses that were already existing, these projects would not contribute to the types impacts for which the proposed project was evaluated.

Therefore, these two projects are not further considered in the cumulative context. However, the Clark Pacific Expansion Project has the potential to result in similar types of impacts as the proposed project that when viewed together may be cumulative. Thus, this project is discussed further below in the cumulative context.

The following past projects were identified with respect to Bayer. ► Discretionary approvals have been approved by the County over the years to allow for agricultural research uses, including office and laboratory buildings, conference center, greenhouses, warehouses, and other agricultural structures at the Bayer location.
► On October 8, 2009, the County approved a Use Permit Modification and adopted a Negative Declaration (SCH # 1999082018) on October 8, 2009, to allow for the addition of approximately 168,000 square feet of building area to the agricultural research facility.
► On May 11, 2022, the County filed a Notice of Determination for an IS/MND for the Bayer Woodland Solar Farm project, which included a use permit to construct and operate a 10.8 acre solar energy system on a 39- acre agricultural parcel (SCH # 2022030767).

The first two projects allowed for use and development within the existing footprint of the Bayer facilities. Given there were no significant impacts or impacts that needed mitigation as part of the Negative Declaration, and the fact that these projects resulted primarily in spatially and temporally limited construction impacts, these projects combined with the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on resources and are not considered further as part of the cumulative context. The Bayer Woodland Solar Farm Project IS/MND concluded that the project would have no significant cumulative impacts (Yolo County 2022). Therefore, this project is not considered further as part of the cumulative context.

6.1.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The cumulative impact for the proposed project is the incremental contribution of potential impacts of proposed project on resources when considering the above-described cumulative context. The proposed project does not include land use or zoning designation changes. The proposed project would only be applicable to existing commercial facilities located within one mile of the existing ULL in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026.

The proposed project includes the extension of existing utilities from the City to existing Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities and other potential existing commercial facilities. However, as noted in Section 3.3.2 it is unknown which businesses and the location of potential utility extension alignments and therefore the cumulative analysis does not speculate regarding exact locations.

Page 462 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-4 Draft SEIR

6.1.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

CUMULATIVE CONTEXT
Development forecast under SACOG’s MTP/SCS would include land use changes and transportation projects that could convert several thousand acres of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses (page 6-13). Even though the MTP/SCS makes efforts to create a compact land use pattern, its development footprint has the potential to conflict with several thousand acres of agricultural zoning, and hundreds of acres of farmland under active Williamson Act contracts (page 6-13). The SACOG MTP/SCS EIR includes a recommendation to reduce this regional impact by requiring permanent protection of in-kind farmland at a 1:1 ratio. In addition, by focusing on providing small-lot and attached housing, maximizing infill and redevelopment opportunities, and planning for communities with a mix of uses, the proposed MTP/SCS is intended to help facilitate a relatively more compact land use pattern, reducing impacts on agricultural land (page 6-13). Consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, development that results in permanent conversion of Important Farmland as a result of implementation of the 2035 General Plan is 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 cumulative loss of Prime Farmland and no other feasible mitigation measures are available; therefore, this impact would be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. As noted in the NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project, that project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts on agricultural resources (Yolo County 2025b). Cumulative impacts could occur because of the permanent conversion of Important Farmland because of the expansion. As with the implementation of the 2035 General Plan, mitigation measures would be required if permanent conversion occurred; however, these measures would not replace the permanently converted farmland therefore resulting in a cumulative impact. The permanent conversion of Important Farmland in the region, the County, and within the Planning Area of the City, as well as conflicts with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts, constitutes a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT
Implementing the proposed project would not permanently convert Prime Farmland or Unique Farmland as a result of the installation of utility lines. The proposed project would result in the temporary disturbance of approximately 0.006 percent of the total Prime Farmland countywide and the Prime Farmland for the Bayer utility extension alignment is owned by Bayer as part of its vegetable crop research and development center in Woodland. Because most of the land within one mile outside of the ULL is classified by the FMMP and under CEQA as Important Farmland, extension of any other utility lines that could be requested would also result in the temporary disturbance of Important Farmland. The temporary disturbance would not contribute to the significant cumulative impact on Important Farmland because permanent conversion would not occur. As a result, cumulative impacts on Important Farmland would be less than significant. The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be installed underground, and the existing agricultural and industrial 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 line 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

Page 463 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-5 Other CEQA Considerations
the affected parcels and the Williamson Act status would not be affected. Finally, since the utility pipelines would be sized to serve only each respective facility, there would be no potential to cause additional conversion of surrounding agricultural land. Thus, there would be no cumulative impact related to conflicts with agricultural zoning, Williamson Act contracts, or indirect conversion of agricultural land.

6.1.4 AIR QUALITY
The YSAQMD significance thresholds are intended to be used to determine whether or not the subject project would have a cumulatively considerable impact. The YSAQMD also uses its significance thresholds as a proxy for determining whether projects are accommodated within in the applicable air quality plan.

CUMULATIVE CONTEXT
The geographic scope for air quality consists of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 6-14 through 6-18) analyzed cumulative impacts to air quality. The proposed project area is outside of the planning area for the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, but within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.

By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact (page 6-14). The implementation of plans and projects within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin would contribute to this impact on a cumulative basis (page 6-14). The emissions of an individual project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development projects (page 6-14). Construction and operation of new development within the City and the County that is planned for via their General Plans and growth projections would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions that would contribute to cumulative air quality impacts (page 6-14). The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the air basin, and this regional impact is a significant cumulative impact (page 6-14). Existing TAC sources include mobile sources, stationary sources, and areawide sources, which all cumulatively contribute to the existing TAC concentrations and the associated health risk (page 6-15). As noted in the NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project, that project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts on air quality (Yolo County 2025b). Cumulative impacts could occur because of the construction and operation of the expansion. Similar to the implementation of the 2035 General Plan and other development projects in the County these emissions would contribute to cumulative air quality impacts.

Odor impacts are generally localized and do not combine with odor impacts in nearby jurisdictions to increase the severity of impacts (page 6-18). Because odor emissions from various land uses differ in nature, these emissions would not cumulatively contribute to each other to expose residents (page 6-18). There is no significant cumulative impact (page 6-18).

CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The proposed project would not result in either City or County land use or zoning changes and thus would not result in development that has not already been planned for by the City or County. Proposed utility extensions would occur to serve existing commercial facilities under the proposed project. The extension of utilities, as represented by such to Bayer and Clark Pacific, as part of the proposed project would temporarily generate criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant (i.e., diesel particulate matter) emissions. However, emissions would be below applicable thresholds (Table 4.2-1, Table 4.2-2 and Table 4.2-3), and resultant diesel particulate matter would be minimal, disperse quickly with distance from equipment and vehicle activity, and occur for a limited duration in proximity to any individual receptor due to the linear nature of utility construction. Furthermore, there

Page 464 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-6 Draft SEIR
would be no operational emissions, and there would be no odors beyond that associated with limited temporary construction exhaust emissions. In developing its recommended thresholds of significance, YSAQMD considers levels at which project emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The project-level criteria pollutant thresholds therefore represent the maximum emissions the project may generate before contributing to a cumulative impact on regional air quality. Emissions below these thresholds, such as the proposed project (Table

4.2-1, Table 4.2-2 and Table 4.2-3), are considered to be not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As a result, the cumulative impact for air quality emissions, toxic air contaminants, and other emissions, such as those leading to odors, is less than significant.

6.1.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CUMULATIVE CONTEXT
Past and present actions by humans have substantially altered biological resources in the Central Valley region of California and the County, specifically, compared to historical conditions (page 6-18). Among the most important of these past actions have been conversion of natural vegetation and habitats to agricultural and developed land uses; flood control projects; and the introduction of nonnative species, which, in many cases, have competed with, preyed upon, and degraded habitat for native species (page 6-18). Overall, impacts on the following species have been cumulatively considerable and significant given the loss and degradation of habitat and the special-status of these species associated with the broader development of the Central Valley and County: palmate-bracted bird’s beak, alkali prairie and sink, vernal pools and vernal pool species, giant garter snake, Swainson’s Hawk (pages 6- 19 to 6-24). The NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project did not identify the project having the potential to result in cumulative impacts on biological resources and specifically identified multiple mitigation measures to reduce, avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on biological resources (Yolo County 2025b). Thus it is not anticipated this project would contribute to the cumulative context regarding biological resources.

Implementation of the 2035 General Plan includes the preservation of occurrences of palmate-bracted bird’s beak in the Planning Area; preservation of the known remaining alkali prairie/sink habitat and the and the majority of known occurrences of these special-status plant species – alkali milk-vetch, brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, and Heckard’s peppergrass; preservation of the known remaining vernal pool habitat in the Planning Area; and policies and commitments to implement the Yolo HCP/NCCP resulting in the establishment of habitat for giant garter snake and Swainson’s Hawk (pages 6-19 to 6-24). These activities contribute to reducing the loss and adverse effects on biological resources associated with the 2035 General Plan (pages 6-19 to 6-24).

CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The proposed project would not develop land or change land use or zoning such that the loss of habitat for special status species would occur. The proposed project would continue to implement the policies and goals of the general plan and would not develop or otherwise alter lands that have been preserved for special status species.

The proposed project has incorporated multiple mitigation measures from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the Yolo HCP/NCCP, and mitigation measures consistent with both planning documents, such that impacts on habitat and special-status species would be reduced to less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project will be implemented in accordance with the Yolo HCP/NCCP avoidance and minimization measures. Through payment of Yolo HCP/NCCP fees or equivalent mitigation, the proposed project would contribute to the Yolo HCP/NCCP’s conservation strategy, thereby benefiting the covered species evaluated in this SEIR. Therefore,

Page 465 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-7 Other CEQA Considerations
with incorporation of Yolo HCP/NCCP fees or equivalent mitigation and adherence to other Yolo HCP/NCCP avoidance and minimization measures, the proposed project’s individual impacts and its contribution to cumulative impacts to covered species under the HCP/NCCP are less than significant (i.e., palmated-bracted bird’s beak, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, northwestern pond turtle, giant garter snake, Swainson’s Hawk, White-tailed kite, Western burrowing owl, least Bell’s vireo, and Tricolored blackbird). Incorporation of mitigation measures for construction related impacts on non-covered species (i.e., Monarch butterfly, Crotch’s bumble bee, and pallid bat) would reduce, avoid, or minimize construction related impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on biological resources. As a result, the cumulative impact for biological resources is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

6.1.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

CUMULATIVE CONTEXT
Cultural resources are degraded or destroyed as cumulative development in the region proceeds (page 6-29).

Development of projects and plans has the potential to result in the discovery of undocumented subsurface cultural resources or unmarked historic-era or prehistoric Native American burials (page 6-29). Cumulative gains in population, households, and jobs require a commensurate increase in infrastructure, capital facilities, services, housing, and commercial uses in the City and the County (page 6-29). Each of these increases carries with it a corresponding increase in the magnitude of ground disturbance and the construction of new buildings and structures and other site development activities (page 6-29). The impact on archaeological deposits, human remains, and potential historic resources would be substantial given the past extent of urban development, and anticipated gains in population, jobs, and housing (page 6-29). There is the potential for significant cumulative impact on cultural resources as a result of the implementation of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects (page 6-29). The NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project did not identify the project as having the potential to result in cumulative impacts on cultural resource or Tribal Cultural Resources and specifically identified multiple mitigation measures to reduce, avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts (Yolo County 2025b). Thus it is not anticipated that this project would contribute to the cumulative context regarding cultural resources or Tribal Cultural Resources.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The proposed utility extension alignments would not affect the significance of the National Register of Historic Places-eligible buildings and structures associated with the former Spreckels Sugar Factory at the Clark Pacific facility and there is no previously recorded historic architecture resource at Bayer. Implementation of the proposed project could result in an extension of existing utilities to existing commercial facilities beyond Bayer and Clark Pacific that may have historic architecture; however, it is likely that utility elements would be ubiquitous infrastructure that are necessary for an industrial or commercial facility, and they likely would not contribute to the historical significance of a property, similar to those utility elements of the Clark Pacific facility.

Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: Implementation Program Cultural 1 (Implementation Program 7.11 of the 2035 General Plan, Appendix A, City of Woodland 2017) would reduce impacts to less than significant if historic architecture resources were identified. Implementation of the proposed project would disturb ground along the Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extension alignments. The proposed project has the potential to disturb ground if other existing commercial facilities extend utilities. Ground disturbance has the potential to affect

Page 466 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-8 Draft SEIR
unknown archaeological resources or unknown human remains. Ground disturbance would likely occur within the right of way of existing roads or disturbed agricultural areas. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c:

Implementation Program Cultural 2 (Implementation Program 7.11 of the 2035 General Plan, Appendix A, City of Woodland 2017), Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d: Implementation Program Cultural 3 (Implementation Program

7.13 of the 2035 General Plan, Appendix A, City of Woodland 2017), and Mitigation Measure 4.6-2:

Implementation Program Cultural 4 (Implementation Program 7.14 of the 2035 General Plan, City of Woodland 2017) would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on cultural resources. As a result, the cumulative impact for cultural resources is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

6.1.7 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CUMULATIVE CONTEXT
Development forecast under SACOG’s MTP/SCS would involve development in areas with geologic and soils constraints, and in areas that could result in soil erosion. However, impacts for these topics are site-specific and there is no additional cumulative impact that results from the combined geologic or soils conditions of past, present, and future projects. There is no significant cumulative impact (page 6-30). The NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project did not identify the project having the potential to result in cumulative impacts on geology or soils (Yolo County 2025b).

Development forecast under SACOG’s MTP/SCS would include construction-related earthmoving activities throughout the region. Particularly during the winter rainy season, earthmoving activities such as excavating and grading, along with uncovered material stockpiles, have the potential to result in erosion from stormwater runoff, which could in turn result in the transport of sediment and other pollutants into receiving water bodies. The NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project did identify the project having the potential to result in cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality, which is resource evaluated for erosion from stormwater runoff (Yolo County 2025b). Cumulative impacts could occur because of the construction and operation of the expansion. This is a significant cumulative impact.

Development forecast under SACOG’s MTP/SCS would involve development in geologic formations such as the Modesto and Riverbank (along with others) that have a high paleontological resources sensitivity.

Paleontologically sensitive geologic units are widespread in the Sacramento region, particularly in valley areas and adjacent lower foothills. Land use change and infrastructure improvements throughout the region have the potential to damage or destroy buried paleontological resources. Since most paleontological resources are buried under the ground surface, it is difficult to predict the location of resources in the context of site planning, and therefore difficult to avoid in project designs. The NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project did not identify the project having the potential to result in cumulative impacts on paleontology and specifically identified mitigation measures to reduce, avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on paleontological resources (Yolo County 2025b). Thus it is not anticipated that this project would contribute to the cumulative context regarding paleontological resources. However, overall, given the sensitivity of the existing geologic formations in the region, impacts on paleontological resources are considered significant cumulative impacts (page 6-31).

Page 467 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-9 Other CEQA Considerations

CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The proposed project would result in the construction of underground utility lines, which would occur in the same geologic region and the same soil types that were analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Any other underground utility infrastructure that could be installed within one mile of the existing ULL would also be constructed in the same geologic region and the same or similar soil types with similar geologic issues that were analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Construction issues associated with geologic and seismic constraints are based on site-specific conditions and are addressed through site-specific geotechnical reports, and City, State, and federal building code requirements; there is no cumulative impact that results from the combined geologic or soils conditions of past, present, and future projects when considered in combination with the proposed project.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in earthmoving activities including grading and excavation. These activities would increase the potential for soil erosion, which could also increase the potential for transport of sediment and other pollutants into local drainages from stormwater runoff, that could in turn adversely affect water quality in downstream water bodies. However, all projects that disturb one acre or more of land, including the proposed project, are required to comply with the SWRCB’s Construction General Permit, including preparation of SWPPPs and implementation of site-specific BMPs specifically designed to control soil erosion at each construction site and protect the quality of receiving water bodies. Therefore, the cumulative impacts from construction-related erosion associated with the proposed project would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Construction of a portion of the proposed Bayer utility extension alignment would occur within a mixture of the Pleistocene-age Modesto and Riverbank Formations, which are of high paleontological sensitivity. Construction of other utility pipelines within one mile outside the ULL could also occur in these paleontologically sensitive formations. However, all project applicants would be required to implement 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-4, to apply the Implementation Program Paleontological Resources 1 (Implementation Program 7.15 of the 2035 General Plan), during construction activities. Because Implementation Program 7.15 requires construction worker personnel education, stopping work in the vicinity of any fossils that may be encountered, evaluation of the fossils by a qualified paleontologist, and recovery and curation of any fossil specimens, the impacts of the proposed project from potential damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources would be cumulatively less than considerable and the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on paleontological resource.

6.1.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY

CUMULATIVE CONTEXT
Emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute cumulatively to global climate change (page 6-24). It is unlikely that a single project will contribute significantly to climate change, but cumulative emissions from many projects and activities affect global GHG concentrations and the climate system (page 6-24). This is a significant cumulative impact (page 6-24). As noted in the NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project, that project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (Yolo County 2025b). Cumulative impacts could occur because of the construction and operation of the expansion. Similar to the implementation of the 2035 General Plan and other development projects in the County these emissions would contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions.

Page 468 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-10 Draft SEIR
The County and the cities within the County implement general plans that include goals and policies to reduce energy demands through the use of design features, building materials, and building practices; encourage the use of renewable energy sources; promote land uses and patterns that would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy; and ensure adequate electricity and natural gas and related distribution systems are available to meet energy demands (page 6-25). The California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission have roles in regulating energy supply and ensuring reliable and sufficient supplies as the state grows (page 6-25).

CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The discussion of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project in Section 4.4 of this SEIR is inherently a cumulative impact analysis. The proposed project would not alter land use designations or introduce new development beyond what was analyzed and assumed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and therefore would be within the growth assumptions upon which the CAP modeling is based. The proposed project would not result in any new operational emissions sources and would not cause wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact with respect to GHGs or energy. As a result, the cumulative impact for GHG and energy is less than significant.

6.1.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND TOXICS

CUMULATIVE CONTEXT
Development forecast under SACOG’s MTP/SCS and by implementation of the 2035 General Plan is not anticipated to present a public health hazard to residents or workers (page 6-31). New development in the region and within the Planning Area would likely result in an increase in routine use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as handling of hazardous materials near existing and proposed schools. However, existing federal, State, and local regulations create and enforce standards for these activities. Upset or accident conditions, emissions of hazardous materials near schools, and development on a site listed as containing hazardous materials occurs on a project-by-project basis and the impacts are site-specific, rather than cumulative.

Individual projects in the County and nearby cities would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations. The NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project did not identify the project having the potential to result in cumulative impacts on hazards and hazardous materials (Yolo County 2025b). Thus it is not anticipated that this project would contribute to the cumulative context regarding hazards and hazardous materials. There are no cumulative impacts (page 6-31).

There are 14 airports in the Sacramento region. SACOG serves as the Airport Land Use Commission and has developed ALUCPs for almost all of the airports. Compliance with the ALUCPs and existing federal, State, and local laws protect the safety of people near airports and private airstrips. The NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project did not identify the project having the potential to result in cumulative impacts on airports and is not located within close proximity to an airport (Yolo County 2025b). Thus, it is not anticipated that this project would contribute to the cumulative context regarding airports. The cumulative impact regarding airports and airstrips is less than significant (page 6-31).

Page 469 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-11 Other CEQA Considerations

CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The project applicants and construction contractors for the proposed project and any other utility lines within one mile outside the ULL are required by law to comply with the extensive federal, State, and local regulations regarding the use, handling, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials. There are no schools within

0.25 mile of the proposed Bayer or Clark Pacific utility line alignments, and proposed utility line installation would not occur within areas that contain hazardous materials. Upset or accident conditions, emissions of hazardous materials near schools, and development on a site listed as containing hazardous materials occurs on a project-by-project basis and the impacts are site-specific, rather than cumulative. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution and would have no cumulative impact.

None of the land areas within one mile outside the ULL, including the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility line alignments, would be situated within the airport influence area of the Watts-Woodland Airport. The Sacramento International Airport Influence Area includes the eastern side of the one-mile area outside the existing ULL, which primarily consists of agricultural land but also includes an area of industrial and warehouse uses adjacent to and southwest of the Cache Creek settling basin. The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility line alignments would not be situated within the Sacramento International Airport Influence Area; however, other utility line alignments within one mile outside the ULL could be. The City requires review of consistency between the Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and all proposed major projects within the Airport Influence Area to ensure compatibility. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less- than-significant cumulative impact related to airport safety hazards.

6.1.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND BASIN PLANNING
Cumulative Context
Development forecast under SACOG’s MTP/SCS and development planned for in the 2035 General Plan would include construction-related earthmoving activities. Particularly during the winter rainy season, earthmoving activities such as excavating and grading, along with uncovered material stockpiles, have the potential to result in erosion from stormwater runoff, which could in turn result in the transport of sediment and other pollutants into receiving water bodies. Regional development forecast under SACOG’s MTP/SCS and development under the 2035 General Plan would also include additional stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces that could transport pollutants into receiving water bodies (page 6-32). All construction activities are required in order to comply with the SWRCB’s statewide NPDES Construction General Permit for general construction activity, and any other necessary site-specific waste discharge requirements or waivers under the Porter-Cologne Act, as well as local agency public works construction standards and applicable ordinances that regulate construction discharges. Operation of site-specific projects are required to comply with County and City’s stormwater programs under the NPDES General Permit for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4 Permit), which includes requirements for Low Impact Development, hydromodification management, and operational stormwater pretreatment. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to construction and operational stormwater detention and pre-treatment would ensure that projects would not violate water quality standards and would not impede implementation of the Basin Plan. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Page 470 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-12 Draft SEIR
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project would involve earthmoving activities of more than one acre of land during pipeline installation, which could result in pollutant mobilization and transport in stormwater runoff, thus potentially degrading the water quality in receiving water bodies. A similar level of disturbance, with a similar level of impact, could result from any other pipelines installed within one mile outside the ULL. However, all projects that disturb one acre or more of land, including the proposed project, are required to comply with the SWRCB’s Construction General Permit, including preparation of SWPPPs and implementation of site-specific BMPs specifically designed to control soil erosion at each construction site and protect the quality of receiving water bodies, and therefore would not impede implementation of the Basin Plan. Because the proposed pipelines would be installed underground, there would be no operational water quality impacts. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would result in a cumulatively less-than-significant impact related to water quality.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE, SUPPLY, AND SUSTAINABILITY
Cumulative Context
Development forecast under SACOG’s MTP/SCS throughout the region and implementation of the 2035 General Plan would add areas composed of impervious surfaces (e.g., buildings, parking areas, roadways), which, depending on the specific location of such development, could adversely affect groundwater recharge.

Furthermore, new development in the region could increase the demand for potable water supply from groundwater. However, in 2022, the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency adopted the Yolo Subbasin GSP, which was approved by DWR in 2023. As explained in the Yolo Subbasin GSP, groundwater in the basin is managed through conjunctive use, which includes a mix of both surface water and groundwater to meet water demands.

The water demand and supply projections in the GSP include the future build-out scenarios for all the incorporated cities in the subbasin (including the Woodland 2035 General Plan), as well as existing and projected development in the unincorporated county areas of the subbasin (including the Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities).

The IS/MND for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project identified permanent buildings and development would result in impervious surfaces which could interfere with groundwater recharge and new groundwater wells would be required that could substantially decrease groundwater supplies (Yolo County 2025b). Therefore, the project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality (Yolo County 2025b).

