Agenda packet — Woodland City Council, May 19, 2026 (part 1 of 7)

City of Woodland

Meeting Agenda

City Council
City Hall
Council Chambers
300 First Street
Woodland, CA 95695
May 19, 2026
6:00 PM

CITY COUNCIL

CLOSED SESSION
5:30 PM

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. CLOSED SESSION

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 Case

JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL/WOODLAND FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING 6:00 PM

C. CALL TO ORDER

D. ROLL CALL

E. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Land Acknowledgment Statement - The City of Woodland acknowledges the land on which we live and work. For thousands of years, this land has been the home of Patwin people. Today, there are three federally recognized Patwin tribes: Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community, Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation, and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. The Patwin people have remained committed to the stewardship of this land over many centuries. It has been cherished and protected, as elders have instructed the young through generations. We are honored and grateful to be here today on their traditional lands.

F. COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC COMMENT

This is an opportunity for the public to speak to the Council on any item other than those listed on this agenda.

Speakers are requested to use the microphone in front of the Council and to begin by stating their name, whether they reside in Woodland and the name of the organization they represent if any. The Mayor may impose a time limit on any speaker depending on the number of people wanting to speak and time available for the rest of the agenda.

In the event comments are related to an item scheduled on the agenda, speakers may be required to wait to make their comments until that item is considered. The option to submit a public comment via voicemail is no longer available. Written Public Comments Members of the public are welcome to submit written comments prior to the meeting. Comments should be submitted by email to [email protected]. Written Comments received at least two (2) hours prior to the scheduled start time of the City Council meeting will be provided to the City Council and posted to the City website as part of the official record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. Written Comments received within two (2) hours of the scheduled start time of the City Council meeting and during the City Council meeting will be provided to the City Council the day following the City Council meeting. If you are submitting written comments on a particular item on the agenda, please identify the agenda item number and letter. If you are submitting written comments on an item not listed on the agenda, please identify your e- mail/comment as a General Public Comment. Note: Public comments at special meetings are limited to items on the agenda only.

Page 1 ends

2. SUBJECT: General Public Comments

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: This section is reserved for "General" Public Comments emailed within two (2) hours prior to the Council Meeting. These comments will be provided to the City Council and incorporated into the meeting minutes. Any other written communications submitted for items specific to this agenda will be attached as a file to the associated agenda item.

G. COMMUNICATIONS - COUNCIL/STAFF STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS

This is an opportunity for the Council Members and Staff to make comments and announcements, to express concerns, or to request Council's consideration of any items a Council Member would like to have discussed at a future Council meeting.

3. SUBJECT: Long Range Calendar

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Long Range Calendar for informational purposes only.

H. PRESENTATIONS

4. SUBJECT: Presentation from Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation on the current issues and challenges related to mosquito control from the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District.

I. CONSENT CALENDAR

5. SUBJECT: Proclamation for Nugget Markets Centennial

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a proclamation honoring Nugget Markets for 100 years of operation.

6. SUBJECT: Approve the Sole Source Procurement of Integrated Acoustic Leak Detection Water Meters and approve plans and specifications and authorize bid advertisement for the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16.

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. ____ to:

1. Authorize the creation of the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16.

2. Approve the reallocation of $550,000 of Water Enterprise Funds from Water Meter Replacement, CIP 22-03, and $750,000 of Water Enterprise Funds from the Water System Leak Detection, Maintenance & Repairs, CIP 09-23, to the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16 for a budget of $1,300,000.

3. Approve the sole source procurement of Kamstrup fully integrated acoustic leak detection water meters and associated infrastructure in accordance with Municipal Code Section 3.32.110(D) and Public Contract Code Section 3400;

Page 2 ends

meters, associated system infrastructure, and related appurtenances, subject to final contract terms approved by the City Attorney; and

5. Approve the plans and specifications for the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16 and authorize staff to advertise bids.

7. SUBJECT: AB 1821 Letter of Support

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council send a letter of support for AB 1821, a bill to make narrow changes to the California Public Records Act.

8. SUBJECT: Award of Purchase Agreement and Appropriation for the 2026 Electrical Efficiency Replacement Project

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the Woodland City Council adopt Resolution No. ___ to:

1. Award the purchase agreement for the 2026 Electrical Efficiency Replacement Project to JAM Services, Inc. in the amount of $181,091, and authorize an additional $58,909 for contingency and unforeseen project expenses, for a total authorized project amount of $240,000

2. Appropriate $32,000 from Gateway Lighting and Landscape Fund 1392 and $208,000 from Springlake Lighting and Landscape Fund 1389 for the project;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to complete the procurement; and

4. Authorize the City Attorney to make final approvals as to form for the purchase agreement and associated procurement documents.

9. SUBJECT: Downtown Parking Changes and Improvements

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on plans for downtown parking lot time changes and new parking enforcement technology.

J. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 (Urban Limit Line) – Utility Extension up to One Mile Beyond the ULL; Certify the Supplemental EIR (SEIR); Adopt General Plan Amendment; and Recommendation to Place a Ballot Initiative on November 2026 Ballot

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing and take the following actions:
1) Adopt Resolution No. ____ (Att 1) Certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared pursuant to CEQA for the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 (Urban Limit Line) and adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2) Consider the Draft Services Agreement Terms for the extension of city services to Clark Pacific and Bayer US Crop Science;
3) Adopt Resolution No. ____ (Att 5) Approving the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 to allow a limited exception for the extension of sewer, potable water, and recycled water facilities to serve eligible existing commercial facilities up to one mile beyond the Urban Limit Line, contingent upon voter approval of an amendment to the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative (Measure A); and

Page 3 ends

4) Direct staff to prepare and return to City Council on June 2, 2026, with a ballot measure for the November 2026 election to amend the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative (Measure A) consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1.

K. REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER

11. SUBJECT: Annual Housing Progress Report

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the 2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report update.

12. SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2026/27 Measure F Spending Plan

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. ____, approving the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Measure F Spending Plan.

13. SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2026/27 Measure R Spending Plan

RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. ____, approving the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Measure R Spending Plan.

L. ADJOURN

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Agenda for the Joint Regular Meeting of the Woodland Finance Authority/ City Council of the City of Woodland scheduled for May 19, 2026 was posted on May 15, 2026 in the outside display case at City Hall, 300 First Street, Woodland, CA, and was available to the public during normal business hours.

Marissa Kersey
City Clerk

Upon request, agendas and documents in the agenda packet will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by law. Any such requests must be made in writing to the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Woodland.

Requests will be valid for the calendar year in which the request is received, and must be renewed prior to January 1st.

Persons needing disability-related modifications or accommodations in order to participate in public meetings, including persons requiring auxiliary aids or services, may request such modifications or accommodations by calling the Office of the City Clerk (530-661-5806) at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

Page 4 ends

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: May 19, 2026
ITEM #: F.2
SUBJECT: General Public Comments

Attachments:

None

Page 5 ends

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: May 19, 2026
ITEM #: G.3
SUBJECT: Long Range Calendar

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Long Range Calendar for informational purposes only.

Attachments:

1. Council Long Range Calendar

Page 6 ends

CITY COUNCIL LONG RANGE CALENDAR

June 2nd REGULAR MEETING
Closed Session – Labor Negotiations
Aquatics Facilities Use Agreement with WJUSD
Summary Vacation of Excess Right-of-Way at Property Frontage 334 Freeman Avenue Public Hearing – Receive report on the 2026 Urban Water Management Plan, CIP 25-06 Public Hearing – Employee Vacancies and Recruitment/Retention Efforts (AB 2561) Woodland Hotel Business Improvement District – Resolution of Intent to Levy Annual Assessment Building Fee Updates
Review of Proposed Ballot Measure(s)
Introduce FY27 Budget

June 16th REGULAR MEETING
Woodland Hotels Business Improvement District Annual Assessment – Public Hearing Lighting & Landscaping Districts – Resolution of Intent to Levy Annual Assessments Calling and Consolidating a General Election for Council Districts and Measures Board and Commission Appointments
FY 26 Budget Adoption

July 7th REGULAR MEETING
Award ASR Well #31 Drilling Project, CIP 17-05
Award Meter Install Construction Project, Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16 Authorize Bidding for Interceptor Sewer CCTV Project, CIP 14-15

Future Topics / Study Sessions:

City Solar Arrays – Madison Energy PPA Buyout (TBD)
Sewer and Water Rate Adjustment – 218 Hearing (TBD)
Library Eave and Roof Replacement Project - Approve Plans and Authorize Bid (TBD) YoloTD Short Range Transit Plan Presentation (TBD)
Updated 5/15/2026

Page 7 ends

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: May 19, 2026
ITEM #: H.4
SUBJECT: Presentation from Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation on the current issues and challenges related to mosquito control from the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District.

Attachments:

1. Woodland Presentation 2026

Page 8 ends

Mosquito Control Matters

FIGHT THE BITE
Current Issues and Challenges Related
to Mosquito Control
Luz Maria Robles
Public Information Officer
1

Page 9 ends

Mission: Protect Public Health
•To provide safe, effective and
economical mosquito and vector
control. To accomplish this, we
provide ongoing surveillance of
mosquitoes and other vectors to
determine the threat of disease
transmission and lower annoyance
levels.
•District operates under the
California Health and Safety Code
2

Page 10 ends

Mosquito season is here!
• Late spring rain and very warm
temperatures can create many
mosquito breeding sources
• West Nile threat continues as the
mosquito season gets longer each
year
• Concern for dengue grows as more
infections are reported each year in
California
3

Page 11 ends

Different Mosquito Breeding Habitats
4

Page 12 ends

Integrated Mosquito Management Approach
• Public Information
• Surveillance
• Biological Control
• Ecological Management
• Control Operations
5

Page 13 ends

California:

Year Human Cases Potential Cases
2025 113 3,000-7,000
2024 129 3,000-9,000
2023 428 12,000-30,000
2022 208 6,000-15,000
2021 126 3,000-9,000
2020 231 6,000-15,000
**West Nile virus is extremely under reported. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that for every neuroinvasive case confirmed, there are 30-70 cases that are not reported** WNV Activity

Page 14 ends

Detections of Invasive Mosquitoes
• Aggressive day biting
mosquitoes found for
the first time in 2019 and
have spread rapidly since
then.
• Woodland has a large
established population
of invasive mosquitoes.
• Last year in California
there 193 travel-related
cases of dengue and 6
that were locally
transmitted.
7

Page 15 ends

Innovative Mosquito Control Strategies
Sterile Insect Technique:
• Proven, environmentally friendly insect control
method developed over 60 years ago
• Uses the release of sterile male mosquitoes
(including Wolbachia-based methods)
• Sterile males mate with wild females, resulting in
no offspring leading to a gradual and significant
reduction in mosquito populations
• SIT conducted as a pilot program in South
Natomas in Sacramento County with positive
results
8

Page 16 ends

Moving Forward
• Expand SIT to other areas with high
populations of invasive mosquitoes
• Continue surveillance and control efforts
• Explore more outreach opportunities in
affected communities
• Encourage public to report day biting
mosquitoes, drain all water on their
property, discard unwanted items that
can collect water and scrub containers
that are in use
9

Page 17 ends

Thank you!
1-800-429-1022
[email protected]
10

Page 18 ends

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: May 19, 2026
ITEM #: I.5
SUBJECT: Proclamation for Nugget Markets Centennial

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a proclamation honoring Nugget Markets for 100 years of operation.

Staff Contact:

Spencer Bowen, Communication & Strategic Policies Manager | (530) 661-5808, [email protected]

Background:

Nugget Markets was founded here in Woodland in 1926, originally opening its doors at 416 Main Street.

Discussion:

Nugget Markets now has 16 regional locations and is owned and operated by fourth and fifth generations of the Stille family. In recognition of their centennial, staff recommends that the City of Woodland celebrate this local business.

Conclusion:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a proclamation honoring Nugget Markets for 100 years of operation.

Attachments:

1. Proclamation Nugget Market Centennial

Page 19 ends

CITY COUNCIL PROCLAMATION
HONORING NUGGET’S CENTENNIAL (1926-2026)

WHEREAS, Nugget Markets started in Woodland in 1926 at 416 Main Street; and

WHEREAS, The father and son team of Will and Mack Stille founded Nugget a century ago, and a fourth and fifth generation of Stilles continue to own and operate the family business; and

WHEREAS, Nugget served as a trendsetter for high-quality, healthy, and local ingredients, complementing Woodland’s reputation as an international hub for food and agricultural leadership; and

WHEREAS, Nugget continues to invest in our community by sponsoring events, donating philanthropically, and enriching life across Northern California with its 16 total locations.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Woodland does hereby recognize and honor Nugget Markets for its contributions to our community and expresses its appreciation for a century of outstanding service to Woodland.