However, the Yolo Subbasin is currently not in a condition of overdraft, and the GSP includes a program of management actions designed to ensure groundwater sustainability during the plan’s mandated planning timeframe. Therefore, until the analysis of the Clark Pacific Expansion Project is complete and the volume of exiting groundwater supplies compared to the needs of the project are quantified, the Yolo Subbasin is being managed so as not to be substantially depleted. Thus the cumulative impacts related to groundwater supply, demand, and sustainability would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impact
The proposed project would not result in the creation of any new impervious surfaces, and therefore would not impede groundwater recharge. Currently there are two groundwater wells at Bayer and three groundwater wells at Clark Pacific. One of the groundwater wells at Bayer would be decommissioned, and two of the groundwater wells at Clark Pacific would be decommissioned. Water supply in the future would be provided by the City through new underground pipelines. The City participates in the Woodland-Davis Regional Water Supply Project, which provides Woodland with direct use of surface water. In addition to City-supplied surface water for potable

Page 471 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-13 Other CEQA Considerations
water needs, Clark Pacific would also use non-potable recycled water (supplied by the City) for processing purposes, instead of pumping groundwater from the existing on-site water supply wells. Bayer would use the potable water supplied by the City for both drinking water and process water demands. Although the total water demands from both facilities could increase slightly over time as shown in Table 3.3-2, the use of recycled water by Clark Pacific would reduce the project’s overall groundwater demands by an estimated 32–48 AFY.

Furthermore, because the existing groundwater at both facilities requires treatment to meet the U.S. EPA drinking water guidelines as well as buffering to minimize damage to laboratory equipment and other mechanical systems, eliminating the groundwater pumping would reduce impacts related to groundwater quality. Other utility pipelines that could be installed within one mile outside the ULL would also support groundwater sustainability by using City water instead of groundwater and would not result in the creation of new impervious surfaces. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts related to groundwater supply, demand, and sustainability would be cumulatively less than significant.

FLOODING
Cumulative Context
At a regional level, development forecast in the SACOG MTP/SCS includes more than 75,710 dwelling units in a 200-year flood hazard area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) and 597 units will be located in a 100- year flood hazard area (El Dorado and Placer counties). In addition, implementation 2035 General Plan would result in new development in areas currently considered within the flood hazard area (page 6-34). Development in flood hazard areas can have a cumulative impact, because development can impede and redirect floodwater flow, change drainage patterns, and increase impervious surfaces. In addition, climate change may increase the magnitude and frequency of extreme precipitation events may increase, leading to greater flood risk. These scenarios would place more pressure on California’s levees and overall flood control system. Development in flood hazard zones represents a potentially significant cumulative impact. Furthermore, the IS/MND for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project identified permanent buildings and development would occur within a Special Flood Hazard Area and the project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality (Yolo County 2025b). With respect to implementation of 2035 General Plan, Policy 2.B.2 in the 2035 General Plan requires an approved and funded comprehensive flood solution before any development could occur in the new growth areas in the 100-year flood hazard area (page 6-34) which would reduce a potentially significant cumulative impact in the Planning Area (page 6-34). The City anticipates development in the levee inundation area and cannot guarantee that levees will not fail (page 6-34). The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified there is no additional feasible mitigation beyond that proposed in the 2035 General Plan to address this impact and it would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative Impact
Although most of the proposed Clark Facility utility line alignment is within both a 100-year floodplain and a 200-year floodplain with a potential flood depth of 3 feet or more, the proposed project does not include the construction of housing or any other buildings. Similarly, although the northernmost end of the proposed Bayer sewer pipeline alignment would be installed within an area classified by FEMA as a moderate flood hazard (Zone X), the proposed project does include the construction of housing or any other buildings. As noted in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” project-related construction would occur from May to November, and therefore would not occur during the winter rainy season when flooding could occur. Although other utility pipelines could be installed within one mile outside of the ULL potentially within 100- and/or 200-year flood hazard areas, because

Page 472 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-14 Draft SEIR
the proposed utility pipelines would be installed underground, operation of the pipelines would not be subject to flood hazards, and there would be no new buildings or other structures that could impede flood flows. Therefore, proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on flooding. As a result, the cumulative impact on flooding is less than significant.

6.1.11 LAND USE PLANNING, POPULATION, AND HOUSING

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Cumulative Context
In the context of past and proposed plans and projects in the SACOG region, there are no plans or projects that would disrupt or divide established communities. Although individual plans and projects may have significant impacts, they usually occur on a project-by-project basis, rather than in a cumulative manner. At the regional level, the MTP/SCS EIR concludes that the MTP/SCS complies with the objectives of California’s SB 375. The implementation of the 2035 General Plan does not include linear projects that would physically divide an existing community. There is no significant cumulative impact (page 6-35). The NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project did not identify the project as having the potential to result in cumulative impacts on land use and planning (Yolo County 2025b). Thus it is not anticipated that this project would contribute to the cumulative context regarding land use and planning.

Cumulative Impact
The proposed project involves the installation of underground utility pipelines, primarily in areas of agricultural land and two commercial facilities. Other areas within one mile outside of the ULL where utility lines could be installed also consist primarily of agricultural land; these areas do not include any established communities.

Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and there would be no cumulative impact.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Cumulative Context
Population growth, by itself, is not an environmental impact. However, the direct and indirect effects, such as housing and infrastructure needs that are related to population growth, can lead to physical environmental effects.

Yolo County’s population is anticipated to continue to grow, along with employment through 2035. Furthermore, at the regional level, the population and the number of jobs in the six-county SACOG region is forecast to increase during the planning horizon of the MTP/SCS. Increased population and employment in the region could generate the need for additional housing and infrastructure, which could lead to conversion of undeveloped land and associated adverse physical environmental impacts of the sort that are considered in this environmental topic- specific sections of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As shown on Table 6-6, the population, housing, and employment projections under implementation of the 2035 General Plan would be substantially larger than the SACOG projections (page 6-36). It is possible that there could be some incentive for additional housing development within the Planning Area or in the vicinity of the Planning Area to accommodate new employees for non-residential developments in the Planning Area (page 6-36 and 6-37). Considering the indirect effects from past, present, and future development under the cumulative plans, and the potential increase land use density/intensity by the City to allow for additional development to meet demand and/or neighboring jurisdictions

Page 473 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-15 Other CEQA Considerations
may experience increased demand for additional development, this is a significant cumulative impact (pages 6-35, 6-36, and 6-37).

Cumulative Impact
The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be sized only to serve each respective facility. Similarly, if other requests for extension of utility lines within one mile outside the ULL were presented to the City for potential approval, they would be sized to serve only the respective facility. Because the pipelines would be sized to serve only each individual facility, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on population and housing and there would be no cumulative impact (page 6-36 and 6-37).

6.1.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION

CUMULATIVE CONTEXT
Construction noise is generally a localized impact that does not have regional or cumulative considerations.

Stationary noise sources within the Planning Area would not generally combine with noise sources outside the Planning Area to create a cumulative increase in stationary noise (page 6-37). Although ambient noise is increasing in urbanized areas over time as a result of increased development, there is no significant cumulative impact (page 6-37). Traffic noise generated by implementation of the 2035 General Plan and generated by development that is forecasted under the MTP/SCS would result in a significant cumulative impact to noise (page 6-37). As noted in the NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project, that project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts on noise (Yolo County 2025b). Cumulative impacts could occur because of the construction and operation of the expansion. Similar to the implementation of the 2035 General Plan and other development projects in the County these impacts would contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The proposed project would generate temporary increases above ambient noise levels during construction for a short-duration. The noise generated by construction would be localized and would cease once construction is done because the underground pipelines would not generate noise. Furthermore, the proposed project would not generate permanent traffic resulting in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to noise and there would be no cumulative impact.

6.1.13 UTILITIES

WATER SUPPLY
Cumulative Context
Growth in the region will result in increased water demand from additional development (page 6-46). Available supply is dictated by water purveyor sources and purveyors who may have different demands, water supplies, water rights, and water quality challenges (page 6-46). The City has supported efforts to reduce water demand through conservation and other measures, which would lessen the demand for new water supply and water supply

Page 474 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-16 Draft SEIR
treatment facilities (page 6-46). Nevertheless, the City identified a significant cumulative impact related to water supply as a part of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 6-47). As noted in the NOP/IS Checklist for the Clark Pacific Expansion Project, that project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts on water supply (Yolo County 2025b). Cumulative impacts could occur because of the need for groundwater during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, although the County GSP shows that the storage capacity of the Yolo Subbasin has historically remained stable (Yolo County 2025b). Thus, the proposed use of groundwater could contribute to significant cumulative water supply impacts, as identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Cumulative Impact
Since the preparation of the 2035 General Plan, the City prepared a more recent Urban Water Management Plan that evaluates water supply and demand to 2045 under different water year types. This planning document indicates the City would have sufficient water supplies to meet demands. The proposed project would result in a nominal increase in the use of potable water through the connection of Clark Pacific and Bayer; however, the increase would be satisfied within the available water supply and not substantially increase overall demand as discussed in Impact 4.14-2, and Impact 4.14-4. The City would use discretion as to whether to extend services to other commercial facilities existing within one mile of the existing ULL prior to November 2026 based on the City’s projected volume of water supply, consistent with General Plan Policy 5.G.3, and through the requirement of a utility service agreement which would not be executed without the City confirming the utility could be provided within the existing water supply. Therefore, proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on water supply. As a result, the cumulative impact on water supply is less than significant.

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Cumulative Context
Growth in the region is expected to increase demand for wastewater management services because of increased amounts of wastewater effluent (page 6-47). Increased population from cumulative growth may result in the need for construction of new facilities for utilities and service systems (page 6-47). The wastewater services provided as a result of implementation of the 2035 General Plan would not have impacts that would cumulatively compound with impacts related to the expansion of wastewater services in the region as they would be separated by geography and could occur at different times. Furthermore, while increased development and thus increased wastewater would occur as a result of implementation of the 2035 General Plan, the existing WPCF can serve projected development and capacity is being increased where needed (page 6-47). Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant (page 6-47).

Cumulative Impact
The proposed project would result in a nominal increase in wastewater generation through the connection of Clark Pacific and Bayer to City services; however, the increase would be satisfied within the wastewater treatment capacity and not substantially increase overall wastewater volumes as discussed in Impact 4.14-1 and Impact

4.14-2. The City would use discretion as to whether to extend services to other commercial facilities existing within one mile of the existing ULL prior to November 2026 based on the City’s wastewater treatment capacity, consistent with General Plan Goal 5.H, and through the requirement of a utility service agreement which would not be executed without the City confirming the utility could be provided. Therefore, proposed project would not

Page 475 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-17 Other CEQA Considerations
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on wastewater capacity. As a result, the cumulative impact on wastewater is less than significant.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING
Cumulative Context
Growth in the region is expected to increase demand for solid waste management and recycling due to an increase in the amount of solid waste generated and requiring disposal. Additional landfills may be needed to ensure sufficient capacity on the regional scale. Any new landfill would be required to comply with relevant federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to permitting and operation prior to construction and operation.

Implementation of the 2035 General Plan would increase the generation of solid waste; however, the Yolo County Central Landfill’s disposal capacity is sufficient to absorb that increase, as well as projected increases from population growth in the rest of the County (6-47).

Cumulative Impact
The proposed project would result in a nominal increase in various construction-related waste, including asphalt pavement, cardboard, wood pallets, scrap metal, and common trash during construction. The proposed project would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code, which requires that at least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste be diverted from landfills, along with City of Woodland Municipal Code Chapter 13.40 that regulates recycling of construction and demolition debris. Because the proposed project consists of underground utility lines, project operation would not generate solid waste. Therefore, proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on solid waste. As a result, the cumulative impact on solid waste is less than significant.

6.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
According to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR should:
(d]iscuss ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects that would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss characteristics of some projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

A project has the potential to induce growth both directly and indirectly. As identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, direct growth inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing (page 6- 48). Indirect growth inducement would result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises); or a construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities that indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand; and/or removal of an obstacle to additional growth

Page 476 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-18 Draft SEIR
and development, such as improving the capacity of a public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an undeveloped area) (page 6-48).

Growth inducement itself is not an environmental effect but may lead to environmental effects (page 6-48). These environmental effects may include increased traffic and noise, degradation of air or water quality, degradation or loss of plant or animal habitats, permanent conversion of agricultural and open space land to urban uses directly from population and employment growth or indirectly from development associated with goods and services needed by such growth (page 6-48).

Based on the definition of growth inducement, a general plan could be viewed as inherently growth-inducing because it must, by law, accommodate a jurisdiction’s assigned share of regional housing demand. The existing 2035 General Plan provided the framework by which public officials will be guided in making decisions relative to future development in Woodland. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified that the General Plan includes policies for both infill and new development that would avoid unplanned development that could be induced through infrastructure expansion into new growth areas (page 6-48). These policies reduce the potential for unplanned, induced growth and the existing ULL constrains growth outside of the boundary of the City (page 6-48). However, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR ultimately concludes that direct and indirect growth would occur because of the additional growth/development that could occur beyond what the General Plan planned for, as described in Section 6.1.11, “Land Use Planning, Population and Housing”, of this SEIR, and the elimination of growth obstacles facilitated by the 2035 General Plan (page 6-49).

The proposed project would not facilitate growth directly because the proposed project would not develop houses or businesses, would not change land uses or zoning outside of the existing ULL, would not change the location of the existing ULL, and would not annex land into the City limits.

The proposed project would allow the potential extension of utilities to existing commercial facilities within one mile of the existing ULL that are in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. Figure 6.2-1 identifies the existing commercial facilities that have registered business licenses with the State of California within one mile of the existing ULL at the time of the preparation of the NOP for this SEIR. A total of 62 businesses are located within one mile of the existing ULL, and of those, approximately 21 businesses applied for a business license in the eight years since the certification of the 2035 General Plan and Final EIR (between May 2017 and August 2025). Not all of the existing businesses within one mile of the existing ULL would meet the definition of commercial facilities as described in Chapter 3, “Project Description” of this SEIR: 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. This is because not all businesses located within one mile of the existing ULL are located in a commercial or industrial building, some are home businesses, and some do not have on-site employees or regular operating hours. Furthermore, not all businesses that fit the definition of a commercial facility would decide to incur the cost of extending existing utilities to their location within one mile of the existing ULL. The decision to extend utilities would be a business decision based on the unique needs of the existing commercial facility. The business decision may include considerations such as: current source(s) of potable water and wastewater treatment; the volume of water and wastewater treatment needed; current business practices and the potential need for different source(s) of potable water and wastewater treatment; location of existing utilities that would potentially be tied into and the distance for conveyance pipelines; current profits and losses; and, other priorities the business may need to accomplish.

Page 477 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-19 Other CEQA Considerations

Figure 6.2-1 Existing Businesses within One Mile of Existing Urban Limit Line

Page 478 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-20 Draft SEIR
In addition, changes to the operations of businesses related to utility service are subject to compliance with applicable County code and policy which considers multiple factors, including appropriate development within agricultural zones, and changes to the operations of businesses related to utility service would not be contingent upon utility service availability alone. Therefore, there is a finite and smaller subset of the existing businesses located within one mile of the existing ULL in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026 that may decide to extend utilities under the proposed project. The proposed project limits the extension of utilities to existing businesses, which naturally constrains the number of businesses that could extend utilities (i.e., businesses that may be developed or exist after November 3, 2026 would not be subject to the proposed amendment and could not extend utilities). Finally, because the proposed project requires the application process and execution of a service agreement with the City (as described in Chapter 3), utility lines would be appropriately sized to serve the existing commercial business needs at the time of the application and service agreement (i.e., utility lines would not be oversized to potentially accommodate potential future growth). Should one of the existing businesses in the smaller subset of businesses decide to extend existing utilities, as described in Chapter 3, “Project Description”, the applicant would be required to apply to the City of Woodland for the extension and enter into a service agreement with the City. If approved by the City, the extension of utilities would be required to be consistent with all existing, applicable regulations of Yolo County, including County code and policy which takes into account appropriate development within agricultural zones in particular, and other agencies that may have regulatory oversight as described within this SEIR (e.g., YSAQMD, CDFW, CARB, and the Central Valley RWQCB).

Currently, only two businesses, Clark Pacific and Bayer, meet the City’s definition of commercial facilities and are identified as applicants to extend existing utilities as part of the proposed project. The information within this SEIR demonstrates that Bayer and Clark Pacific are requesting the extension of their utilities to satisfy current business needs and that the extension of utilities would not induce an expansion of the businesses (see Section

3.3.2, Table 3.3-2 and Table 3.3-3, and Impact 4.10-2 in this SEIR). The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be designed with sufficient capacity only to serve each respective facility. As noted in Section 6.1, the County released an NOP for the Clark Pacific expansion project, which would include expansion of existing Clark Pacific facilities and subdivision of the land adjacent to the existing facility. The County’s Initial Study Checklist identifies that water supply and wastewater treatment for this expansion would be supplied by new groundwater wells and new septic systems (Yolo County 2025b). This expansion is separate and independent from the proposed project. The proposed project would not support or allow any future proposed expansion of Clark Pacific because (1) the County released the NOP before the release of the SEIR NOP and expansion approval is subject to the County and must be in compliance with adopted County policy, (2) the proposed expansion would not rely on City provided utilities, and (3) the proposed project would require sizing utilities to meet the needs of the existing Clark Pacific facility.

Extending utilities further beyond one mile from the existing ULL is not part of the proposed project and is considered speculative. The City is not considering extending utilities even further beyond one mile of the existing ULL as part of the General Plan amendment evaluated in this SEIR and no other commercial facility has applied for extension of utility services in this area. Amending the General Plan to accommodate this consideration would require separate CEQA, approval of the City Council, and a vote of the citizens.

Given the above, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce growth. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded there would be indirect and direct growth inducement resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact; however, there would be no growth inducing effect attributable to the proposed project.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be

Page 479 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 6-21 Other CEQA Considerations
substantially increased in severity as compared with those direct or indirect growth inducing effects addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

6.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to include a discussion of any significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented.

Chapter 4 of this SEIR provides a detailed analysis of significant and potentially significant environmental impacts related to approval of the proposed project; identifies feasible mitigation measures, where available, that could avoid or reduce these significant and potentially significant impacts; and presents a determination whether these mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including significant impacts, are summarized in Chapter 6 of this SEIR.

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 ► Agricultural 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 related to 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. Significant cumulative impacts are summarized in Section 6.1 of this SEIR.

6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT

CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
CEQA requires EIRs to address significant irreversible environmental changes caused by a proposed project.

Specifically, the EIR must consider whether “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[c]). Nonrenewable resources, as used in this discussion, refer to the physical features of the natural environment: land, air, and waterways.

Page 480 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Other CEQA Considerations 6-22 Draft SEIR
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR documented multiple significant and irreversible environmental changes that would occur as a result of development allowed under the General Plan (pages 6-49 to 6-50). Significant and irreversible environmental changes to the environment include:
► use both renewable and nonrenewable natural resources for construction and operation of projects ► changes likely to occur as a result of future excavation, grading, and construction activities associated with development of land uses
► increasing allowable land use densities and intensities allowing development on sites that are presently undeveloped
► additional transportation demand, construction, energy demand, and other activities that would increase air pollutants and generation of noise
► permanent conversion of important farmland and change in aesthetics due to conversion to urban uses ► generation of greenhouse gas emissions
The City acknowledges that there could be significant irreversible environmental changes given the activities described above (page 6-52). There is no feasible mitigation without changing the purposes of the 2035 General Plan. The impact is significant and unavoidable (page 6-52). These conclusions would not change as a result of the proposed project, as documented in Chapter 4, and the proposed project would not result in new or additional significant and irreversible environmental changes as compared to those described 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.

Page 481 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 7-1 List of Preparers
7 LIST OF PREPARERS

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

7.2 AECOM
J. Matthew Gerken............................................................................ Project Director, Senior Environmental Planner Nicole Williams ............................................................................... Project Manager, Senior Environmental Planner Suzanne McFerran .......................................................................................................... Senior Air Quality Specialist Alexandra Haisley ..................................................................................................................... Air Quality Specialist Renee Richardson ............................................................................................................................... Senior Biologist Emily Applequist ................................................................................................................................ Senior Biologist Gabi Patterson ............................................................................................................................................... Biologist Chandra Miller ....................................................................... Cultural Resources Specialist, Architectural Historian Karin Beck ............................................................................................ Cultural Resources Specialist, Archaeologist Zenzi Moore-Dawes .............................................................................................................................. Archaeologist Wendy Copeland ......................................................................................................... Senior Environmental Planner Issa Mahmodi .............................................................................................................. Noise and Vibration Specialist Lisa Clement .............................................................................................................................. Senior GIS Specialist Deborah Jew ............................................................................................................. Document Production Specialist

7.3 APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVES
George Gough .................................................................................................................................................... Bayer Mike Winningham ..................................................................................................... Bayer, Capital Project Manager Erik Winje ..................................................................................................... Clark Pacific, Preconstruction Manager

Page 482 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 8-1 References
8 REFERENCES

8.1 CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Woodland. 2017. 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.

January. Available at: https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1175/2035-General-Plan- and-Climate-Action-Plan-Final-Environmental-Impact-Report-PDF. Accessed: August to October, 2025.

City of Woodland 2016. 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report. September. Available at: https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1184/Public- Review-Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-PDF. Accessed: August to October, 2025.

8.2 CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION
CalFire. 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community- wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed on August 25, 2025.

Yolo County. 2025a. Yolo County GIS Viewer: Land Use. Available at: GIS Viewer Public Accessed on: October 12, 2025.

Yolo County. 2025b. Yolo County GIS Viewer: Zoning and Planned Development. Available at: GIS Viewer Public. Accessed on: October 12, 2025.

8.3 SECTION 4.1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2020a. California Important Farmland Finder, Yolo County Important Farmland Mapping. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed September 15, 2025.
———. 2020b. Historic Land Use Conversion, Yolo County, 1984–2020. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Yolo.aspx. Accessed September 15, 2025.

Yolo County. 2024. Open Data Portal—Williamson Act Contracts. Available: https://open-data- yolo.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/ff30afd37b584df0bc23db05b704e17e/explore. Accessed September 15, 2025.

8.4 SECTION 4.2. AIR QUALITY
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide, Version 2022.1. April. Available: https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide. Accessed August 2025.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation- health-risk-0. Accessed August 2025.

Page 483 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
References 8-2 Draft SEIR
______. 2017. Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan. Available:
http://www.airquality.org/ProgramCoordination/Documents/Sac%20Regional%202008%20NAAQS%20 Attainment%20and%20RFP%20Plan.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2025. ______. 2023. Sacramento Regional 2015 Ozone NAAQS Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan.

Available:
https://www.airquality.org/ProgramCoordination/Documents/Sacramento%20Regional%202015%20NA AQS%208%20Hour%20Ozone%20Attainment%20and%20Reasonable%20Further%20Progress%20Plan .pdf. Accessed May 28, 2025.

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). 2007. Handbook for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. July 11. Available: https://www.ysaqmd.org/wp- content/uploads/Planning/CEQAHandbook2007.pdf. Accessed August 2025. ______. 2019. Triennial Assessment and Plan Update. May 8. Available: https://www.ysaqmd.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/03/2019-Triennial-Plan.pdf. Accessed August 2025.

Zhu, Yifang; William C. Hinds, Seongheon Kim & Constantinos Sioutas. 2002. Concentration and Size Distribution of Ultrafine Particles Near a Major Highway, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 52:9, 1032-1042, DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2002.10470842. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2002.10470842. Accessed August 2025.

8.5 SECTION 4.3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bumble Bee Watch. No Date. Available at: https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/ Accessed on October 6, 2025.

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.

8.6 SECTION 4.4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. Final 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf. Accessed August 2025.

EIA. 2024. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php. Accessed August 2025.

Page 484 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 8-3 References

8.7 SECTION 4.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL

RESOURCES
City of Woodland. 2017. 2035 General Plan. Available: https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/1000/Documents.

Accessed: August and September 2025.

Les, Kathleen. 1986. Historic Resources Inventory form, Spreckels Sugar Factory, P-57-000792. On file at the Northwest Information Center.

Yocha Dehe. 2025. “Our Story.” Available: https://yochadehe.gov/heritage/our-story/. Accessed August 2025.

8.8 SECTION 4.6. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Branum, D., R. Chen, M. Petersen, and C. Wills. 2016. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California. California Geological Survey and U.S. Geological Survey. Map Sheet 48. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2024. SGMA Data Viewer, Groundwater Levels, Spring 2024. Available: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels. Accessed September 4, 2025.