DATED: May 19th, 2026

_________________________________________
Mayra Vega, Mayor Pro Tempore

Tom Stallard, Mayor David Moreno, Council Member

Tania Garcia-Cadena, Council Member Rich Lansburgh, Council Member

Page 20 ends

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: May 19, 2026
ITEM #: I.6
SUBJECT: Approve the Sole Source Procurement of Integrated Acoustic Leak Detection Water Meters and approve
plans and specifications and authorize bid
advertisement for the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water
Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16.

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. ____ to:

1. Authorize the creation of the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16.

4. Approve a Goods Purchase Agreement with Core & Main in the amount of $1,155,226.11 and approve a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of up to $115,522.61, and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute a goods purchase agreement with Core & Main for the procurement of such meters, associated system infrastructure, and related appurtenances, subject to final contract terms approved by the City Attorney; and

5. Approve the plans and specifications for the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16 and authorize staff to advertise bids.

Staff Contact:

Matt Cohen, Associate Engineer, (530) 661-5973, [email protected]

Fiscal Impact:

The proposed action will authorize creation of a new CIP (2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16) and one-time reallocations of $550,000 of Water Enterprise Funds from CIP 22-03 (Water Meter Replacement) and $750,000 of Water Enterprise Funds from CIP 09-23 (Water System Leak Detection, Maintenance & Repair) to CIP 26-16 for a budget of $1,300,000 to fund the purchase of fully integrated acoustic leak detection (ALD) water meters and associated infrastructure.

CIP 22-03 currently has an available balance of $564,840 and receives ongoing annual funding of $200,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund to purchase water meters and related appurtenances. CIP 09-23 currently has an available balance of $2,534,898 but does not receive routine annual appropriations. The reallocations from CIP 22-03 and 09-23 total $1,300,000 and will be used for the Goods Purchase Agreement with Core & Main to purchase 2,010 new water meters with ALD capability, as well as associated infrastructure, software, accessories, and staff training to support the installation and operation of the ALD meters.

Funding for this action is limited to the purchase of meters and associated infrastructure and appurtenances only. The funding reallocations do not include the cost of the contractor meter installation. The funds for the contractor meter installation and construction management will be

Page 21 ends

reallocated to CIP 26-16 separately upon award of the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The engineer's estimate of construction cost is $500,000, which includes installation, inspection, and construction management costs. These costs are subject to change based on actual bid prices, and an updated budget analysis will be prepared after receiving the bids.

The award of the construction contract will be presented to Council for approval at a future date, at which time any necessary additional funding will be recommended for allocation to the Project.

Background:

The City’s water distribution system includes a preponderance of water meters that were installed as part of a Citywide metering effort completed around 2009. As of 2025, more than 15,000 of these meters have been in service for approximately 15 years or longer and are approaching or exceeding their typical useful life of 15 to 20 years. As water meters age, they tend to lose accuracy and reliability, contributing to increased apparent water loss (meter inaccuracy) and operational challenges. Recent meter bench testing on meters greater than 15 years old and City Water Loss Audits indicate that approximately 14% of water use is not accounted for or billed to customers due to meter inaccuracy.

In addition, aging water distribution infrastructure is more susceptible to undetected leaks, which contribute to real water loss and secondary impacts such as emergency repairs and pavement damage. Recent state requirements require the City to track and manage non-revenue water and to actively reduce both apparent loss and real loss within its water system to meet assigned performance standards.

As documented in a staff memorandum dated August 28, 2025, a significant portion of the City’s water meters were installed during a major metering effort conducted around 2009. As a result, approximately 7,000 meters now require accelerated replacement to reduce the risk of widespread failures occurring within a short timeframe. Staff prepared a plan to replace more than 7,000 meters utilizing a combination of Public Works staff and Capital Improvement Projects over the next few years. Public Works staff recently completed the replacement of 1,000 meters in other neighborhoods.

The Gibson Ranch development was constructed in the 1990s and features water mains constructed of ductile iron pipe in known corrosive soils and without adequate corrosion protection. Water mains in Gibson Ranch have been failing due to corrosion for several years. Staff have evaluated measures to address the problem and all options to arrest corrosion are cost prohibitive. Utilizing water meters with leak detection will allow staff to fix small leaks before catastrophic water main failures occur while replacing meters at their end of life and improving meter accuracy.

The proposed procurement would address approximately 2,000 meters (of the approx. 7,000 requiring accelerated replacement by contractor-install). All 2,000 of the meters are within the Gibson Ranch neighborhood and contribute to this broader accelerated replacement effort.

The contract with Core & Main for the Goods Purchase agreement is $1,155,226.11, consisting of the data collector and installation, all water meters, accessories (such as meter flange adapters), as well as set-up and integration costs. The set-up and integration costs are referred to as “Premium Project Services” in the attached Core & Main proposal, which includes 6 months of project support, remote collector commissioning, staff training, an onsite visit, and license application and license transfer to Woodland. The total amount of $1,155,226.11 additionally includes the first year of subscription costs for AMI and leak detection software hosting after the promotional period. The proposal includes a pilot program promotion of 3 to 6 months of AMI subscription and one year of leak detection software hosting after the pilot period. The residual costs for software subscriptions will be $15,115.67 for AMI

Page 22 ends

annual subscription and $9,854.22 for leak detector subscription. In the long term, recurring subscription costs will be incorporated into the public works operating budget.

The annual savings from leak detection, repairs, and associated reductions in non-revenue water are more than expected to make up for annual software subscriptions. From the City’s 5 most recent water loss audits (calendar years 2020 – 2024), the City has reported an average of 315 million gallons per year of real loss, equating to $1,927,193 of real water loss per year using the customer retail unit cost. The non-revenue water, which includes apparent loss (meter inaccuracy), has averaged $538,804 per year using the customer retail unit cost, for a yearly average of $2,465,997 per year of non-revenue water. The improvements in meter accuracy and leak detection associated with Kamstrup’s fully integrated acoustic leak detection water meters are expected to reduce non- revenue water in the Gibson Ranch neighborhood by reducing apparent loss, and helping the City find leaks and repair them to reduce real water loss from leakage. Not all water loss can be reduced, as some portion is considered unavoidable real loss that can’t be fixed through leak detection and repair. In the 2024 Water Loss Audit, for example, 86.8 MG of the 274.6 MG of total real loss is considered to be unavoidable real loss.

Discussion:

Public Contract Code section 3400 authorizes the City to specify a sole source product or system when the City Council makes findings that the product or system is necessary to meet the City’s needs and that alternative products would not provide an equivalent or practical solution. Moreover, the City Municipal Code Section 3.32.080(C) would ordinarily require that the purchase of the water meter systems be procured pursuant to the non-public project formal bidding procedure. However, Section 3.32.110(D) permits the City to procure proprietary or sole source products from a single vendor without competitive procurement if the Director of the department certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge, the product is proprietary in nature and can be obtained from one vendor or contractor, and that no equivalent products or services are available. California courts have also recognized that competitive bidding is not required where it would produce no advantage or where the solicitation of bids would be futile or impractical (Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 631; see also Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long Beach (1930) 210 Cal. 348; Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. v. City of Los Angeles (1922) 188 Cal. 307, 319).

In this case, the proposed Kamstrup fully integrated acoustic leak detection (ALD) water meter system provides a unique, unified combination of advanced metering, continuous leak detection, and data management capabilities within a single platform. Procuring water meter replacement and leak detection as separate systems would require multiple vendors, additional integration efforts, and ongoing staff resources that would be impractical and inefficient for the City to implement and maintain. Competitive bidding under these circumstances would therefore provide no advantage to the City and would be undesirable and impractical, as it would not result in a functionally equivalent solution.

A significant portion of the City’s water meters are approaching or have exceeded the end of their useful life. At approximately 20 years of age, meter batteries commonly fail, resulting in meters that no longer report water use. In addition, several thousand meters currently in service are oversized relative to actual customer demand and do not accurately measure low or intermittent flows.

Replacing these meters with appropriately sized meters is more cost-effective than replacing batteries and provides long-term operational benefits.

The Gibson Ranch neighborhood has a high concentration of positive displacement meters, which are particularly susceptible to accuracy degradation at low flow conditions. Bench testing conducted by City staff has confirmed that meter accuracy declines as meters approach the end of their useful life, contributing to increased apparent water loss over time. Kamstrup ultrasonic water meters utilize

Page 23 ends

a different measurement technology that has demonstrated improved accuracy across a wide range of flow conditions, including very low flows that are common in residential settings.

Early identification of leaks through fully integrated acoustic leak detection provides significant operational benefits to the City. Continuous, meter-level leak detection supports the City’s ongoing efforts to reduce non-revenue water by addressing both real water loss from leaks and apparent losses associated with aging water meter inaccuracy. In addition to water savings, early leak detection can reduce emergency repair costs and limit secondary impacts such as pavement damage, service disruptions, and unplanned construction activities.

Implementing leak detection as a standalone program, separate from meter replacement, would require additional procurement, system integration, and ongoing staff resources that are not currently available. By incorporating acoustic leak detection directly into the meter replacement program, the City can implement advanced leak detection capabilities without establishing a separate leak detection program, and without increasing staffing levels. This integrated approach allows the City to achieve multiple infrastructure and water management objectives through a single procurement.

The Gibson Ranch neighborhood presents an elevated risk profile due to the prevalence of ductile iron pipe installed in corrosive soil conditions without protective wrapping, combined with aging meters and service configurations. Deploying meters with integrated acoustic leak detection in this area allows the City to more proactively monitor system conditions and prioritize maintenance activities in a neighborhood that is not currently scheduled for near-term water main replacement.

Conclusion:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. ____ to:

1. Authorize the creation of the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16.

5. Approve the plans and specifications for the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16 and authorize staff to advertise bids.

Prepared By: Matt Cohen, Associate Engineer
Reviewed By: Tim Busch, Utilities Engineering Manager
Brent Meyer, Community Development Director/City Engineer

Page 24 ends

Attachments:

1. Boundary Map CIP 26-16 Gibson Ranch Meter Replacement Project

2. Woodland, CA Core & Main and Kamstrup Pilot_Woodland_CA_Bid#_4310217_4-24- 2026_0436_PM

3. Proposed Resolution_ CIP 26-16

Page 25 ends

Gibson Ranch Water
Meter Replacement
Project
Legend
Aerial Imagery with Labels - 2025
Red: Red
Green: Green
Blue: Blue
Notes
0 2000 4000 ft
2026 Gibson Ranch
Water Meter
Replacement
Project, CIP 26-16

Page 26 ends

CITY OF WOODLAND, CA
655 N PIONEER AVE
WOODLAND, CA 95695
Job
Woodland, CA Core & Main and Kamstrup
Pilot
Woodland, CA
Bid Date: 04/23/2026
Bid #: 4310217
Sales Representative
Joseph Williams
(T) 530-201-0555
[email protected]
Core & Main
1450 Parkway Boulevard
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(T) 9163751361
04/24/2026 - 4:36 PM Actual taxes may vary Page 1 of 3
Bid Proposal for Woodland, CA Core & Main and Kamstrup Pilot