City of Woodland. 2017. 2035 General Plan. Available: https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/1000/Documents.

Accessed May 6, 2025.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey—Yolo County, CA. Available:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed May 7, 2025.

University of California Museum of Paleontology. 2025. Paleontological Collections Database. Available:
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/collections/databases/. Accessed May 7, 2025.

8.9 SECTION 4.7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2025. EnviroStor. Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed September 4, 2025.

California Department of Transportation. 2025. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Revision 9, Effective April 1, 2025. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety- programs/camutcd. Accessed September 9, 2025.

City of Woodland. 2017. City of Woodland Emergency Operations Plan. Adopted 2010, Updated 2017.

Available: https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/1141/Emergency-Preparedness. Accessed September 9, 2025.
———. 2025. FAQs: How do I prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) for the City? Available:
https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=152. Accessed September 9, 2025.

Page 485 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
References 8-4 Draft SEIR
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) . 2025. National Piping Mapping System Public Map Viewer. Available: https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/. Accessed September 5, 2025.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 1993. Watts-Woodland Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Available: https://www.sacog.org/planning/land-use/airport-planning/comprehensive-land-use-planning- maps#:~:text=Watts%2DWoodland%20Airport%20*%20MAP.%20*%20CLUP. Accessed September 8, 2025.
———. 2013. Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available:
https://www.sacog.org/planning/land-use/airport-planning/comprehensive-land-use-planning-maps.

Accessed September 9, 2025.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2025. GeoTracker. Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed September 4, 2025.

8.10 SECTION 4.8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2013. Urban Level of Flood Protection Criteria. Available:
https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/urban-level-of-flood-protection-criteria/. Accessed September 9, 2025.
———. 2019. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Available: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp- dashboard/final/. Accessed September 10, 2025.
———. 2022. Central Valley Flood Protection Plan 2022 Update. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Flood-Management/Flood-Planning-and-Studies/Central-Valley-Flood- Protection-Plan. Accessed September 9, 2025.

California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2025. BMP Handbooks. Available:
https://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp-handbooks. Accessed September 11, 2025.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB). 2019. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Basins. Fifth Edition. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/#basinplans. Accessed September 9, 2025.
———. 2020. Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Woodland, Water Pollution Control Facility.

NPDES Permit CA0077950, Order R5-2020-0015. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/board_decisions/adopted_orders/yolo/r5-2020-0015_npdes.pdf.

Accessed September 10, 2025.
———. 2024. Waste Discharge Requirements for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water. Order No. R5- 2022-0006-03 as amended by Order No. R5-2024-0044, NPDES No. CAG995002. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/. Accessed September 9, 2025.

Page 486 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 8-5 References
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.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2012. Flood Map Service Center, Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

Available: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed September 10, 2025.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley WQCB). 2019. Basin Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fifth Addition, Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. Available at: The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).

Accessed on October 17, 2025.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities. Order 2014-0057-DWQ as amended by Order WQ 2018-0028- DWQ. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/industrial.html.

Accessed September 9, 2025.
———. 2019. Waste Discharge Requirements For Storm Water Discharges From Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Order WQ 2019-0009-EXEC Amending Water Quality Order 2013-0001-DWQ.

Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.html.

Accessed September 9, 2025.
———. 2022. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit For Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit). Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES Permit No. CAS000002. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction/general_permit_reissuan ce.html. Accessed September 9, 2025.
———. 2024. 2024 Integrated Report. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2024-integrated- report.html. Accessed September 10, 2025.

USACE. 2021. Chiefs Report Signed for Lower Cache Creek flood risk management project.

Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency. 2022. Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Available:
https://www.yologroundwater.org/yolo-subbasin-groundwater-sustainability-plan. Accessed September 10, 2025

8.11 SECTION 4.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING, POPULATION AND

HOUSING
Gough, George. Director, Stakeholder Relations, Bayer. 2025. Subject: Urban Limit Line CEQA Kick-Off Attached Decisions and Action Items/Preliminary Information Needs. Email July 9 and June 16.

Winje, Erik. Clark Pacific. 2025. Subject: Urban Limit Line CEQA Kick-Off Attached Decisions and Action Items/Preliminary Information Needs. Email July 1.

Page 487 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
References 8-6 Draft SEIR
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). 2019. Available at:
https://www.yololafco.org/files/2c174f87c/Final-Woodland+MSR- SOI+12.06.18+%28reduced+file+size%29.pdf. January 24. Accessed on October 3, 2025.

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). 2025a. Project Policies. Available at:
https://www.yololafco.org/files/0533e8833/LAFCo+Project+Polices-Updated+02.27.2025.pdf Updated February 27, 2025. Accessed on October 2, 2025.

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). 2025b. Yolo LAFCo Municipal Services Review/Sphere of Influence Study, City of Woodland Municipal Services Review Checklist LAFCo No. 24-03. Available:
https://www.yololafco.org/files/a9346dc5d/City+of+Woodland+MSR-SOI+Checklist+02.27.25.pdf.

Accessed on: October 3, 2025.

8.12 SECTION 4.10. NOISE AND VIBRATIONS
City of Woodland. 2017. 2035 General Plan. Available: https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/1000/Documents.

Accessed May 6, 2025
Sacramento County. 2004. International Airport Master Plan Noise Contours. Available at:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwioksfwg6yQAx Wj48kDHd--
OgoQFnoECB0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsacramento.aero%2Fdownload.php%3Ff%3D%2Fsmf_apa _contours.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2bXLRVVv9kxjTlDh_1IVKN&opi=89978449. Accessed on October 17, 2025.

Yolo County. 2009a. 2030 General Plan, Health and Safety Element. November. Available at: Microsoft Word - 8_HealthSafetyGP.doc. Accessed on October 17, 2025.

Yolo County. 2009b. 2030 General Plan EIR Section 4E, Noise. April. Available at: Microsoft Word - 4e- Noise.doc Accessed on October 17, 2025.

8.13 SECTION 4.11. UTILITIES
Busch, Tim. Principal Utilities Engineer, City of Woodland. Subject: City of Woodland SEIR – Master Planning Effort associated with WPCF. Email. August 28, 2025a.

Busch, Tim. Principal Utilities Engineer, City of Woodland. Subject: City of Woodland SEIR - Confirmation of Statements regarding wastewater and potable water demand. Email. November 24, 2025b.

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2025. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2021-2025. Available: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2025/. Accessed October 3, 2025.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details—Yolo County Central Landfill (57-AA-0001). Available:

Page 488 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 8-7 References
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/689?siteID=4033. Accessed September 19, 2025.
———. 2023. Countywide Jurisdiction Diversion / Disposal Progress Report: Yolo County. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DiversionDisposal. Accessed September 19, 2025.

City of Woodland. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/DocumentCenter/View/995/Urban-Water-Management-Plan- PDF?bidId=
Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency. 2020. Joint Powers Agreement. Available at:
https://www.wdcwa.com/admin/upload/Agreement-JPA_2020.03.10_Amendment.No.1-to Amended- Restated JPA Agrmt_signed.pdf
Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency. 2022. Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Available:
https://www.yologroundwater.org/yolo-subbasin-groundwater-sustainability-plan. Accessed September 10, 2025

8.14 CHAPTER 6. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
City of Woodland. 2017. 2035 General Plan. Available: https://www.cityofwoodland.gov/1000/Documents.

Accessed October 17, 2025.

Yolo County. n.d. Current Projects Website Available at: Current Projects | Yolo County. Accessed: October 15, 2025.

Yolo County. 2022. Mitigated Negative Declaration Bayer Woodland Solar Farm Use Permit (ZF#2020-0036).

Available at: Bayer Woodland Solar Farm Use Permit Initial Study Accessed on: October 19, 2025.

Yolo County. 2025a. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Harlan Ranch Cell Tower Major Use Permit (ZF#2024-036). Available at: 638870622054400000. Accessed on: October 15, 2025.

Yolo County. 2025b. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Checklist for Clark Pacific Facility Expansion Project (ZF2023-0005). Available at:
yolocounty.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/84082/638787590994670000. Accessed on: October 15, 2025

Page 489 ends

Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR
Executive Summary Table 2-1

Page 490 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-1 Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 Table 2-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation

4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
IMPACT 4.1-1 Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista. Implementation of the Proposed Project would change views of farmland from individual parcels, but it would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.1-2 Substantially Damage Scenic Resources, Including, but not Limited to, Trees, Rock Outcroppings, and Historic Buildings within a State Scenic Highway. There is no state scenic highway within or in close proximity to the Planning Area. In addition, policies and implementation programs in the Proposed Project require that the city’s tree canopy is managed and improved and that historic buildings are preserved. There are no rock outcroppings in the Planning Area. The impact is less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.1-3 Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and its Surroundings. The Proposed Project facilitates new development that will change the existing visual character of the Planning Area. However, impacts on visual character and quality of the site are subjective and variable between different individuals. The impact is considered significant.

S None available. SU
IMPACT 4.1-4 Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area. Implementation of the Proposed Project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new policies:

Policy 2.F.4 Light Pollution. Control artificial lighting to avoid spill-over lighting and preserve the night sky.

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

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
IMPACT 4.2-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as Shown on the Maps Prepared Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to Non-Agricultural Use. Implementation of the Proposed Project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following modified policy:

Policy 2.A.3 Agricultural Mitigation. For impacts to agriculture within the ULL, require one acre to be permanently conserved for every acre converted to urban development. The farmland being conserved must be of the same Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program type (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance) as the farmland that is being converted, or of a type of higher quality, and the conserved farmland should be located as close to the Woodland ULL as possible.

SU
IMPACT 4.2-2 Conflict with Existing Zoning For Agricultural Use, or a Williamson Act Contract. There are parcels currently zoned for agricultural use in the Planning Area; however, the 2002 General Plan specifies that the City may allow development on land zoned Agriculture when it is needed for urban development. There are properties adjacent to new growth areas under Williamson Act contracts, but policies in the 2035 General Plan reduce potential impacts on these properties. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.2-3 Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment that, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland, to Non-Agricultural Use. Policies in the 2035 General Plan emphasize the importance of agriculture to Woodland and support the viability of farming operations; however, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

S Mitigation Measure 4.2-3 – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new policy:

Policy 7.C.5 Agricultural Buffer. Require new development that occurs at the edge of the ULL to be set back a minimum of 300 feet from adjacent agricultural land where possible. Equivalent means of providing agricultural buffers may be considered by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis for parcels whose dimensions would preclude or severely limit development potential with the required buffer size. The buffer shall be landscaped and may include public right of way.

4.3 Air Quality
IMPACT 4.3-1 Generation of Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could exceed an ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or predicted air quality exceedance. The level of construction emissions could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. YSAQMD recommends that lead agencies incorporate construction mitigation measures, and the Proposed Project has policies that would reduce this impact. However, given the scale of the Proposed Project, the City cannot determine that potential construction impacts would be below relevant significance thresholds throughout the planning horizon. The impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Air Quality 1)
New developments that could generate a potentially significant short-term air quality impact shall incorporate feasible construction mitigation strategies, including those listed below, those included in an updated set of mitigation recommendations prepared by the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, or those determined by the City to be as effective:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. b. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials. d. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut-and-fill operations and hydroseed area. e. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).
f. Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land. g. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. h. Cover inactive storage piles.

Page 491 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 A-2 Draft SEIR

Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
i. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. j. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6 to 12 inch layer of wood chips or mulch. k. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6-inch layer of gravel. l. Limit all idling of vehicles and equipment that use gasoline or diesel fuel to five minutes maximum. m. Use alternative power source, such as electricity, for construction equipment or use reformulated and emulsified fuels, incorporate catalyst and filtration technologies, and generally modernize the equipment fleet with cleaner and newer engines.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b – Policy 7.F.2. will be amended as follows:

Policy 7.F.2 Best Management Practices. Require all projects to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects as a standard City condition of approval.

IMPACT 4.3-2 Generation of Long-Term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors. Long-term operational emissions would be generated from day-to-day activities associated with residential and non-residential land uses under the Proposed Project. Operational emissions associated with the Proposed Project would exceed applicable YSAQMD thresholds. The level of operational emissions could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Proposed Project policies would reduce potentially significant impacts, but not to a level that would be below relevant thresholds. The impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b. SU IMPACT 4.3-3 Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. Project-related vehicle trips would contribute vehicles to local intersections that could cause a CO hotspot (i.e., exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standard). However, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project’s land uses would contribute substantial vehicle volumes to existing or future intersections that could cause a CO hotspot. During construction and operation of the Proposed Project, localized air quality emissions would be generated that could affect existing and proposed sensitive receptors. Construction activities would generate diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions that could affect existing and proposed sensitive receptors.

Existing regulations and proposed policies and implementation programs would reduce potential exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a – Policy 7.F.3 should be amended as follows:

Policy 7.F.3. Protect Sensitive Receptors. For the purposes of environmental review of potential toxic air contaminant impacts, consider residentially designated land uses, hospitals esidential care facilities, care centers, playgrounds to be “sensitive receptors.” Discourage the location of new sensitive receptor uses within 500 feet of a limited access state highway (SR 113 and 1-5). Implement applicable buffer distances recommended by the California Air Resources Board between sensitive uses and sources of substantial pollutant concentrations.

LTS for
construction-
related

SU for stationary
source exposure
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Air Quality 2)
a. New development shall be required to demonstrate adherence with applicable YSAQMD-recommended health risk thresholds involving sensitive receptors, uses that involve substantial truck trips, and large gas stations, as defined by the applicable regulations. “Substantial truck trips” is defined as more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or TRU unit operations that exceed 300 hours per week. A “large gas station” is one that would be anticipated to accommodate a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater. b. Proposed uses that include sensitive receptors may demonstrate compliance with this implementation program by providing a minimum 1,000-foot buffer from existing uses that involve substantial truck trips and a minimum 50-foot buffer from existing large gas stations.
c. Proposed uses that involve substantial truck trips may demonstrate compliance with this implementation program by providing a minimum 1,000-foot buffer from properties where the City’s land use designation would allow sensitive receptors.
d. Proposed large gas stations may demonstrate compliance with this implementation program by providing a minimum 300- foot buffer, while typical gas dispensing facilities would provide a minimum 50-foot buffer from existing sensitive receptors and from properties where the City’s land use designation would allow sensitive receptors. e. Avoid siting new sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the edge of the closest travel lane of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. f. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any existing dry cleaning operation.

—
___________________ __ _________

Page 492 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-3 Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
g. As an alternative to these buffer distances, proposed sensitive receptors, uses that involve substantial truck trips, and large gas stations may provide a site-specific health risk assessment, using methods consistent with applicable guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, with mitigation, if necessary, to demonstrate compliance with applicable YSAQMD-recommended health risk thresholds. When health risk impacts exceed YSAQMD-recommended thresholds, feasible on-site mitigation measures to reduce TAC exposure shall be implemented to mitigate health risk impacts below YSAQMD thresholds. On-site measures could include, but are not limited to providing enhanced filtration systems (e.g., MERV 13 or greater) for near-by sensitive receptor buildings, changes to the TAC emission source’s operation, and positioning of exhaust and intake for ventilation systems to minimize exposure among others.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Air Quality 3)
a. New development that would require the use of diesel-fueled construction equipment within 300 feet of an existing sensitive receptor use an equipment mix, incorporate buffering, schedule construction activities, or use other strategies to reduce potential health risk consistent with guidance from the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. b. Alternatively, a project applicant may prepare a site-specific estimate of diesel PM emissions associated with total construction activities and evaluate for health risk impact on existing sensitive receptors in order to demonstrate that applicable YSAQMD-recommended thresholds for toxic air contaminants would not be exceeded or that applicable thresholds would not be exceeded with the application of alternative mitigation techniques approved by the City.

IMPACT 4.3-4 Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People. The Proposed Project includes policies that would avoid exposure of a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. The impact is less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.4 Biological Resources
IMPACT 4.4-1 Loss of Special-status Plants and Loss of Special-status Plant Habitat. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in conversion of habitat for special-status plant species, which could result in loss of special-status plants either through direct removal or through habitat degradation. The impact is considered potentially significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Biological Resources 1) 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). 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.

LTS

Page 493 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 A-4 Draft SEIR Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b – Policy 7.B.5., Policy 7.B.7, and Policy 7.B.11 should be amended as follows:

Policy 7.B.5 Open Space for Conservation. Where appropriate, permanently protect as open space areas of natural resource value, including sensitive habitat t es (e alkali sink and rairie freshwater wetlands freshwater marsh ri arian forest drainages), wetland preserves, riparian corridors, woodlands, special-status plant occurrences, and floodplains. Support the maintenance of open space and natural areas that are interconnected and of sufficient size to protect biodiversity, accommodate wildlife movement, and sustain ecosystems. Maintain connectivity between open space areas designated for habitat conservation values within the Planning Area as well as linkages to adjacent habitats outside of the Planning Area, such as Willow Slough, Cache Creek, and habitat preserves to the east.

Policy 7.B.7 Woodland Regional Park. Protect and maintain Woodland Regional Park as an important wildlife preserve and habitat for rare native special-status plants and allow for public access that is compatible with and promotes public education of the site’s habitat value.

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

IMPACT 4.4-2 Loss and Degradation of Habitat for Special-status Wildlife Species and Potential Direct Take of Individuals. Implementation of the Proposed Project would allow conversion of undeveloped land that currently supports known occupied and potential habitat for special-status wildlife species to residential, commercial, and other developed land uses. Buildout of the Proposed Project would result in loss and degradation of suitable habitat for several special-status wildlife species and could result in take of State- and Federally-listed wildlife species and loss or displacement of special-status wildlife populations.

However, implementation of the 2035 General Plan policies and implementation program and compliance with state and federal laws, along with the General Plan Land Use Diagram would reduce potential impacts on special-status wildlife species. The impact is considered potentially significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a – Policy 7.B.6 and 7.B.8 should be amended as follows:

Policy 7.B.6. Open Space Buffer. Continue to work with Yolo County and the City of Davis to maintain the permanent open space buffer between County Roads 27 and 29 and its existing wildlife habitat values.

Policy 7.B.8 Native and Compatible Non-Native Plant Species. Require developers to use native and compatible non-native species, especially drought-resistant species, to the extent possible in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape provide benefits habitat conditions suitable for native wildlife, and ensure that a variety of plants suited to the region are maintained.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4.1a Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4.1b LTS
IMPACT 4.4-3 Loss and Degradation of Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in conversion of undeveloped land that currently supports a limited amount of riparian habitat and possibly remnant alkali prairie to residential, commercial, and other developed land uses. (All other sensitive natural communities, including vernal pool habitats and other freshwater wetlands found in the Planning Area are addressed under impacts on federally protected wetlands and are not discussed here.) Therefore, buildout of the Proposed Project could result in loss and degradation of riparian or alkali prairie habitat. However, implementation of the 2035 General Plan policies and implementation programs and compliance with
state and federal laws, along with the General Plan Land Use Diagram would reduce potential impacts on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities.

The impact is considered potentially significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Biological Resources 3):

If the project would result in fill or alteration of a waterway or any body of water supporting riparian forest habitat, the City will require project proponent/s to notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, obtain a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement if determined necessary by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and comply with all conditions of the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a Mitigation Measure 4.4-3c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b Mitigation Measure 4.4-3d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a LTS
IMPACT 4.4-4 Loss and Degradation of Federally Protected Wetlands. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in conversion of land that currently supports waterways and ponds and may support freshwater marsh, vernal pools, and other freshwater wetlands to residential, commercial, and other developed land uses. These wetland habitats and other waters may be protected under Section 404 of the CWA. Therefore, buildout of the Proposed Project could result in loss and degradation of federally protected wetlands. The impact is considered potentially significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (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 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b LTS
IMPACT 4.4-5 Interference with Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites. The Proposed Project plans for development within the Pacific flyway, a major bird migration route. However, buildout of the Proposed Project would not create a barrier to movement of migratory species or alter the character of existing habitat available to migrating birds such that it would no longer function as a migratory corridor.

This impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

—
_-----

Page 494 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-5 Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
IMPACT 4.4-6 Conflict with Local Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources. The 2035 General Plan policies and compliance with City ordinance would reduce potential impacts on protected trees. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.4-7 Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation Plan. The General Plan Land Use Diagram and 2035 General Plan policies and implementation programs have been designed to provide consistency with the proposed Yolo HCP/NCCP. This impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.4-7a – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a Mitigation Measure 4.4-7b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a LTS
IMPACT 4.4-8 Substantial Reduction in the Habitat of a Fish or Wildlife Species, Cause a Fish or Wildlife Population to Drop Below Self-Sustaining Levels, Eliminate a Plant or Animal Community, or Substantially Reduce the Number or Restrict the Range of an Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species.

Implementing the Proposed Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of any endangered, rare, or threatened species because the majority of known occurrences of special-status species and their habitat would be preserved. This impact is less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.5 Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy IMPACT 4.5-1 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Implementation of the Proposed Project would implement planned land uses that would involve short-term GHG emissions associated with construction and infrastructure improvements, along with long-term operational emissions. However, policies and reduction strategies within the 2035 General Plan and the 2035 CAP would ensure that the City achieves its share of AB 32, Executive Order B-30-15, and Executive Order S-3-05 emissions reductions. The impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

CC Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1) a. The City will maintain a Climate Action Plan designed to achieve the reduction targets for land use-related emissions for the years 2020 and 2035 and put the City on a trajectory toward goals for longer-term years, such as 2050. The City’s reduction targets may be revised over time, but will represent a rate of emissions that is efficient enough to provide for Woodland’s share of AB 32, Executive Order B-30-15, SB 32, and Executive Order S-3-05 emissions reductions. b. The Climate Action Plan will focus on GHG emission sectors over which the City could have influence – either through entitlement authority, public investments, incentives, or other feasible means. When making the comparison between Woodland’s GHG efficiency and that required for the state as a whole, the City can remove from consideration GHG sources that are beyond local control.
c. The City will monitor relevant local, regional, State, and federal legislation and regulations related to GHG emissions, land use planning, and environmental review, and will make changes to the Climate Action Plan accordingly. Future regulations may have the effect of reducing GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Proposed Project. The effect of future regulations shall be taken into account in future revisions to the Climate Action Plan. New transportation modeling tools may become available that allow revisions to emissions estimates based on the City’s policies related to land use, urban design, and transportation.
d. The City will revise the Climate Action Plan, as necessary, based on updated inventories and assessments of the effectiveness of reduction strategies no less than every 5 years. If, based on the City’s future updated assessments, existing reduction strategies would not achieve the City’s reduction targets, the City will make revisions to strategies or develop new strategies.

The City will make revisions to its reduction targets, if necessary, to ensure that the target continues to demonstrate an appropriate share of the State’s emission reduction goals for Woodland. The City anticipates that a Climate Action Plan update will be needed after new statewide measures are adopted to reduce GHG emissions, such as when the State updates the Air Resources Board Scoping Plan. The City will make revisions to the Climate Action Plan, if necessary, as new technology becomes available that would affect emissions in the Planning Area or the City’s ability to forecast future emissions.
e. In maintaining the Climate Action Plan, during the CAP updates described above, the City will consider new or revised reduction strategies that may be necessary to achieve the City’s reduction targets, while also promoting other goals of the City’s General Plan. The City will identify additional plans, policies, projects, mitigation measures, and regulations that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions and achieve the City’s reduction targets. The City will consider regulatory changes, infrastructure investment strategies, incentives, contributions to (or local use of) carbon offset programs, and other measures, as appropriate. The City shall consider financing programs for installation and use of renewable energy infrastructure in new and/or existing development, building codes to further increase energy efficiency in new buildings, incentive programs to assist existing property owners in making energy efficiency upgrades, travel demand management programs for new nonresidential projects, and other mechanisms that would reduce GHG emissions. The City will prioritize reduction strategies that offer co-benefits, such as reducing household or business transportation costs, reducing household and business utility bills, improving local air quality, reducing energy use, reducing traffic congestion, conserving water and other resources, moderating the heat island effect, preserving natural habitat, creating local jobs, among other benefits.