CUSTOMERCONTACTNOTES

Page 27 ends

Seq# Qty Description Units Price Ext Price
10 METERS20 1981 1 FLOWIQ 2200 CF ALD 10-3/4"LL SS BODY 02-L-02-D-1-8D-8-UB EA 297.45589,248.4530 3 1-1/2 FLG FLOWIQ 3200 USG 13"LL SS BODY 02-L-02-D-1-8F-8-UB EA 854.80 2,564.4040 26 2 FLG FLOWIQ 3200 USG 17"LL SS BODY 02-L-02-D-1-8H-8-UB EA 992.88 25,814.88SUBTOTAL 617,627.73 60 DATA COLLECTORS70 1 READY COLLECTOR EA 8,540.08 8,540.08SUBTOTAL 8,540.08 90 ACCESSORIES100 1 KAMSTRUP 6697914 US PIT ANT 5" 6.6' CABLE, AMI CONNECTION EA 46.20 46.20110 1 KAMSTRUP READY ADVANCED US CONVERTER 669640000.2 EA 1,856.67 1,856.67120 2 KAMSTRUP 66-99-099 INFRARED OPTICAL READING HEAD W/USB EA 262.24 524.48130 1981 A46-NL 1X1-1/2 FLG METER ADAPT (PAIR) NO LEAD PR 183.82364,147.42SUBTOTAL 366,574.77 150 COLLECTOR INSTALLATION160 1 READY AMI COLLECTOR INSTALL EA 12,500.0012,500.00SUBTOTAL 12,500.00 180 PRE-PILOT SET UP / INTEGRATION190 1 PREMIUM PROJECT SERVICES EA 37,951.8137,951.81SUBTOTAL 37,951.81 210 SOFTWARE 1-TIME COSTS220 1 AMI STANDARD 1-TIME FEE EA 6,024.10 6,024.10230 1 LEAK DETECTOR UP AND RUNNING EA 1,618.32 1,618.32SUBTOTAL 7,642.42 250 SOFTWARE ANNUAL COSTS260 1 AMI ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION EA 15,115.6715,115.67270 1 LEAK DETECTOR SUBSCRIPTION EA 9,854.22 9,854.22SUBTOTAL 24,969.89 290 NOTES300 PREMIUM PROJECT SERVICES INCUR310 BEFORE THE PILOT. 330 AMI / LEAK DETECTOR START UP340 AND ANNUAL BILLING START AFTER 04/24/2026 - 4:36 PM Actual taxes may vary Page 2 of 3

CITY OF WOODLAND, CA
Job Location: Woodland, CA
Bid Date: 04/23/2026
Core & Main Bid #: 4310217
Core & Main
1450 Parkway Boulevard
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Phone: 9163751361
Fax: 9163751933
Bid Proposal for Woodland, CA Core & Main and Kamstrup Pilot

Page 28 ends

Seq# Qty Description Units Price Ext Price
350 THE PILOT CONCLUDES. Sub Total 1,075,806.70Tax 79,419.41 Total 1,155,226.11
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED HEREIN, PRICES QUOTED ARE VALID IF ACCEPTED BY CUSTOMER AND PRODUCTS ARE RELEASED BYCUSTOMER FOR MANUFACTURE WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS QUOTATION. CORE & MAIN LPRESERVES THE RIGHT TO INCREASE PRICES TO ADDRESS FACTORS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS,TARIFFS, TRANSPORTATION, FUEL AND RAW MATERIAL COSTS. DELIVERY WILL COMMENCE BASED UPON MANUFACTURER LEADTIMES. ANY MATERIAL DELIVERIES DELAYED BEYOND MANUFACTURER LEAD TIMES MAY BE SUBJECT TO PRICE INCREASES AND/ORAPPLICABLE STORAGE FEES. THIS BID PROPOSAL IS CONTINGENT UPON BUYER’S ACCEPTANCE OF SELLER’S TERMS ANDCONDITIONS OF SALE, AS MODIFIED FROM TIME TO TIME, WHICH CAN BE FOUND AT: https://coreandmain.com/terms-of-sale/ THIS BID MAY INCLUDE GLOBALLY SOURCED (IMPORTED) MATERIALS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGING TARIFFS. PRICES ARESUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL TARIFFS IMPOSED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. IF IMPOSED, PRICES WILLINCREASE BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE AND WILL BE EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE THAT THE NEW TARIFFS ARE IMPLEMENTED. THESEITEMS SHOULD BE PURCHASED WITH HASTE TO AVOID ANY ADDITIONAL RISING TARIFF COSTS. 04/24/2026 - 4:36 PM Actual taxes may vary Page 3 of 3
Bid Proposal for Woodland, CA Core & Main and Kamstrup Pilot Bid #: 4310217

Page 29 ends

82093.00016\44980333.1

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODLAND

APPROVING SOLE-SOURCE PROCUREMENT OF FULLY INTEGRATED

ACOUSTIC LEAK DETECTION WATER METERS AND APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING BID ADVERTISEMENT OF THE 2026 GIBSON RANCH WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CIP 26-16.

WHEREAS, the City of Woodland (“City”) owns and operates a municipal water system and is responsible for maintaining reliable water service, minimizing water loss, and protecting public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to expedite replacement of more than 7,000 aging water meters citywide to reduce the risk of widespread meter failures occurring within a compressed timeframe; and
WHEREAS, the Gibson Ranch neighborhood contains ductile iron water mains installed in corrosive soils without corrosion protection, creating an elevated risk of undetected leaks and water loss; and
WHEREAS, the Gibson Ranch neighborhood is not currently scheduled for water main replacement due to its relative age compared to other pipes prioritized for replacement; and WHEREAS, the City is subject to state-established, agency-specific water loss performance standards determined through annual water loss audits conducted in accordance with industry-recognized methodologies, and whereas the City must actively manage both apparent loss and real loss to meet and maintain compliance with those assigned quantitative benchmarks over time; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that deployment of fully integrated acoustic leak detection (“ALD”) water meters in the Gibson Ranch neighborhood will materially enhance the City’s ability to identify and respond to leaks at an early stage, thereby reducing water loss, infrastructure damage, and service disruptions; and
WHEREAS, the Kamstrup fully integrated ALD water meter system uniquely enables the City to implement continuous leak detection as an inherent function of routine water meter replacement, which the City must undertake regardless, and doing so avoids the cost, complexity, and operational burden of implementing a separate leak detection program that would require additional equipment, mobilizations, data systems, and staff resources; and WHEREAS, Public Contract Code Section 3400 permits the specifications of a particular brand or product when required by the public interest or when necessary to achieve a particular purpose; and

Page 30 ends

82093.00016\44980333.1

WHEREAS, the City Municipal Code Section 3.32.110(D) permits the City to procure proprietary or sole source products from a single vendor without competitive procurement if the Director of the department certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge, the product is proprietary in nature and can be obtained from one vendor or contractor, and that no equivalent products or services are available; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director / City Engineer has determined that the Kamstrup integrated ALD system is proprietary in nature and that no equivalent products or services are available (“Director Findings”); and
WHEREAS, California courts have recognized that public agencies may lawfully utilize sole source procurement and specify particular products when substantial evidence demonstrates that doing so reasonably serves the agency’s operational needs and public interest, and that courts will not substitute their judgement for that of the agency when such determinations are not arbitrary or capricious (Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. Long Beach (1930) 210 Cal.348; Mike Moore's 24- Hour Towing v. City of San Diego (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1294; Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 631); and
WHEREAS, Kamstrup provides its fully integrated ALD water meter system through authorized distributors, and the City has received a proposal for the required meters, system, infrastructure, warranty, and associated support through Core & Main, an authorized distributor of Kamstrup products; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to create the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16 as part of the Capital Budget; and WHEREAS, funding for the purchase of the ALD meters and associated infrastructure is available within CIP 22-03 and CIP 09-23 and must be reallocated to CIP 26-16 to support execution of the goods purchase agreement and meter installation project; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the FY 25/26 Capital Budget and included CIP 09-23 and CIP 22-03 as part of the Capital Budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to reallocate $550,000 of Water Enterprise Funds from Water Meter Replacement, CIP 22-03 to the 2026 Gibson Ranch Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to reallocate $750,000 of Water Enterprise Funds from Water System Leak Detection, Maintenance & Repairs, CIP 09-23 to the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16 for a budget amount of $1,300,000; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to enter into a goods purchase agreement with Core & Main for the procurement of Kamstrup fully integrated ALD water meters, associated infrastructure, and related appurtenances, in the amount of $1,155,226.11 and approve a ten percent (10%)

Page 31 ends

82093.00016\44980333.1

contingency in the amount of $115,522.61, and to authorize its execution of such agreement through adoption of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to approve projects for bid; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to approve the plans and specifications and authorize bid advertisement for the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project through adoption of this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodland as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and adopted herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council adopts the Director Findings as its own (“Director Findings”).

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the creation of the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves the reallocation of $550,000 of Water Enterprise Funds from Water Meter Replacement, CIP 22-03 to the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16, to fund the purchase of fully integrated acoustic leak detection water meters and associated infrastructure and related appurtenances, including one-time software costs.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby approves the reallocation of $750,000 of Water Enterprise Funds from Water System Leak Detection, Maintenance & Repairs, CIP 09-23 to the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16 for a budget amount of $1,300,000, to fund the purchase of fully integrated acoustic leak detection water meters and associated infrastructure and related appurtenances, including one-time software costs.

SECTION 6. The City Council finds that the Kamstrup fully integrated acoustic leak detection water meters and associated infrastructure are uniquely suited to meet the City’s operational needs and that sole source procurement is justified pursuant to Municipal Code Section

3.32.110(D), Public Contract Code Section 3400, and applicable California case law.

SECTION 7. The City Council hereby approves a Goods Purchase Agreement with Core & Main in the amount of $1,155,226.11 and approves a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $115,522.61. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute the goods purchase agreement with Core & Main for the sole source procurement of Kamstrup fully integrated acoustic leak detection water meters, associated system infrastructure, and related appurtenances, subject to final contract terms approved by the City Attorney.

Page 32 ends

82093.00016\44980333.1

SECTION 8. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.

SECTION 9. The City Council hereby approves the plans and specifications for the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16.

SECTION 10. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to advertise for bids for the 2026 Gibson Ranch Water Meter Replacement Project, CIP 26-16.

SECTION 11. This Resolution shall be effective as of the date of adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Woodland at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of May 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Mayra Vega, Mayor Pro Tempore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Marissa Kersey, City Clerk Ethan Walsh, City Attorney

Page 33 ends

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: May 19, 2026
ITEM #: I.7
SUBJECT: AB 1821 Letter of Support

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the City Council send a letter of support for AB 1821, a bill to make narrow changes to the California Public Records Act.

Staff Contact:

Spencer Bowen, Communication & Strategic Policies Manager | [email protected], (530) 661-5808
Marissa Kersey, City Clerk | [email protected], (530) 661-5806

Background:

As a municipality, the City of Woodland is subject to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and is committed to transparency and providing timely access to records as appropriate. However, the volume, complexity, and format of public records have changed significantly since the Act's inception.

Requests now routinely involve large volumes of emails, electronic files, historic paper files, audio and video recordings, and more that must be searched, reviewed, and often redacted before release.

This difficult and time-consuming work requires coordination among multiple departments, information technology staff, legal counsel, and the City Clerk's office.

Discussion:

In order to continue to provide excellent customer service and timely record productions, City staff recommends that the City Council formally support the updates proposed in Assembly Member Blanca Pacheco's Assembly Bill 1821. AB 1821 would make a narrow but important clarification to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) by calculating certain agency response periods in business days rather than calendar days. Current law requires an agency to make its initial CPRA determination within 10 calendar days, with a possible 14-calendar-day extension under unusual circumstances. Because those timeframes include weekends and holidays, agencies may not receive the full number of working days needed to conduct a proper review. AB 1821 would provide a more practical and consistent framework by changing those periods to 10 business days and 14 business days, respectively.

Conclusion:

Staff recommends that the City Council send a letter of support for AB 1821, a bill to make narrow changes to the California Public Records Act.

Attachments:

1. City of Woodland AB 1821 Support Letter

Page 34 ends

Page 35 ends

May 19, 2026

The Honorable Blanca Pacheco
California State Assembly, 1021 O Street, 4510
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: AB 1821 - California Public Records Act: Agency Response Time - SUPPORT (As Amended April 6, 2026)

Dear Assemblymember Pacheco:

On behalf of the City of Woodland, we write in support of Assembly Bill 1821, which would make a narrow but important clarification to the California Public Records Act by calculating certain agency response periods in business days rather than calendar days.

The City of Woodland is committed to transparency and providing timely access to public records. At the same time, the volume, complexity, and format of public records have changed significantly. Requests now routinely involve large volumes of emails, text messages, electronic files, audio and video recordings, and more that must be searched, reviewed, and sometimes redacted before release. This work often requires coordination among multiple departments, information technology staff, legal counsel, and records personnel.

Current law requires an agency to make its initial determination within 10 calendar days, with a possible 14-calendar-day extension under unusual circumstances. Because those timeframes include weekends and holidays, agencies may not receive the full number of working days needed to conduct a proper review. AB 1821 would provide a more practical and consistent framework by changing those periods to 10 business days and 14 business days, respectively.

This adjustment is especially important for local agencies like ours where staffing is limited and public records responsibilities are carried out by employees with other core responsibilities. A business-day standard would help ensure that agencies have a reasonable opportunity to identify responsive records, determine whether exemptions apply, protect confidential or legally protected information, and provide accurate responses.

California’s local agency clerks, records managers, and other public records professionals see firsthand how important it is to balance prompt public access with careful legal compliance. AB 1821 supports that balance. It recognizes that public records work is not simply a matter of locating a document; it frequently requires thoughtful review to protect privacy, privileged communications, confidential information, and other records exempt from disclosure under state or federal law.

For these reasons, Woodlands supports AB 1821 and thanks you for your leadership on this important issue.

Signed on behalf of the City Council,

Mayra Vega
Mayor Pro Tempore

Tom Stallard Tania Garcia-Cadena
Mayor Councilmember

David Moreno Rich Lansburgh
Councilmember Councilmember

Page 36 ends

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: May 19, 2026
ITEM #: I.8
SUBJECT: Award of Purchase Agreement and Appropriation for the 2026 Electrical Efficiency Replacement Project

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the Woodland City Council adopt Resolution No. ___ to:

2. Appropriate $32,000 from Gateway Lighting and Landscape Fund 1392 and $208,000 from Springlake Lighting and Landscape Fund 1389 for the project;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to complete the procurement; and

4. Authorize the City Attorney to make final approvals as to form for the purchase agreement and associated procurement documents.

Staff Contact:

Joey Gines, O&M Infrastructure Administrator, (530) 661-5904, [email protected]

Fiscal Impact: This project is being undertaken because the conversion to LED fixtures will provide energy savings of approximately $2,000 per month at current PG&E rates, with additional savings as utility rates continue to rise. LED fixtures also have three times longer service life compared to HPS bulbs, so this project will also yield maintenance savings.

Staff estimated the purchase cost for 143 LED fixture heads to be approximately $300,000 based on individual fixture pricing. JAM Services, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $167,676.56 for the fixtures. The contract will include sales tax of 8% for a total contract cost of $181,091.

Other project costs include miscellaneous project expenses, hardware and hazardous waste handling, and disposal charges for every HPS bulb removed. Staff is requesting a total project appropriation of $240,000 to cover these expenses and allow staff to change order additional lights into the project where advantageous to increase future energy savings.

Funding for the project will be provided through existing reserve balances in the following Lighting and Landscape District funds:

• Gateway Lighting and Landscape Fund 1392: $32,000
• Springlake Lighting and Landscape Fund 1389: $208,000

Installation will be completed by existing City staff and no additional labor costs are anticipated.

Background: PW staff evaluated replacing the High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) bulbs with LEDs for this area in 2022 for the Federal Electrical Efficiency Community Development Block Grant (EECDBG).

The proposed project would replace 804 HPS bulbs with LEDs and save $100,000 annually.

Unfortunately, the anticipated federal funding was no longer available following a change in federal administration. Staff therefore reduced the project scope, opting for more modest energy savings and

Page 37 ends

performing the work in-house.

Discussion: On April 20, 2026, the city initiated a formal solicitation for the 2026 Electrical Efficiency Replacement Project. Bids were publicly opened on May 12, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. The city received four bids; two were deemed nonresponsive and the third was near the staff estimate of $300,000.

JAM Services, Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder with a total bid amount of $167,676.56. Staff anticipates completing the replacement within 12 weeks.

The purchase agreement and associated procurement documents will be subject to final review and approval as to form by the City Attorney prior to execution.

Conclusion: Staff recommends that the Woodland City Council adopt Resolution No. ___ to:

2. Appropriate $32,000 from Gateway Lighting and Landscape Fund 1392 and $208,000 from Springlake Lighting and Landscape Fund 1389 for the project;

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to complete the procurement; and

4. Authorize the City Attorney to make final approvals as to form for the purchase agreement and associated procurement documents.

Prepared by: Courtney Morgan, Management Analyst
Reviewed by: Craig Locke, Director

Attachments:

1. LED-26 Bid Tabulation Signed

2. LED-26 Final Bid Results

3. Proposed Resolution_2026 Electrical Efficiency Replacement Project Council Award and Approval

Page 38 ends

Page 39 ends

Bids Received:

CONTRACTOR BASE BID
1 Production Distribution Company $299,498.29
2 Jam Services $167,619.25
¹ The lowest bid shall be determined based on base bid alone. ¹ Results are considered preliminary pending City staff review of bid docs. Final results will be issued after all documents have been verified.

Winning Bid - Jam Services
2026 Lighting Efficiency Replacement Project - LED-26
Bid Opening: May 12, 2026, 11:00am - Public Works Dept. 655 N Pioneer Ave.

Page 40 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODLAND AWARDING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE 2026 ELECTRICAL EFFICIENCY REPLACEMENT PROJECT TO JAM SERVICES, INC. AND

APPROPRIATING PROJECT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City of Woodland is committed to improving energy efficiency, reducing operational costs, and supporting the City’s sustainability goals; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the replacement of 140 High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) streetlight heads with energy-efficient LED fixtures as part of the 2026 Electrical Efficiency Replacement Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2026, the City initiated a solicitation for bids for the 2026 Electrical Efficiency Replacement Project; and
WHEREAS, bids were publicly opened on May 12, 2026, and the City received four bids for the procurement of LED lighting materials; and
WHEREAS, after review of the submitted bids, staff determined that two bids were nonresponsive due to failure to comply with the bid submission requirements; and WHEREAS, JAM Services, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid in the amount of $167,676.56; and
WHEREAS, applicable sales tax in the amount of approximately $13,414 was not included in the base bid amount, resulting in a total purchase cost of approximately $181,091; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize an additional contingency amount for unforeseen project expenses and appropriate sufficient project funding in support of the City’s operational efficiency and sustainability goals.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodland as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby awards the purchase agreement for the 2026 Electrical Efficiency Replacement Project to JAM Services, Inc. in the amount of $181,091, which includes applicable sales tax, and authorizes an additional $58,909 for contingency and unforeseen project expenses, for a total authorized project amount of $240,000.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby appropriates $240,000 for the project from the following funds:

1. Gateway Lighting and Landscape Fund 1392 in the amount of $32,000; and

2. Springlake Lighting and Landscape Fund 1389 in the amount of $208,000.

Page 41 ends

SECTION 3. The City Manager is authorized to execute all documents necessary to complete the procurement consistent with this Resolution.

SECTION 4. The purchase agreement and all associated documents shall be subject to final approval as to form by the City Attorney.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Woodland at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Mayra Vega, Mayor Pro Tempore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Marissa Kersey, City Clerk Ethan Walsh, City Attorney

Page 42 ends

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: May 19, 2026
ITEM #: I.9
SUBJECT: Downtown Parking Changes and Improvements

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on plans for downtown parking lot time changes and new parking enforcement technology.

Staff Contact:

Spencer Bowen, Communication & Strategic Policies Manager | (530) 661-5808, [email protected]
Lieutenant Vikki Danzl, Special Operations Lieutenant | (530) 661-7860, [email protected]

Fiscal Impact:

The new parking enforcement technology was incorporated into existing budget allocations and is estimated to total roughly $60,000 for installing the equipment and five years of software service.

Installation of updated parking lot signs will be covered by existing downtown parking lot maintenance budget.

Background:

Downtown Woodland offers on-street parking that is primarily 2-hour time restricted between 8 AM and 5 PM and off-street parking lots that provide a mix of 2-hour and all-day parking spots. In response to comments received by downtown merchants and employees regarding parking availability and the current time restrictions, City staff conducted a parking survey in July 2025 to assess if the current parking conditions were adequate for downtown user needs. The survey received 275 responses from two primary user groups: customers who shop, dine, or access services downtown (185 respondents) and employees or business owners (80 respondents).

Key survey findings are as follows:
• A higher percentage of customers park on the street compared to employees or business owners.
• A higher percentage of employees or business owners park in the lots, most notably the all- day lots.
• For most customers, parking availability and the 2-hour time limit is convenient. • For most employees or business owners, parking availability is convenient, but the 2-hour time limit may impact some of them.

Based on survey findings, staff identified three priority next steps:

1. Explore Longer Term Parking Options – Investigate opportunities for additional longer term parking options in convenient locations.

2. Modernize Enforcement Technology – Update parking enforcement tools to support improved turnover and circulation, while making compliance easier for users.

Page 43 ends

3. Improve wayfinding – Develop clearer signage and tools to help visitors quickly locate available parking, including all-day lots.

Staff are currently pursuing items 1 and 2 and will pursue item 3 in a future phase of improvements.

Discussion:

Explore Longer Term Parking Options
Staff proposes minor time limit adjustments in three downtown lots. These changes aim to increase all-day parking availability and reorient 2-hour spaces to better serve both customers and employees / business owners.

To select lots for time changes, staff analyzed the current distribution of all-day parking options throughout downtown. Existing all-day options south of Main Street are more centrally located relative to all-day options available north of Main, creating an imbalance in all-day availability throughout the area. To address this, staff identified two lots north of Main to convert several 2-hour spaces to all- day spaces.

First Street Lot (First & Dead Cat Alley)
The First Street Lot currently contains 60 2-hour spaces. Staff propose converting two rows on the north end to all-day parking, resulting in 28 all-day spaces and 32 two-hour spaces. A map with proposed changes is attached as Exhibit A.

Annex Lot (College & Court)
The Annex Lot currently contains 36 2-hour spaces and 10 all-day spaces. Staff proposes converting one row to all-day parking, resulting in 21 all-day spaces and 25 two-hour spaces. A map with proposed changes is attached as Exhibit B.

Hotel Woodland Lot
The Hotel Woodland Lot was selected for a different reason. Given the proximity to downtown storefronts, staff identified an opportunity to improve the lot’s layout and user-friendliness for downtown customers. The proposed reorganization consolidates and expands 2-hour spaces into more clearly defined and easily navigable areas, increasing them from roughly 30 to 55, while reducing all-day spaces from roughly 100 to 75. A map with proposed changes is attached as Exhibit C.

Summary of Changes Across All Lots
Across the three lots, the proposed changes result in a net decrease of 14 two-hour spaces (from 126 to 112) and a net increase of 14 all-day spaces (from 110 to 124), with no change to the total number of parking spaces.

Modernize Parking Enforcement Technology
Consistent with Council Goals to utilize technology to improve operational efficiency, the Police Department is preparing to transition from traditional tire chalking to GPS-based camera technology to digitally mark vehicle locations. Instead of physically marking tires, Parking Enforcement Officers will capture a vehicle’s license plate along with a precise GPS location and timestamp. When the system later re-scans the same plate, it can accurately determine how long the vehicle has remained in place. This approach significantly improves accuracy and consistency by eliminating human error associated with chalking, such as missed marks, weather-related loss, or inconsistent placement. It also enhances efficiency, allowing Parking Enforcement Officers to monitor more vehicles in less time while maintaining reliable documentation.

Page 44 ends

Additionally, the system improves transparency and supports enforcement actions with verifiable data. Overall, this transition modernizes parking enforcement and increases operational effectiveness. The system is used solely for parking enforcement purposes, and data collection, retention, and access are governed by strict policies to protect privacy and ensure information is not used for unrelated enforcement activities.

Woodland's Parking Enforcement Officers plan to begin using this new technology this Summer, beginning with a 30-day transition and violation grace period.

Conclusion:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on plans for downtown parking lot time changes and new parking enforcement technology.