LTCC

Page 495 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 A-6 Draft SEIR Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
f. The City anticipates that State funding for GHG-efficient transportation systems and other local applications of the State’s GHG reduction mandates will be important in meeting the State’s overall GHG goals. Local governments will rely on state funding to improve existing buildings and provide more energy- and GHG-efficient sources of electricity. The City will monitor grant and other funding programs that could be used to implement different components of the Climate Action Plan.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b – Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2a Mitigation Measure 4.5-1c – Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2b

IMPACT 4.5-2 Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. 2035 General Plan policies and implementation programs and the 2035 CAP ensure that GHG emissions within the Planning Area occur at a rate that is consistent with goals set for the State government to reduce GHG emissions. Projects that seek to use streamlining identified under SB 375 would need to determine consistency with SACOG’s MTP/SCS. The impact is potentially significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new policy:

Policy 7.F.12. MTP/SCS Consistency. For projects seeking to utilize available CEQA streamlining, determine project consistency with the MTP/SCS as a component of application review.

LTS
IMPACT 4.5-3 Develop Land Uses or Development Patterns that Cause Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy. During construction and following buildout of the Proposed Project, energy would be consumed in the forms of fossil fuels and electricity. A large body of existing regulations would have the effect of reducing energy demand and would, then, also reduce potential adverse environmental effects associated with energy demand. The Proposed Project also includes many policies that promote additional energy conservation and savings and that would reduce peak demand and associated environmental effects. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.5-4 Require or Result in the Construction of New or Expanded Energy Production or Transmission Facilities, the Construction of which Could Cause Significant Environmental Effects Implementation of the Proposed Project would increases energy demand and would result in the need to extend services and infrastructure to new users in the Planning Area. Policies and implementation programs in the Proposed Project, as well as existing regulations would reduce potential impacts. Construction of facilities would occur within the assumed development footprint of the Proposed Project and impacts are considered throughout this EIR. There are no additional significant effects that are not already addressed.

The impact is less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required LTS

4.6 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. The Proposed Project plans for the construction of new buildings and structures. Modification of existing buildings and structures could also occur in the Planning Area. Although there are no previously recorded archaeological resources within the Planning Area, future projects involving intensive grading, trenching, excavation, soil stockpiling, and other earthmoving activities could impact previously unrecorded cultural resources. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to damage or destroy archaeological and historic architectural resources that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. The significance of such resources could be materially impaired because their ability to convey significance could be destroyed or diminished. This impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following modified policy:

Policy 2.O.3. Relocation of Historic Buildings. Where feasible and appropriate, encourage the relocation of reusable historic buildings within or into historic neighborhoods as a means of historic preservation. Relocation is only permitted with reuse provisions and timing agreements in place. Upon execution of an agreement covering reuse provisions and approval of a replacement project.

Policy 2.P.2. Environmental Review. Require that environmental review be conducted for alterations and/or demolition of buildings designated as, or potentially eligible for designation as, historic structures as required by Chapter 12A of the Municipal Code and CEQA regulations.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (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.

Page 496 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-7 Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
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.
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.

Page 497 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 A-8 Draft SEIR Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Cultural 2)
For projects that could adversely affect a potential historic resources:
a. Consult the City’s Historic Resources Inventory and, as necessary, seek updated information from the North Central Information Center or other applicable data repositories to determine whether the project area has been surveyed, and whether historic built environment resources were identified. b. If a survey of the property or the area in which the property is located has not been conducted , a qualified architectural historian shall conduct a study of the project area for the presence of historic built environment resources. c. If a study is required, it will evaluate the significance of built environment resources greater than 50 years in age that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities. The study may include a field survey; background, archival and historic research; and consultation with local historical societies, museums or other interested parties; as necessary. d. If necessary, the qualified architectural historian’s study will recommend appropriate protection or mitigative treatment, if any, and include recordation of identified built environment resources on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) series 523 forms. Recommended treatment for historical resources identified in the report shall be implemented.
e. If no significant historic built environment resources are identified in the study or prior survey of the project area that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, there is no adverse change to documented historical built environment resources and no further action is required.
f. If a significant historic built environment resource could be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, avoidance shall be considered the primary mitigation option. If avoidance is not feasible, then the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of the historical resource, conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties will reduce impacts to an acceptable level. If adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards cannot avoid materially altering in an adverse 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.

Page 498 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-9 Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (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 archaeologist1 shall be consulted within 24 hours to assess the significance of the find, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and implement, as applicable, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(d), (e), and (f). b. If any find is determined to be a historical resource according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, representatives from the City and the archaeologist will meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.

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

IMPACT 4.6-2 Disturb Human Remains, including those Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries. The Proposed Project would result in development and infrastructure improvement projects throughout the Planning Area that would involve earthmoving activities that could impact human remains. There is the potential for discovery of human remains during construction. This impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Cultural 4)
a. Consistent with Health and Safety Code, Section 7050 through 7052 and Health and Safety Code Section 8010 through 8030, in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery during construction, the City and contractor/s shall take the following steps:
(1) No further excavation or disturbance of the project site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains will occur until:
(A) the coroner of Yolo County has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and
(B) if the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:

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

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

3. the most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code; or (2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
(A) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the most likely descendant fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; (B) the most likely descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or (C) the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the most likely descendant, and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Page 499 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 A-10 Draft SEIR Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation

4.7 Geology, Soils, Minerals Resources, and Paleontological Resources IMPACT 4.7-1 Seismic Hazards Related to Surface Fault Rupture, Strong Seismic Ground Shaking, and Liquefaction. Development and land use change consistent with the Proposed Project could subject people and structures to hazards associated with strong seismic ground shaking and liquefaction. Implementation of the policies in the 2035 General Plan, and compliance with relevant laws and ordinances, would reduce the potential for loss or damage from seismic hazards. This impact is less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.7-2 Impacts Related to Soil Erosion. Land use change under the Proposed Project would result in substantial grading, excavation, and movement of earth associated with site preparation activities. These activities would increase soil erosion, especially from wind and water, and the potential for siltation of local drainages. Implementation of the policies in the Proposed Project, combined with relevant laws and ordinances, would reduce the potential for soil erosion. This impact is less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.7-3 Geologic Hazards Related to Unstable Soils, Expansive Soils, and Soil Unsuitable for Septic Systems. Land use change under the Proposed Project would result in the placement of buildings and infrastructure in areas of unstable soils, soils with high a shrink-swell potential, and in locations where the soil is not appropriate for use with septic systems. With adoption and implementation of policies and the implementation program in the Proposed Project, combined with current construction regulations, this impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.7-3a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Soils 1)
Where soils are proposed for use as leach fields associated with wastewater treatment, the City shall require a site-specific evaluation by a licensed geotechnical engineer regarding the soil suitability, including a perc test, as appropriate.

All septic systems or other forms of on-site wastewater treatment and disposal facilities shall be designed by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer. On-site wastewater treatment systems shall be designed to meet the following parameters:
• provide available effective absorptive area in both primary and reserve disposal fields; • provide appropriate separation between the disposal field bottom and groundwater or a restrictive soil layer; • factor the ground slope in both the primary and reserve disposal field areas; • factor the influent wastewater strength and quantity in wastewater system design; • accommodate requirements for setbacks from wells, surface waters, and property boundaries; and • provide treatment of wastewater such that it does not adversely affect water quality or endanger public health.

LTS
IMPACT 4.7-4 Loss or Damage to Paleontological Resources During Earth-Moving Activities.

Paleontological resources could occur in the Planning Area and construction activities under the Proposed Project could result in damage to, or destruction of unknown subsurface paleontological resources.

Paleontological resources could occur in Pleistocene-age sediments that underlie portions of the Planning Area. Construction activities in these areas could result in damage to, or destruction of unknown subsurface paleontological resources. With the policies and implementation program in the Proposed Project, this impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (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.

LTS

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
IMPACT 4.8-1 Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Implementation of the Proposed Project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, existing regulations and proposed policies in the Proposed Project would address this potential risk and the impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

1 The California Office of Historic preservation utilizes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation as found in Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. The minimum professional qualifications in archeology are a graduate degree in archeology, anthropology, or closely related field plus: 1. At least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized training in archeological research, administration or management; 2. At least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archeology; and 3.

Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion. In addition to these minimum qualifications, a professional in prehistoric archeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archeological resources of the prehistoric period. A professional in historic archeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archeological resources of the historic period.

Page 500 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-11 Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
IMPACT 4.8-2 Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment. Implementation of the Proposed Project plans for a wide variety of uses, including commercial and industrial uses that could result in upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Individual projects under the Proposed Project for which there are potential significant impacts related to hazards would require a project-level environmental review at the time they are proposed. With existing regulations and Proposed Project goals and policies, the impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.8-3 Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School. Projects that could potentially occur under the Proposed Project could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

However, existing regulations provide standards for uses involving the handling or emissions of hazardous materials within a quarter mile of schools. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.8-4 Be Located on a Site Which Is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a Result, Would Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment. Implementation of the Proposed Project could involve changes to sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 64964.5. However, with existing regulations and Proposed Project goals and policies, the impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.8-5 For a Project Located within and Airport Land Use Plan or, where such a Plan has Not Been Adopted, within Two Miles of a Public Airport or Public Use Airport, Would the Project Result in a Safety Hazard For People Residing or Working within an Airport Land Use Plan Area. A portion of the Planning Area is in the SMF Airport Influence Area. The 2035 General Plan includes policies to avoid any adverse impact. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.8-6 Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan. Proposed Project policies support the mitigation of and preparation for emergencies. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.8-7 Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Wildland Fires, Including Where Wildlands are Adjacent to Urbanized Areas or Where Residences are Intermixed with Wildlands. Most of the Planning Area is non-wildland/non-urban area that is not at risk for wildland fires. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in new development in SP-1A, which is adjacent to a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones. However, existing regulations related to fire flow, access, and clearances around structures would ensure a less than significant impact.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.9 Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality
IMPACT 4.9-1 Violation of Water Quality Standards. Implementation of the Proposed Project would convert large areas of undeveloped land to residential, commercial, industrial, and mix-uses, as well as intensify land uses as infill in existing downtown and major corridor areas, resulting in impacts related to additional discharges of pollutants to receiving water bodies. Such pollutants would result in adverse changes to the water quality of local water bodies. However, with adoption and implementation of the proposed policies in the Proposed Project, combined with current land use, stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations, this impact is considered significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 – Policy 5.1.4 should be amended as follows:

Policy 5.I.4. Low Impact Development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate site design and low impact development runoff requirements, in accordance with the Municipal Code to reduce runoff rates, filter out pollutants, and facilitate groundwater infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
• Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
• Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
• Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
• Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces; • On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration; and • Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.

LTS

Page 501 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 A-12 Draft SEIR Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
IMPACT 4.9-2 Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts. Construction and grading activities during development consistent with the Proposed Project could result in excess runoff, soil erosion, and stormwater discharges of suspended solids and increased turbidity. Such activities could mobilize other pollutants from project construction sites as contaminated runoff to on-site and ultimately off-site drainage channels. Many construction-related wastes have the potential to degrade existing water quality. Construction activities that are implemented without mitigation could violate water quality standards or cause direct harm to aquatic organisms. However, with implementation of existing regulations and water quality policies contained in the 2035 General Plan, this impact is considered significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 LTS IMPACT 4.9-3 On-Site and Downstream Erosion and Sedimentation and Alteration of Drainage Patterns – East and South Alternatives. Development and land use change consistent with the 2035 General Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces, thereby increasing surface runoff. This increase in surface runoff would result in an increase in both the total volume and the peak discharge rate of stormwater runoff, and therefore could result in greater potential for erosion, sedimentation, hydromodification, and on- and off-site flooding. However, with adoption and implementation of the proposed policies and actions in the 2035 General Plan, combined with current grading, erosion, and flood control regulations, this impact is considered significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 LTS IMPACT 4.9-4 Interference with Groundwater Recharge or Substantial Depletion of Groundwater Supplies. Land use changes under the Proposed Project would result in additional impervious surfaces, which could reduce the amount of groundwater recharge and in turn, affect the yield of hydrologically connected wells. However, a substantial reduction in groundwater recharge is not anticipated. An increase in water demands and associated depletion of groundwater supplies could also result from the land use changes under the Proposed Project; however, access to new surface water supplies and opportunities for conjunctive use through aquifer storage and recovery would result in a reduced reliance on groundwater supplies. With compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Proposed Project policies, this impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.9-5 Place Housing Within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area As Mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary Or Flood Insurance Rate Map or Other Flood Hazard Delineation Map. Implementation of the Proposed Project would place housing in new growth areas within a current 100-year flood hazard area only if a funded, comprehensive flood solution is secured. Additional policies in the Proposed Project limit the flooding risks of infill development. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.9-6 Place Within a 200-year Flood Hazard Areas Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows. Implementation of the Proposed Project would place structures within a 200-year flood hazard area; however, policies in the Proposed Project prohibit diversion of flood flows onto adjacent properties.