Attachments:

1. Downtown Parking Lot - Proposed Time Limit Adjustment

Page 45 ends

2 Hour All Day ADA
Current 60 0 3
Proposed 32 (-28) 28 (+28) 3
2 H o u r
2 H o u r
A l l D a y
Current
Proposed
Exhibit A: First Street Lot
Parking Space Counts

Page 46 ends

2 Hour All Day ADA
Current 36 10 2
Proposed 25 (-11) 21 (+11) 2
Exhibit B: Annex Lot
Parking Space Counts
All Day
2 Hour
CurrentCurrentCurrent
ProposedProposedProposed
All Day
2 Hour

Page 47 ends

Current
Hotel Woodland Lot
A l l D a y
A l l D a y
P r i v a t e ( 2 h r )
A l l D a y
2 H o u r
A l l D a y
P e r m i t
A l l D a y
2 H o u r
2 H o u r
P e r m i t
P r i v a t e ( 1 5 m i n )
2 H o u r
P e r m i t
A l l D a y
A l l D a y
P r i v a t e ( 2 h r )
P r i v a t e ( 1 5 m i n )
2 H o u r
CurrentCurrentCurrent
ProposedProposedProposed
Exhibit C: Hotel Woodland Lot

Page 48 ends

2 Hour All Day Permit ADA
Current 30 100 20 7
Proposed 55 (+25) 75 (-25) 20 7
Parking Space Counts
Exhibit C: Hotel Woodland Lot

Page 49 ends

TO: THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: May 19, 2026
ITEM #: J.10
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 (Urban Limit Line) – Utility Extension up to One Mile Beyond the ULL; Certify the Supplemental EIR (SEIR); Adopt General Plan Amendment; and Recommendation to Place a Ballot
Initiative on November 2026 Ballot

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing and take the following actions:
1) Adopt Resolution No. ____ (Att 1) Certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared pursuant to CEQA for the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 (Urban Limit Line) and adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2) Consider the Draft Services Agreement Terms for the extension of city services to Clark Pacific and Bayer US Crop Science;
3) Adopt Resolution No. ____ (Att 5) Approving the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy

2.A.1 to allow a limited exception for the extension of sewer, potable water, and recycled water facilities to serve eligible existing commercial facilities up to one mile beyond the Urban Limit Line, contingent upon voter approval of an amendment to the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative (Measure A); and
4) Direct staff to prepare and return to City Council on June 2, 2026, with a ballot measure for the November 2026 election to amend the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative (Measure A) consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1.

Staff Contact:

Erika Bumgardner, Deputy Community Development Director, (530) 661- 5886, [email protected]

Fiscal Impact:

There is no General Fund impact associated with processing the General Plan Amendment and associated environmental review, as application processing costs have been funded by the applicants through a funding agreement. Any future service, facility, and/or maintenance costs associated with potential utility extensions will be evaluated and addressed through subsequent service agreements if the ballot measure is approved by voters and the City Council elects to extend services.

Report in Brief:

The City Council is being asked to take action on the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy

2.A.1, which would allow a limited exception to the City's current prohibition on extending public services beyond Woodland's voter-adopted Urban Limit Line (ULL). The proposed amendment would allow extension of City utilities (potable water, wastewater, and/or recycled water) to serve eligible existing commercial facilities located within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, subject to voter approval of an amendment to the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative (Measure A).

The City has completed the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality

Page 50 ends

Act (CEQA). A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) (Attachment 6) has been prepared in response to public and agency comments received on the Public Review Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR concludes that the proposed project would result in no new significant environmental impacts and would not increase the severity of any significant and unavoidable impacts previously disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP) EIR. The City Council is now asked to take action to certify the Final SEIR, approve the General Plan Amendment (contingent on voter approval), and place a ballot measure on the November 2026 ballot.

Background:

In June 2006, Woodland voters adopted Measure A establishing a permanent Urban Limit Line (ULL) to circumscribe urban development and protect agricultural lands. The General Plan mirrors the ULL initiative's prohibition on extending public services and facilities beyond the ULL. The ULL can only be amended or repealed by a majority vote of Woodland voters (Attachment 10).

In February 2025, the City received a petition from two companies located outside the ULL—Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC (Bayer), located at 37437 CA-16, and Clark Pacific, located at 40600 County Road 18C—to extend City water, recycled water, and sewer/wastewater services to their existing facilities (see vicinity and utility extension maps, Attachments 7-9). On April 15, 2025, the City Council accepted the petition, directed staff to undertake evaluations regarding an amendment to General Plan Policy 2.A.1 and the ULL, and approved a contract with AECOM for preparation of the environmental review.

On January 15, 2026, the Planning Commission received an informational overview of the proposed General Plan Amendment and the Public Review Draft SEIR. No action was taken at that meeting.

The Draft SEIR was available for public review from December 19, 2025, through February 2, 2026.

Two written comment letters were received during the public review period. The Final SEIR, completed in April 2026, includes responses to all comments received and minor editorial errata to the Draft SEIR.

At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 7, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended, on a 5-0 vote (with two members absent), that the City Council certify the Final SEIR, approve the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 contingent upon voter approval of an amendment to the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative, and approve placing a ballot measure on the November 2026 ballot to amend the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 (see Attachment 11, Planning Commission Resolution).

Discussion:

Bayer and Clark Pacific seek access to City utilities due to limitations and environmental constraints associated with their existing onsite water and wastewater systems. Bayer's existing potable and process water supply is groundwater that is high in nitrates, boron, and other constituents of concern (including hexavalent chromium), requiring treatment to meet drinking water guidelines and extensive buffering to protect sensitive equipment. Bayer's septic system and retention pond are at capacity.

Clark Pacific is experiencing similar issues with well water quality and septic system capacity, and is also interested in recycled water for processing needs.

Providing City water and wastewater service would reduce reliance on groundwater, eliminate the use of onsite septic systems, and support reliable operations for these long-standing regional employment centers. The Final SEIR concludes these changes would be beneficial to drinking water quality and groundwater quality conditions at the facilities through decommissioning of onsite wells and septic systems.

Page 51 ends

Proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1
The proposed General Plan Amendment would revise Policy 2.A.1 to allow a limited exception to the prohibition on extending public services beyond the ULL, specifically to permit extension of sewer, water, and recycled water facilities to serve existing commercial facilities located on parcels with a boundary that falls wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026.

Because Measure A is voter-adopted, any amendment to allow service extensions beyond the ULL is subject to voter approval. The City is proposing to place a measure on the November 2026 ballot consistent with the proposed amendment. The ballot measure would not require the city to extend utility services to either Bayer or Clark Pacific; it would only allow for the extension should the City and the requesting party agree to service terms for such extension.

Potential Physical Improvements
If a ballot measure is approved by voters and the City Council subsequently approves site-specific service agreements, physical improvements could include one or more of the following:
• Sewer Line Extension: Installation of a new sewer main line (assumed 10-inch diameter), generally 5 to 8 feet deep, within existing public right-of-way and/or on private property.

Improvements may include force main pump(s) and force main pipelines. Existing leach fields would be abandoned as a condition of connection.
• Treated Water Main Line Extension: Installation of a new pressurized water main line (assumed 8-inch diameter), generally 3 to 6 feet deep, including valves, air/vacuum valves, fire hydrants, meters, and backflow devices. Booster pump(s) may also be included. • Recycled Water Main Line Extension: Installation of a new pressurized recycled water main line (assumed 8-inch diameter), generally 3 to 6 feet deep, including valves, air/vacuum valves, and meters.

Public, Environmental, and Economic Benefits
The proposed amendment, if approved by voters and implemented through City Council-approved service agreements, could result in the following benefits:
• Reduce demand on groundwater aquifers, increasing water availability for agriculture and supporting regional groundwater management objectives.
• Reduce the potential for land subsidence associated with groundwater overdraft. • Improve drinking water quality for facility operations by transitioning from onsite groundwater (with nitrates and hexavalent chromium concerns) to City potable water. • Improve groundwater quality by decommissioning onsite septic systems, reducing the potential for soil/groundwater contamination and the land area needed for leach fields and holding ponds.
• Preserve and support existing employment centers by providing reliable water and sewer utilities and supporting continued investment in long-standing facilities. • Increase City utility revenue through payment of water and wastewater rates and applicable fees by connected facilities.
• Limit growth-inducing effects through narrow eligibility criteria (existing commercial facilities within one mile of the ULL and in operation prior to November 3, 2026), which precludes residential uses.

Service Availability
Based on analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan EIR and updated in the project's SEIR, there

Page 52 ends

is sufficient water supply and wastewater treatment capacity to serve Clark Pacific and Bayer, including in multiple dry years. The City would not need to construct new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expand existing facilities.

Bayer generates approximately 5,080 GPD, of wastewater and Clark 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 Water Pollution Control Facility.

Using the current Urban Water Management Plan 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. The current and future potable water demand of these two commercial facilities is less than 1% of the reasonable available volume of potable water supplies of 20,160 AFY in 2025 and 24,440 AFY in 2045. 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 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.

Regardless, the City has discretion as to whether to extend services and discretion would be based on the City’s projected volume of water supply and wastewater that would need to be treated.

Furthermore, a utility service agreement would be required, obligating the City to deliver an agreed- upon amount or volume of water and adequate wastewater services. The utility service agreement would not be executed without the City confirming water and wastewater treatment could be provided within the existing water supply and wastewater treatment capacity.

Draft Services Agreement Terms
Prior to the extension of any utility infrastructure, applicants seeking service shall enter into a service agreement approved by the City Council. The final terms of each agreement shall be reviewed and considered by the City Council on a case-by-case basis and may include, but are not limited to, the following requirements:
• The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, construction, inspection, extension, and connection of City sewer, water, and/or recycled water infrastructure necessary to serve the subject property. • The applicant shall pay all applicable service connection fees, development impact fees, and capacity charges required by the City.
• The applicant shall contribute $1,000,000 to the cost of extending recycled water infrastructure to offset potable water demand and support the City’s long-term water conservation and sustainability objectives.

CEQA Environmental Review
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)(Attachments 12-13) was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 to supplement the City's certified 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR (State Clearinghouse #2013032015; certified May 16, 2017). The Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from December 19, 2025, through February 2, 2026.

Page 53 ends

Public Comments Received
Two written comment letters were received during the public review period:

Letter
No.

Commenter Affiliation Date
1 Christine M. Crawford, AICP Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
January 30, 2026
2 Miranda Driver Yolo County Farm Bureau February 2, 2026

Summary of Comments and City Responses
Letter 1 – Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) LAFCo acknowledged its role as a Responsible Agency for the SEIR and confirmed that, if the project is approved by the City Council and voters, LAFCo will use the SEIR to consider any approvals required for extended City services outside its jurisdictional boundary. LAFCo noted it will review future applications to extend services for impacts to agricultural land loss and ensure compliance with its policies. LAFCo expressed no objections to the environmental analysis in the Draft SEIR.

City Response: The City acknowledged LAFCo's role as a Responsible Agency and confirmed continued coordination with LAFCo during any future service extension review processes, as described in the Draft SEIR. No changes to the Draft SEIR were required in response to this comment.

Letter 2 – Yolo County Farm Bureau
The Farm Bureau raised concerns that the Draft SEIR was insufficient as a CEQA informational document, primarily asserting that the SEIR did not adequately analyze the relationship between the proposed project and a separate Clark Pacific Facility Expansion Project (SCH #2025031376) pending environmental review before Yolo County. The Farm Bureau contended that the two projects—the utility extension under the City's proposed project and the County's Clark Pacific expansion—should be analyzed more comprehensively together, particularly regarding water resources, utilities, and growth-inducing effects.

City Response: The City provided a detailed response in the Final SEIR explaining why the Draft SEIR adequately addressed the relationship between the two projects. Key aspects of the response include:
• The Clark Pacific Facility Expansion Project is a separate and independent project under the jurisdiction of Yolo County, subject to its own CEQA review process with Yolo County as lead agency. A Draft EIR for the Expansion Project was released by Yolo County in March 2026.
• Each project has independent utility and can be implemented without reliance on the other. The Expansion Project is not contingent on the City's approval of the General Plan amendment, and vice versa.
• The utility lines would be sized to accommodate Clark Pacific's existing facility needs per their application to the City.
• The decommissioning of the existing Clark-Pacific groundwater wells and septic systems evaluated as part of the City’s proposed project is unrelated to the Expansion Project because the two projects have separate and independent utilities. The proposed project would reduce groundwater use through abandonment of existing wells at the Clark Pacific facility, thereby improving groundwater quality and supporting groundwater sustainability. The Draft SEIR fully evaluates the City’s proposed project, including the decommissioning of the Clark-Pacific groundwater wells and septic system.

Page 54 ends

• The Draft SEIR appropriately identified the Expansion Project as a reasonably foreseeable cumulative project in the cumulative impacts analysis (Section 6.1) and evaluated the potential for cumulative contribution of the General Plan amendment on all environmental resource areas when considered with other projects, such as the Expansion Project. The analysis concluded there would be no cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts for most resources, with biological, cultural, and paleontological resources identified as requiring mitigation measures. CEQA does not require the SEIR to analyze a separate, independently- initiated project simply because the projects involve the same applicant. Cumulative impact analysis is based on the potential for combined environmental effects, not applicant identity.
• The proposed project would not facilitate or commit the City to serving the separate and independent County project and there would be no new impacts or impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with those direct or indirect growth- inducing effects addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

The City concluded that the Draft SEIR adequately analyzed the environmental effects of the proposed project and that no revisions to the substantive environmental analysis were required in response to this comment. The Final SEIR includes minor editorial errata to the Draft SEIR that do not constitute substantial modifications to the environmental analysis.

SEIR Conclusions
The Final SEIR concludes that the proposed project would result in no new significant environmental impacts and would not increase the severity of any significant and unavoidable impacts previously disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The significant and unavoidable impacts previously identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR include impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use planning/population and housing, and noise and vibration. The proposed project's implementation would not create any new significant and unavoidable impacts beyond those already identified.

Mitigation measures from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR continue to apply, as applicable, and are identified in Attachment B of the Final SEIR as conditions of approval for any future utility extension requests under the proposed amendment. These conditions address biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology/soils/paleontological resources, and noise, among other resource areas.

CEQA Findings Required for Certification
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, in certifying the Final SEIR, the City Council must make the following three determinations:

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

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

3. The Final SEIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.

Page 55 ends

Staff has determined that the Final SEIR satisfies all three requirements and recommends certification.

Conclusion:

Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing and take the following actions:
1) Adopt Resolution No. ____ (Att 1) Certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared pursuant to CEQA for the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 (Urban Limit Line) and adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2) Consider the Draft Services Agreement Terms for the extension of city services to Clark Pacific and Bayer US Crop Science;
3) Adopt Resolution No. ____ (Att 5) Approving the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution_Certification of Supplemental EIR

2. Resolution Exhibit A - Resolution 6835 and Findings of Fact and Overriding Considerations

3. Resolution Exhibit B - Final SEIR Findings

4. Resolution Exhibit C - Attachment B to the Final SEIR

5. Proposed Resolution_General Plan Amendment

6. Final Supplemental EIR

7. Proposed Project Vicinity Map

8. Proposed Project Bayer Utility Extension Alignments

9. Proposed Project Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments

10. Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative 2006

11. Planning Commission Resolution PC26-06

12. Public Review Draft Supplemental EIR

13. Public Review Draft Supplemental EIR Appendices

Page 56 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODLAND

CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

AND ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO POLICY 2.A.1 CONTINGENT UPON

VOTER APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE WOODLAND URBAN

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

Page 57 ends

improvements that would generally include new main lines, hydrants, service laterals, and abandonment or decommissioning of existing wells and septic systems where applicable; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is intended to support existing employment centers, reduce demand on groundwater aquifers, reduce reliance on onsite groundwater and septic systems, improve groundwater management and quality, and limit potential growth-inducing effects by narrowly defining eligible facilities; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Draft SEIR”) was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 to supplement the City’s certified 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the City sent a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of a Draft SEIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible and trustee agencies, and other interested parties, and posted the NOP at the County Clerk’s Office, on or about August 12, 2025; and WHEREAS, the NOP was circulated for 30 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082 and 15083, until September 12, 2025, to invite comments from responsible and trustee agencies, the public, and other interested parties regarding the scope of the EIR, during which time the city staff also held a NOP Scoping meeting virtually on August 19, 2025 to provide more details about the proposed General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City received seven comments from interested parties and responsible agencies in response to the NOP; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2025, the City initiated the 45 day public review period on the Draft SEIR by filing a Notice of Availability with the State Clearinghouse, posting at the Yolo County Clerk’s Office, mailing notices to responsible and trustee agencies, and other interested parties, publishing the Notice in the Daily Democrat, a newspaper of general circulation, on December 27, 2025 and on January 3, 2026, and releasing the Draft SEIR for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed hearing on January 15, 2026, where City staff provided a presentation on the Draft Supplemental EIR, as well as the proposed General Plan amendment, to solicit additional public input on the draft document during the CEQA 45-day public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for 45-days from December 19, 2025, through February 2, 2026, and the City received written comments from the Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission and the Yolo County Farm Bureau on the Draft SEIR; and

Page 58 ends

WHEREAS, following close of the public comment period and after review of the comments received on the Draft SEIR, the city prepared the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Final SEIR”) consisting of responses to comments, minor editorial errata, and analysis concluding that the proposed project would result in no new significant environmental impacts and would not increase the severity of significant and unavoidable impacts previously disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR; and WHEREAS, mitigation measures from the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR continue to apply, as applicable, and conditions of approval for any future utility extension requests under the proposed amendment would address biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology/soils/paleontological resources, noise, and other resource areas as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered the staff report, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the proposed ULL ballot measure, the Final SEIR, all written and oral testimony, and the whole of the record, and voted on a 5-0 vote with two members absent to recommend City Council certify the SEIR, approve the proposed General Plan amendment to Policy 2.A.1 contingent upon voter approval of an amendment to the Woodland Urban Limit Line Initiative, and place a ballot measure on the November 2026 ballot to amend the Woodland Urban Limit Line initiative consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment to Policy 2.A.1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 2026, as required by law to consider all of the information presented by staff and public testimony presented in writing and at the meeting pertaining to the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1, including the associated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposal, where the public were able to participate and comment, and on said date the public hearing was opened, held and closed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Woodland hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact for the City of Woodland Supplemental Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference (the “CEQA Findings”), and makes the following additional findings, all pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for the General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 and related approvals.

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

SECTION 2. CEQA Findings. The City Council finds, based on the whole of the record, that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed General Plan

Page 59 ends

amendment to Policy 2.A.1 has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and the proposed project would result in no new significant environmental impacts and would not increase the severity of any significant and unavoidable impacts previously disclosed in the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR; and the mitigation measures from the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final EIR continue to apply, as applicable, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”)(Exhibit C) provides a feasible mechanism for implementation and monitoring of those measures.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby (a) adopts and make the CEQA Findings and certifies the SEIR as legally adequate under CEQA as to the proposed General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 and future eligible projects under Policy 2.A.1, and (b) adopts the MMRP and incorporates its provisions as conditions of approval for the implementation of Policy 2.A.1. and future eligible projects under Policy 2.A.1 to the extent appropriate.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Woodland Community Development Department, 300 First Street, Woodland, CA 95695 shall be custodian of the SEIR and all its component materials and of all documents of other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City’s decisions are based, and shall make such material available for public review during normal business hours.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that staff is directed to prepare and file a Notice of Determination as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines documenting these actions by the City Council within five working days of approval of the Project.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Woodland at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Tom Stallard, Mayor

Page 60 ends

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________________ ________________________________ Marissa Kersey, City Clerk Ethan Walsh, City Attorney

Page 61 ends

EXHIBIT A
[insert Resolution No. 6835 and CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the City of Woodland Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 Climate Action Plan]

Page 62 ends

EXHIBIT B
[insert CEQA Findings of Fact for the City of Woodland
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1]

Page 63 ends

EXHIBIT C
[insert Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program]

Page 64 ends

Exhibit A: Resolution No. 6835 and CEQA
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the City of Woodland Final
2035 General Plan and 2035 Climate Action
Plan

Page 65 ends

Page 66 ends

Page 67 ends

Page 68 ends

Page 69 ends

Page 70 ends

1 EXHIBIT B

TO RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ERRATA FOR THE CITY OF
WOODLAND 2035 GENERAL PLAN AND 2035 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE CITY OF WOODLAND FINAL 2035 GENERAL PLAN
AND 2035 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

I. INTRODUCTION

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) requires the City of Woodland, as the lead agency, to make certain written findings and to identify overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts ide ntified in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the City of Woodland 2035 General Plan and the 2035 Climate Action Plan (“CAP”), together referred to as the “Proposed Project.” CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 set forth the specific requirements for these findings.

CEQA requires an EIR to be prepared when the lead agency has determined that a project may or will have significant impacts on the environment. Prior to project approval, the EIR must be certified pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines. When an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rational e, pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, for each identified significant impact:

a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final environmental impact report.

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

c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 states that after consideration of an EIR, and in conjunction with making the Section 15091 findings identified above, the lead agency may dec ide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. A project that would result in a significant environmental impact cannot be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact.

However, in the absence of feasible mitigation, an agency may approve a project with significant and unavoidable impacts if there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects . Section 15093 requires the lead agency to

Page 71 ends

2 document and substantiate any such determination in “statements of overriding considerations” as a part of the record.

The requirements of Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 as summarized above are all addressed herein. This document is intended to serve as the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations authorized by those provisions of the CEQA Guidelines. The findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council re garding the Proposed Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the Proposed Project, and the overriding considerations that justify approval of the Proposed Project despite its environmental effects.

II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Proposed Project

The Proposed Project is adoption of the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP. The 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP apply to all land within the City’s Planning Area, which consists of all territory within the City limits, as well as land outside the City’s boundaries that, in the City’s judgment, bears relation to its planning. The City’s Planning Area is defined by the Urban Limit Line (“ULL”). The Planning Area encompasses 12,781 acres, or approximately 20 square miles. It is bounded roughly by Churchill Downs Avenue to the north, County Road 98 to the west, and County Road 25A to the south. The Planning Area includes 9,619 acres within existing City limits and 3,162 acres in unincorporated Yolo County.

1. 2035 General Plan Summary
The 2035 General Plan is the City’s “constitution” for the future physical development of the City. It sets forth the City’s long-range objectives for physical development and conservation. The General Plan is a 20-year planning document with a planning horizon of 2035. The 2035 General Plan plans for the addition of up to 19,300 new residents, 18,200 to 19,300 new jobs, 16.7 million to 17.4 million square feet of new non-residential land uses, and 7,000 new homes in Woodland by 2035.

The 2035 General Plan is required to address seven mandatory elements: land use, circulation (including public utilities and facilities), housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. The 2035 General Plan addresses these seven elements as well as includes healthy community and economic development elements. The 2035 General Plan is organized into nine chapters as follows: Introduction and Administration; Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element; Transportation and Circulation Element, Public Facilities and Services Element; Healthy Lifestyles Element; Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element; Safety Element; Economic Development Element; and Housing Element. Within each chapter the following information is generally provided: introduction and purpose, background information, and goals and policies.

2. 2035 CAP Summary
The 2035 CAP identifies measures that implement the 2035 General Plan, while also contributing on a fair-share basis to the State’s climate protection efforts. The 2035 CAP comprehensively describes the strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It identifies specific reduction strategies the City will undertake and quantifies their benefits, in order to be consistent with State directives for reducing GHGs, including CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The strategies are aimed at reducing community-wide GHG emissions to a level 15 percent below Woodland ’s 2005 GHG levels by 2020 and a maximum of 2.25 metric tons of equivalent carbon dioxide per service population per year by 2035. These targets were

Page 72 ends

3 selected to establish local emissions reductions on a long-term trajectory consistent with the State’s GHG emissions reduction goal for 2050 (80 percent below 1990 levels).

In addition, the 2035 CAP measures increase community resilience and efficiency of human/econ omic activities that consume resources which, in turn, lead to GHG emissions (e.g., increasing local energy independence, reducing transportation-related emissions, improving building energy and water efficiency, and extending the life of area landfills).

The 2035 CAP is organized into six chapters, as follows:

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction and Overview

3. Emissions Inventories and Targets

4. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies

5. Implementation and Monitoring

6. Acknowledgements.

B. Consideration of the EIR
In adopting these Findings, the City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, the lead agency’s decision -making body, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the Proposed Project. The City Council finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

The three discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council are: (1) certification of the Final EIR for the 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP; (2) adoption of the 2035 General Plan; and (3) adoption of the 2035 CAP.

C. Proposed Project Objectives
This section sets forth the Proposed Project’s objectives. The City Council determines that the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP best meet these objectives, as discussed further in Section VIII below.

1. 2035 General Plan Objectives
Pursuant to State law, the overarching objective of a general plan is to guide a jurisdiction’s growth over a long-term planning horizon, in a manner consistent with the community’s vision of its long-term physical form and development. The General Plan’s Guiding Principles were developed to set a framework for the 2035 General Plan and highlight the most critical shared values that were used in developing the 203 5 General Plan and 2035 CAP . Together with the 2035 General Plan Vision Statement, t he Guiding Principles also serve as the Project Objectives for the EIR for the Proposed Project . They include the following:

2035 General Plan Vision Statement:

In 2035, Woodland is a highly desirable community to live, learn, work and recreate. It has maintained a small -town feel while maturing into an attractive, vibrant, and sustainable city that celebrates its architectural heritage and cultural diversity. Woodland is a healthy community with livable neighborhoods, a thriving downtown, well maintained

Page 73 ends

4 infrastructure, excellent schools and recreational amenities connected by a seamless network of trails and paths.