The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.9-7 Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Flooding, Including Flooding as a Result of the Failure of a Levee or Dam. The Proposed Project plans for infill and new growth development in areas within the levee and dam inundation areas. The impact is considered significant.

S No feasible mitigation. SU

4.10 Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing
IMPACT 4.10-1 Physically Divide an Established Community. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.10-2 Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an Agency with Jurisdiction over the Project (Including, but not Limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning Ordinance) Implementation of the Proposed Project would differ from the Yolo County 2030 General Plan, which has jurisdiction over unincorporated land in the Proposed Project Planning Area.

The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.10-3 Impacts Related to Inducing Population Growth. Implementation of Proposed Project would induce population growth substantially higher than that projected in the SACOG regional population projections and introduce Specific Plan Areas that are not anticipated to be fully developed by 2035, the planning horizon for the 2035 General Plan. The impact is considered significant.

S No feasible mitigation. SU

Page 502 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-13 Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
IMPACT 4.10-4 Displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Proposed Project does not propose converting established residential areas to a nonresidential land use or changing the land use or development character of existing developed residential areas. However, if any housing or residences are displaced, it is assumed that construction of 7,000 residential dwelling units on the project site would fully replace any residential units removed and provide housing for any displaced residents. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.11 Noise and Vibration
IMPACT 4.11-1 Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Short-Term (Construction). Future development and implementation of the policies in the Proposed Project would result in exposure of existing and proposed noise sensitive land uses to noticeable increases from construction activities. This impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Noise 1)
a. Demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities that would generate noise perceptible at the property line of the subject property are limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday and between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Sunday and federal holidays. The building inspector may issue an exception to this limitation on hours in cases of urgent necessity where the public health and safety will not be substantially impaired. b. Idling times for noise-generating equipment used in demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes. c. Demolition, construction, site preparation, and related activities that do not involve pile driving proposed within 445 feet from the edge of properties with existing, occupied noise-sensitive uses shall incorporate all feasible strategies to reduce noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses, including:
▪ Provide written notice to all known occupied noise-sensitive uses within 400 feet of the edge of the project site boundary at least 2 weeks prior to the start of each construction phase of the construction schedule; ▪ Ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained and equipped with noise control components, such as mufflers, in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications;
▪ Re-route construction equipment away from adjacent noise-sensitive uses; ▪ Locate noisy construction equipment away from surrounding noise-sensitive uses; ▪ Use sound aprons or temporary noise enclosures around noise-generating equipment; ▪ Position storage of waste materials, earth, and other supplies in a manner that will function as a noise barrier for surrounding noise-sensitive uses;
▪ Use the quietest practical type of equipment;
▪ Use electric powered equipment instead of diesel or gasoline engine powered equipment; ▪ Use shrouding or shielding and intake and exhaust silencers/mufflers; and ▪ Other effective and feasible strategies to reduce construction noise exposure for surrounding noise-sensitive uses. d. For construction of buildings that require the installation of piles, an alternative to installation of piles by hammering shall be used. This could include the use of augured holes for cast-in-place piles, installation through vibration or hydraulic insertion, or another low-noise technique.

Page 503 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 A-14 Draft SEIR Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
IMPACT 4.11-2 Exposure to or Generation of Long-Term Noise Levels. Future development of new noise- sensitive land uses would occur under the Proposed Project within areas that either are currently exposed to noise from both transportation and non-transportation noise sources, or will be in the future. Uses allowed under the 2035 General Plan could potentially expose existing or planned noise-sensitive uses to noise levels that exceed local standards. The impact is considered significant.

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

Policy 8.G.3 Noise Exposure from Transportation Sources. Require noise-reducing mitigation to meet allowable outdoor and indoor noise exposure standards in Table 8-6 [Table 4.11-13]. Noise mitigation measures that may be approved to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct facades with substantial weight and sound insulation to achieve acceptable interior noise; • Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas; • Use minimum setbacks and/or sound exterior barriers where applicable, feasible, and reasonable; • Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; • Install a mechanical ventilation system that provides fresh air under closed window conditions; and • Maximize site design so that buildings shelter outdoor areas.

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

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

Policy 8.G.14 Vehicle Traffic. New developments shall disperse vehicular traffic onto a network of fully connected smaller roadways and minimize funneling of local traffic onto large-volume, high-speed roadways near existing or planned noise- sensitive land uses to the maximum extent feasible.

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

SU
IMPACT 4.11-3 Exposure to or Generation of Vibration. Construction of projects under the Proposed Project could cause temporary, short-term disruptive vibration for locations near sensitive receptors. Under the Proposed Project, future development of new vibration-sensitive land uses could occur within vibration- generating areas (e.g., railroads). This impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.11-3a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Vibration 1)
a. New development that proposes the use of piles for foundations shall include all feasible measures necessary with the goal to ensure that vibration exposure for adjacent buildings is less than 0.5 PPV and less than 80 VdB for adjacent vibration- sensitive uses and less than 0.2 PPV for adjacent historic buildings. These performance standards shall take into account the reduction in vibration exposure that would occur through coupling loss provided by each affected building structure. If it is determined necessary to avoid damage, the project applicant shall coordinate with the Chief Building Official to implement corrective actions, which may include, but is not limited to building protection or stabilization. b. New developments that would generate substantial long-term vibration shall provide analysis and mitigation, as feasible, to achieve velocity levels, as experienced at habitable structures of vibration-sensitive land uses, of less than 80 vibration decibels.

Mitigation Measure 4.11-3b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 SU
IMPACT 4.11-4 Expose People to Excessive Airport Noise. The Planning Area is outside of the 60 dB CNEL contours of all nearby airports. The impact is less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.12 Public Services and Recreation
IMPACT 4.12-1 Impacts Related to Fire Protection Services. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response time or other performance objectives for fire protection. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.12-2 Impacts Related to Police Protection Services. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response time or other performance objectives for police protection. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.12-3 Impacts Related to School Services. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response time or other performance objectives for schools. The impact is considered potentially significant.

PS Funding for new school construction is provided through State and local revenue sources. Senate Bill (SB) 50 (Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998) governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.”
LTS

Page 504 ends

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-15 Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1

Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
IMPACT 4.12-4 Impacts Related to Parks and Recreation Services. Implementation of the Proposed Project would require the provision of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000. The Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response time or other performance objectives for parks. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.12-5 Impacts Associated with Other Public Facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Project could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response time or other performance objectives for other public facilities. The impact is considered potentially significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.12-5a – The 2035 General Plan should be modified to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Public Services 1):

Adopt a Municipal Facilities Master Plan that studies and identifies future space needs for city government offices, library facilities, and any other municipal service facilities not addressed in the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Master Plan, and establishes space standards and ratios, as appropriate.

LTS
IMPACT 4.12-6 Impacts Related to Increased Use of Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
IMPACT 4.12-7 Impacts Related to Recreational Facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.13 Transportation and Circulation
IMPACT 4.13-1 Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Ordinance or Policy Establishing Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System by Resulting in Unacceptable Levels of Service on City of Woodland Roadways. Implementation of the Proposed Project could cause unacceptable LOS conditions on some roadway segments, depending on the Alternative. The impact is considered significant for the East Alternative and less than significant for the South Alternative.

East Alternative –
PS
Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following modification of the Circulation Diagram in the East Alternative.

East Alternative Circulation Diagram: Include E. Gum Avenue from Bourn Drive to Pioneer Avenue as a 2-lane minor arterial.

This action would result in potential physical changes to the roadway under this classification that may include access control and minor turn-lane widening at intersections. Under this classification, the LOS would be improved to LOS C and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

OR
Mitigation Measure 4.13-1b – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following modified policy:
− Policy 3.A.1 Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) Standard. Strive to develop and manage the roadway system to maintain LOS D or better as defined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board) during weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions with the following exceptions described below and mapped on Figure 3-1.

A. LOS C - Kentucky Ave from East Street to County Road 98. This level of service is required to accommodate the mix of commercial/industrial truck traffic with residential driveways.

B. LOS E – Freeway ramp terminal intersections and E. Gum Avenue from Bourn Drive to Pioneer Avenue.

C. LOS F – LOS F is allowed for the following roadway segments and intersections where the City finds that the improvements or other measures required to achieve the LOS standard are unacceptable because of their impact on other community values.
• Main Street from 6th Street to Cleveland St.
• Maxwell Ave from Farnham Avenue to County Road 102
This action would recognize that potential physical changes to this section E. Gum Avenue to increase its capacity are not desirable due to access or right-of-way impacts on adjacent properties or the environment. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

AND
LTS

Page 505 ends

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1 A-16 Draft SEIR Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 4.13-1c – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following modified policy and new implementation program:
− Policy 3.A.4 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Require new development projects to achieve a 10 percent reduction in VMT per capita or VMT per service population compared to the general plan 2035 VMT performance, or a 10 percent reduction com ared to baseline conditions for similar land uses Apply a VMT transportation performance metric threshold of 30 VMT per capita when measuring transportation impacts for subsequent projects and making General Plan consistency findings. Reducing peak period VMT in particular is desirable due to the added benefit of minimizing severe congestion and reducing emissions. Use of VMT reduction strategies such as those in Chart 6-2 below taken from Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, CAPCOA, 2010 or similar professional research documents is encouraged. [See Section 4.13 of this EIR, “Transportation and Circulation”] taken from Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, CAPCOA, 2010 or similar professional research documents is encouraged.

Implementation Program 3.8 After final adoption of SB 743 CEQA Guidelines changes and any associated technical advisory recommendations by the State of California, the City will assess the VMT reduction goal contained in Policy 3.A.4. The assessment should consider substantial evidence presented by the State in recommending any alternative VMT reduction goals as CEQA thresholds plus the community values expressed by the goals and policies. The City should strive to set thresholds consistent with the City’s envisioned future while striving to achieve reasonable reductions in vehicle travel that produce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

South Alternative
– LTS
No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.13-2 Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Ordinance or Policy Establishing Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System by Resulting in Unacceptable Levels of Service on Caltrans Roadways. Implementation of the Proposed Project would exacerbate unacceptable No Project LOS D conditions on the I-5 Mainline east of County Road 102 under 2035 conditions. The impact is considered potentially significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.13-2 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.13-1c. LTS IMPACT 4.13-3 Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program by Resulting in Unacceptable Levels of Service on CMP Network Roadways. Implementation of the Proposed Project would cause unacceptable LOS conditions on one CMP roadway segment. The impact is considered significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.13-3a – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.13-1c.

Mitigation Measure 4.13-3b – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following modification of the circulation diagram.

East Alternative Circulation Diagram: Include Count Road 102 from E. Gibson Road to Farmers Central Road as a 4-lane principal arterial.

LTS
IMPACT 4.13-4 Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Establishing Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System, Taking into Account All Modes of Transportation. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that have not already been discussed in Impacts 4.13-1 through 4.13-3. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.13-5 Result in Changes to Air Traffic Patterns. Implementation of the Proposed Project includes land use changes that would have only a limited influence on air traffic patterns. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.13-6 Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature. Implementation of the Proposed Project will modify the existing transportation network to accommodate existing and future users that could change existing travel patterns or traveler expectations. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.13-7 Result in Inadequate Emergency Access. Implementation of the Proposed Project will alter land use patterns and increase travel demand on the transportation network that may influence emergency access. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.13-8 Result in Potential Conflicts with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities, or Otherwise Decrease the Performance or Safety of Such Facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required LTS

4.14 Utilities
IMPACT 4.14-1 Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The impact is considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required LTS
----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ —

Page 506 ends

Woodland City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Woodland City Council
May 19, 2026