The city is the region’s center of agricultural technol ogy 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.

2035 General Plan Guiding Principles:

► Quality and Character: Retain and enhance Woodland ’s quality of life, its distinctive ide ntity and small-town characteristics.
► Orderly Development: Promote new growth while achieving an orderly pattern of community development, consistent with economic, social, fiscal and environmental needs. ► Historic Downtown: Strengthen the historic downtown district as the City ’s center of shopping, dining, entertainment and employment.
► Economic Development: Foster economic growth and diversification with a range of employment opportunities for all residents.
► Mobility Options: Coordinate land use and transpo rtation planning to provide a range of attractive and viable transportation options, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit. ► Housing Choice: Provide a variety of housing types to meet the needs for all generations and income levels.
► Agricultural Heritage : Preserve and protect prime agricultural lands and their uses within and surrounding the community.
► Safety: Ensure that Woodland remains a safe place to live, protected from natural and manmade hazards.
► Environmental Stewardship: Foster a sustainable community for the next generation and protect and improve the quality of the natural environment.
► Public Services: Provide realistic, supportable and appropriate levels of public service that are sustainable and fiscally sound.
► Health and Recreation: Provide all residents with opportunities to live an active, healthy, and green lifestyle.
► Quality Education: Foster quality educational and enrichment opportunities.

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

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

Page 74 ends

5 ► Urban Forest and Open Space:
• Increase Community Tree Canopy
• Maintain and Enhance Open Space Environmental Values
► Water and Solid Waste:
• Reduce Per Capita Water Demand
• Achieve 75 percent Landfill Waste Diversion
• Achieve 90 percent Landfill Methane Capture
► Public Involvement:
• Build Community Engagement in CAP Implementation
• Measure CAP Implementation Progress and Adjust Actions as Needed ► Municipal Operations:
• Incorporate Sustainable Practices into All City Operations • Reduce Emissions from Municipal Electricity Use by 80 percent or More • Reduce Vehicle Fleet and Employee Commute Emissions

III. GENERAL FINDINGS: GENERAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

A. CEQA Process

The City released the Draft EIR on July 8, 2016 for a 45-day public review period that extended through September 13, 2016 . Hearings on the D raft EIR were held before the Planning Commission and City Council on August 24, 2016; before the Planning Commission on September 1, 2016; and before the City Council on September 13, 2016 and September 20, 2016.

The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 16, 2017 , and recommended by adoption of Resolution No. PC17-01 that the City Council certify the EIR. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings on April 4, April 18, and May 16, 2017 on the EIR and Proposed Project.

B. Intent to Rely on this EIR for Streamlining Purposes The EIR describes the environmental consequences of implementation of the goals and policies of the 2035 General Plan, land use change s consistent with that planned under the 2035 General Plan, and implementation of the 2035 CAP. The EIR is designed to inform City of Woodland decision-makers, other responsible and trustee agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental consequences of approval and implementation of the Proposed Project . The EIR identifies goals, policies, and implementation programs that are integrated into the Proposed Project that would reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts.

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

The EIR satisfies the criteria set forth above. The Proposed Project governs land use, development, and conservation within the entire Woodland Planning Area, thus resulting in a geographic relationship. It includes maps, goals, policies, and implementation programs that are logical parts of a chain of

Page 75 ends

6 contemplated actions governing future land use and allowed deve lopment. The policies and programs either directly establish, or will govern future plans that will establish, rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria governing implementation of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will be carried out under the authority and approval of the City of Woodland, although responsible and trustee agencies will be involved in certain aspects of permitting . Many of the specific projects and actions carried out pursuant to the Proposed Project would have similar environmental impacts, which could be mitigated in similar ways.

The City intends to use the EIR to streamline future environmental review and approval of private and public projects, as well as implementation actions , such as updates to zoning that are c onsistent with the 2035 General Plan. The City will use existing streamlining provided by CEQA, and emerging streamlining techniques, as appropriate, in the implementation of the Proposed Project.

The EIR uses detailed, parcel-level land use programming for the basis of analysis, with a focus on vacant and underutilized properties that would be appropriate for development between the present and 2035.

The EIR includes a comprehensive analysis of land use changes anticipated under the 2035 General Plan.

The EIR includes quantified estimates in certain impact areas, such as transportation, air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and other topics, based on assumptions as to the amount, type, and character of land use changes under the 2035 General Plan. The policy development process was used to vet potential mitigation strategies, which are fully integrated into the Proposed Project. The 2035 General Plan Update pr ocess was used to investigate policies and programs that will serve as uniformly applied standards and limit the scope of analysis for projects consistent with the Proposed Project.

The City intends to streamline environmental review of future projects as much as possible under CEQA.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides that additional environmental review is not required for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing general plan policies for which an EIR has been certified except if necessary to study any significant environmental effects that are particular to the project or site. For this reason, the EIR includes references to 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP policies, implementation programs, and reduction strate gies, where appropriate, to address environmental impacts. Future CEQA documents will reference the policies, programs, and reduction strategies to demonstrate less-than-significant impacts and substantiate that later project -level issues are not “peculiar to the parcel ” if they have been “substantially mitigated ” by policies, programs, and reduction strategies (uniformly applied development policies) adopted as a part of the Final 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP.

IV. GENERAL FINDINGS: GENERAL PROJECT BENEFITS

The City Council finds that the Proposed Project will result in the following general benefits (in no relative order – numbered for convenience only):

A. General Benefits

1. Satisfies the requirements of State law, has been reviewed and is responsive to the requirements of State agencies with legal authority, and has been comprehensively analyzed under CEQA and modified to include all identified mitigation measures.

2. Advocates responsible growth while seekin g to conserve energy, water , and other resources; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; promote infill, compact, and net -zero energy development; and build community resiliency to the effects of climate change.

Page 76 ends

7 3. Provides for strategic growth and change that preserves and enhances existing neighborhoods; prioritizes new growth in infill areas through the revitalization of Downtown, key corridors, and employment centers; provides for orderly expansion to new growth areas; and maintains Woodland’s unique agricultural and historical heritage.

4. Focuses on enhancing the quality of life for Woodland residents, workers, and visitors through improved connectivity, increased access to amenities, and greater housing and employment choices.

5. Maintains the voter-approved Urban Limit Line within which urban development will be contained.

6. Provides for urban development and expansion of associated services to accommodate projected population and employment growth.

7. Manages growth to ensure adequate infrastructure, public services, and amenities that the City can provide and maintain and that new growth will not detract from existing neighborhoods and commercial centers.

8. Promotes infill and adaptive reuse of underutilized and vacant buildings.

B. Quality of Life Benefits

1. The 2035 General Plan preserves Woodland’s unique small town charm and quality of life by maintaining the city ’s distinct urban edge and surrounding agricultural open space, promoting the Downtown and historic resources, and developing a variety of recreational, community, and cultural facilities.

2. The General Plan recognizes Woodland’s surrounding agriculture is an important part of the community’s heritage, plays a major role in the city’s economy, and endows Woodland with a unique sense of place.

3. Allows development that strengthens the physical form of the City, enhances livability, incorporates sustainable design practices, and continues to enhance Woodland’s unique sense of place.

4. Promotes Downtown as the civic, cultural, and entertainment center of Woodland by promoting a broad mix of uses, including increased dining, retail, and entertainment destinations with an array of urban housing and professional office/technology companies.

5. Preserves, maintains, and celebrates sites and structures that serve as significant, visible reminders of the city’s social, architectural and agricultural history through adherence to federal, State, and local programs and requirements.

6. Protects and maintains waterways, wildlife habitats, and other open space.

C. Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Benefits

1. The Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element directs the location and form of future development, shaping where people will live, work, play, and shop in Woodland.

2. This Element presents the desirable pattern for the ultimate development of the city for the General Plan horizon (year 2035) and seeks to ensure that land use planning reflects the community ’s evolution and changing demographics, while promoting sustainability.

3. Promotes the development of complete neighborhoods with a physical layout and land use mix that: put s residents in close proximity to services and amenities; promotes walking, biking, and transit use; fosters community pride; enhances neighborhood identity; ensures public safety; and meets the needs of all ages and abilities (Policy

2.A.5 of the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element).

4. Encourages infill development, adaptive reuse, and the restoration of historic buildings in existing urbanized areas to enhance community character, promote pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods, increase housing diversity, ensure integrity of historic districts, optimize City investment in infrastructure, support increased transit use, and enhance economic vitality (Policy 2.A.6 of the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element).

5. Promotes compact development patterns and mixing of land use s to conserve land resources, reduce vehicle trips, improve air quality, and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use (Policy 2.C.1 of the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element).

6. Encourages and incentivizes buildings to be constructed so that they consume less energy, water, and other resources; allow natural ventilation; use daylight effectively; reduce stormwater runoff; and facilitate the use of clean energy, whenever possible (Policy 2.C.4 of the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element).

Page 77 ends

8 7. Promotes the design of transition areas between different land uses in order to ensure compatibility, and encourage a gradual and compatible shift in scale between different densities and intensities of various uses (Policy

2.E.3 of the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element).

8. Recognizes, maintains, and celebrates the unique qualities of Woodland ’s traditional residential neighborhoods.

9. Within mixed-use corridors, encourages replacement of older, low-scale, auto-oriented development with well-designed, higher -density, new projects that offer pedestrian orientation, more efficient use of land, and continued, productive economic value (Policy 2.I.2 of the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element).

10. Encourages renovation, infill, and reuse of existing commercial centers (Policy 2.J.1 of the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element).

11. Provides office, industrial, medical, and public employment centers that encourage a range of diverse business and employment opportunities and feature multi-modal commute access.

12. Promotes the development of compact, complete neighborhoods in Specific Plan Areas that locate services and amenities within walking and biking distance of neighborhood residents, reducing the need to travel by car (Policy 2.M.1 of the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element).

13. Requires Specific Plan Areas to incorporate a mix of residential and non -residential development that addresses the basic daily needs of residents and employees and a mix of housing types at a range of densities and affordability levels that accommodate residents at all stages of life (Policies 2.M.2 a nd 2.M.3 of the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Preservation Element).

D. Circulation and Mobility Benefits

1. The Transportation and Circulation Element emphasizes the development of new and modified infrastructure that promotes increased transportation choices to serve existing and new development.

2. This Element promotes an integrated, multi -modal transportation system to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, reduce the need for costly roadway improvements, and allow residents and business the opportunity to operate, recreate, and move through the city efficiently without an automobile, whenever possible.

3. Promotes “complete streets” that safely and effectively serve the needs of all modes of travel.

4. Requires new development to demonstrat e reductions in per -capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and peak-period VMT reduction, in particular, to reduce congestion and pollutant emissions (Policy 3.A.4 of the Transportation and Circulation Element).

5. Requires all new development to provide convenient bicycle and pedestrian environments and access through building orientation, site layout, traffic management, and connections to transit service and local commercial and community facilities (Police 3.A.11 of the Transportation and Circulation Element).

6. Promotes walking by providing appropriate facilit ies, programs, and information (Policy 3.E.1 of the Transportation and Circulation Element).

7. Promotes the development of a comprehensive system of recreational and commuter bicycle routes that provide safe and convenient connections between the city ’s major employment and housing areas; existing and planned bikeways; and schools, parks, retail shopping, and residential neighborhoods (Policy 3.F.2 of the Transportation and Circulation Element).

8. Promotes a transit system that serves as a viable alternative to the automobile for those without access to a vehicle and those that choose to live and work in areas where land use density and intensity are supportive of transit.

E. Economic Benefits

1. The Economic Development Element promotes a diversified economic base and seeks to capitalize on Woodland’s location and assets—access to Interstate 5 (I-5), Sacramento International Airport, rail service, prime farmland, and U.C. Davis —by supporting and assi sting business development and mitigating constraints to economic investment.

2. This Element provides sites in a variety of infill and new growth locations to attract hotel, office, industrial, and research and development uses, which in turn will provide jobs and help the City achieve fiscal sustainability.

Page 78 ends

9 3. Seeks partnerships in higher education, seed research, agricultural technology, food production, and other locally appropriate sectors.

4. Supports linkages with Woodland’s strong historical and cultural resources and promotes tourism.

F. Public Facilities and Services Benefits

1. The Public Facilities and Services Element ensures that police and fire services; parks and recreational facilities and programs; schools; water, recycled water, wastewater, drainage/stormwater, solid waste systems; and other public facilities meet the needs of the community as the city grows.

2. Balances the fiscal realities of providing sustainable public services with community desires for high - quality amenities and facilities to ensure that meeting today’s needs does not compromise the community ’s fiscal future.

3. Requires new development to pay for itself, including new facilities and on-going operations.

4. Provides a comprehensive program of law enforcement services to deter crime, ensure public safety, and meet the growing demand for police services associated with increasing population and non -residential development.

5. Provides a comprehensive program of fire prote ction services to protect residents of and visitors to Woodland from injury and loss of life and to protect property from fires.

6. Establishes and maintains a complete system of public parks and community and recreational facilities that provides opportuniti es for both passive and active recreation and is well suited to the needs of Woodland residents, employees, and visitors.

7. Promotes creation of a recreational greenbelt and expansion of walking and biking paths to enable residents to use active transportation options to connect to work, schools, grocery stores, and variety of open spaces.

8. Underscores the importance of high-quality educational opportunities—including K–12 education, higher education, and workforce training.

9. Supports continued partnership wi th the Woodland Joint Unified School District, the County Office of Education, and Woodland Community College in planning, facility sharing, extracurricular activities and recreation, and promoting academic achievement, as well as linkages between Woodland ’s growing cluster of agricultural technology and research establishments and higher education.

10. Ensures that potable water capacity (including surface water treatment capacity and aquifer storage and recovery well capacity) is available to serve planned urban development within the Planning Area, consistent with the General Plan.

11. Ensures that adequate wastewater collection, treatment, recycling, and disposal facilities are provided in a timely fashion to serve existing and future needs.

12. Maintains the City ’s storm drainage system and promote s best management practices to protect from flooding, enhance water quality, prevent infrastructure deterioration, and comply with State and federal laws.

13. Collaborates with affected stakeholders and partners to identify and support programs and new techniques of solid waste disposal, such as recycling, composting, waste-to-energy technology, and waste separation, to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid wastes that must be sent to landfill facilities (Policy 5.J.3 of th e Public Facilities and Services Element).

14. Promotes energy-saving practices and encourage energy efficiency through good urban design and site - planning practices, as well as through building design, maintenance, and retrofit (Policy 5.K.6 of the Public Facilities and Services Element).

15. Facilitates the upgrading of utility services and support development of the infrastructure necessary for all residents to use and benefit from improved and emerging technologies in Woodland, including communication technologies (Policy 5.K.7 of the Public Facilities and Services Element).

G. Healthy Community Benefits

1. The Healthy Community Element promotes health equity in Woodland, including the promotion of equal access to health facilities, goods, services, and economic and educational opportunities; helping to ensure overall well-being for residents of all ages, abilities, and incomes; and fairly treating all members of the public in the process of creating a healthy Woodland.

Page 79 ends

10 2. This Element s upports healthy and active lifestyles for all members of the community by integrating opportunities for active transportation and physical activity into daily life in Woodland.

3. Creates a healthy, balanced, functional, and equitable food system for the entire Woodland community by reducing barriers and increasing access to locally-grown fruits and vegetables, and increasing community-wide knowledge of healthy food choices and behaviors.

4. Supports a wide variety of community facilities and programs to serve and meet the needs of the diverse Woodland community.

5. Supports public art as an important amenity to creating a beautiful and vibrant city.

6. Ensures equal treatment of all community members and equal share in both the benefits and burdens associated with the city’s amenities, services, facilities, and land use decisions.

H. Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Benefits

1. The Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element focuses on balanced management of the city’s multiple natural (water resources, natural habitats, wildlife, vegetation, agricultural soils, minerals, and air quality) and cultural resources.

2. This Element promotes thoughtful planning and resource management that can help inform community discussion about weighing environmental conservation.

3. Seeks to balance planned growth with conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural resources.

4. Protects and enhances the natural quantity and qualities of surface water and groundwater resources in the Woodland area by supporting local efforts to establish a Groun dwater Sustainability Agency and adopt a Groundwater Management Plan and by supporting local and regional efforts to protect the Sacramento River, Cache Creek, Putah Creek, and Willow Slough watersheds (Policies 7.A.2 and 7.A.3 of the Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element).

5. Requires the use of feasible and practical best management practices and promote s Low Impact Development to protect receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction activities and urban and agricultural runoff (Policy 7.A.4 of the Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element).

6. Supports continued participation in the planning process for the countywide Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan and implementation the adopted Plan to mitigate the impacts of growth projected under the General Plan on plant and wildlife habitats in the Woodland area (Policy 7.B.1 of the Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element).

7. Supports the conservation and preservation of sensitive habitat types (i.e., alkali sink, freshwater wetlands, freshwater marsh, riparian forest, drainages, riverine habitat, and lakes) and habitats of Federally - or State-listed rare, threatened, endangered, and/or other special status species.

8. Permanently protects as open space areas of natural resource value, including wetlands preserves, riparian corridors, woodlands, and floodplains. Supports the maintenance of open space and natural areas that are interconnected and of sufficient size to protect biodiversity, accommoda te wildlife movement, and sustain ecosystems (Policy 7.B.5 of the Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element).

9. Supports existing agricultural uses within the ULL until urban development occurs on these properties (Policy 7.C.2 of the Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element).

10. Ensures that urban development within the ULL does not affect the economic viability of adjacent agricultural practices located outside the ULL (Policy 7.C.4 of the Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element).

11. Preserves and protects areas and sites of prehistoric, cultural, and archaeological significance.

12. Requires projects to implement Best Management Practices for reducing air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects (Policy 7.F.2 of the Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element).

13. Maintains inventories of community-wide greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and track s related solid waste, energy, economic, and environmental data and updates the inventories periodically as additional data and methodologies become available (Policy 7.F.7 of the Sustainability, Conservation, and Open Space Element).

Page 80 ends

11 I. Safety Benefits

1. The Safety Element ensures that appropriate consideration of both natural and human -made hazards and risks are factored into land use decision-making (including geologic and seismic hazards, flood hazards, wildland fires, hazardous materials, and airport operations).

2. This Element requires the City to continue to implement floodplain zoning and undertake other actions appropriate and/or required to comply with State flood risk management requirements, and to maintain the City ’s eligibility under the Federal Flood Insurance Program (Policy 8.B.1 of the Safety Element).

3. Requires evaluation of potential flood hazards prior to approval of development projects (Policy 8.B.2 of the Safety Element).

4. Requires the City make 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 adequ ate 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 before approval of subdivisions, development agreements, or permits (Policy 8.B.3 of the Safety Element).

5. Establishes noise compatibility guidelines but acknowledges that planned development in growth areas will be noisy and may exceed those thresholds (Tables 8-5 and 8-6, Policies 8.G.1 and 8.G.2).

J. Housing Benefits

1. The Housing E lement demonstrates the City’s continued success in providing housing affordable to all economic segments.

2. This Element validates the importance of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

3. Encourages the preservation, maintenance and improvement of existing housing and the replacement of unsafe or dilapidated housing.

4. Encourages infill development Downtown and along mixed-use corridors.

5. The goals, policies, and programs of this element emphasize a mix of diverse housing opportunities (i.e., larger lot to small-lot single-family homes, townhomes, apartment buildings and lofts) in a variety of locations to meet the needs of all City residents, including those with special housing needs.

6. Demonstrates that planned land uses will satisfy the County’s regional housing needs allocation in every category (Table 1-1 of the Housing Element).

7. Has been determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development to be compliant with state law.

K. 2035 Climate Action Plan Benefits

1. Implements the General Plan guiding principles, goals, and policies, as they relate to GHG emission s reduction.

2. Articulates objectives for the City related to local GHG reductions to support the development of strategies and actions.

3. Provides GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 that allow the City to demonstrate consistency with the State’s own long -term GHG reduction targets articulated in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act).

4. Outlines GHG reduction strategies and actions that are appropriate for Woodland ’s specific context, and that are consistent with the City’s other environmental, social, and economic objectives.

5. Establishes a process whereby future plans and projects may evaluate their consistency with the 2035 CAP as an alternative to project-specific GHG emissions analysis under CEQA.

6. Indicates how the City will implement CAP strategies and related actions, tra ck the performance of each measure, and evaluate, update, and amend the CAP over time, so the plan remains effective and current.

7. Ensures compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Page 81 ends

12 V. GENERAL FINDINGS: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
A. Final EIR
The Final EIR for the Proposed Project includes the following items:

1. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse #2013032015) dated September 15, 2016;

2. Response to Comments on the Draft EIR dated January 23, 2017;

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR dated January 23, 2017; and

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated January 23, 2017, and subsequently amended May 16, 2017.

5. Errata to the EIR, dated May 16, 2017.

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

Woodland Community Development Department
300 First Street
Woodland, CA 95695
(530) 661-5820
www.cityofwoodland.org

VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.] ” It also states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. ” And it states that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”

The mandate and principles of Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such f inding is that changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect. Inclusion of mitigating General Plan policies and implementation programs are among the “changes or alterations ” referenced in this finding. Other “changes and alterations” are discussed herein. For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less- than-significant level.

Page 82 ends

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

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

In the process of adopting mitigation, the City Council has made a determination regarding whether the mitigation proposed in the EIR is “feasible.” In some cases, modifications may have been made to the mitigating policies and implementation programs to update, clarify, streamline, correct, or make other revisions. These are discussed herein.

With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons in support of the finding that the project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. In the process of considering the EIR for certification, the City Council has recognized that impact avoidance is not possible in all instances.

To the extent that significant adverse environmental impacts will not be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigating policies and implementation programs , the City Council has found that specific economic, social, and other considerations support approval of the Proposed Project. Those findings are reflected herein in Section VI.C (Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures) below and in Section VIII (Statement of Overriding Considerations).

A. Findings Regarding EIR Errata and EIR Recirculation

1. Standard for Recirculation Under CEQA

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after the lead agency gives public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. “Information” may i nclude project changes, changes to the environmental setting, or additional data or other information. The Guidelines do not consider new information to be significant unless the lead agency changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate the impact that the agency or project proponent has declined to implement.

Section 15088.5 states “significant new information” requiring recirculation may include:

(1) A new significant environmental impact that had not previously been disclosed in the Draft EIR would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure;

Page 83 ends

14 (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that had already been identified unless mitigation measures would be adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;

(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure would considerably lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the proponents will not adopt it; or

(4) The Draft EIR was so inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Recirculation is not required if new info rmation added to the EIR just clarifies or makes minor modifications to an otherwise adequate EIR.

2. Changes to the Proposed Project

Since the City released the Draft EIR, and as a result of public input and meetings, the City made various policy and program changes to both the Draft General Plan and Draft Climate Action Plan, including policy and implementation program changes. These various changes are shown in Attachment B to the respective City Council resolutions approving the 2035 General Plan and 2035 Climate Action Plan. The City made numerous non -substantive text changes to the Proposed Project to clarify terms, correct grammatical errors, correct figures, and place headers and other identifying information in the correct places. These changes did not substantively change the text of either the General Plan or Climate Action Plan. Rather, the changes corrected errors and provided additional clarity.

The purpose of most of the substantive changes was to clarify policies and programs, many of which are enhancements to existing policies, and to ensure additional environmental protection. For example, the City modified Policy 8.F.2 to require the City to partic ipate in the next update of the Yolo County Operational Area Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in an effort to address topics related to climate change vulnerability, as required by SB 379. As another example, the City modified Policy 6.B.9 to re quire an evaluation and enhancement of street lighting along bicycle and pedestrian routes to encourage walking and biking as needed. The City also amended the Proposed Project to add new, or amend existing, policies as directed by the EIR mitigation measures. Changes that incorporate mitigation measures from the EIR do not constitute new information as the changes ensured conformity with the EIR. Additionally, the n ew or amended policies support goals already in the 2035 General Plan and/or 2035 CAP.

The City Council also made an important decision regarding its growth strategy. The Draft 2035 General Plan and the EIR for the Proposed Project both examined two “equal weight” alternatives, the South Alternative and the East Alternative. While each alternati ve contemplated the same amount of overall growth city-wide, each alternative contemplated much of the growth in a particular part of the city (either primarily, but not exclusively, to the south or primarily, but not exclusively, to the east). Rather than select either alternative, the City chose to, instead, adopt an alternative growth strategy that is now the 2035 General Plan. That growth strategy recognizes that the General Plan goals and policies prioritize future residential growth through infill alo ng key corridors and downtown as well as prioritizes Spring Lake buildout. Instead of selecting a particular part of the City in which to focus growth, potentially to the exclusion of another area(s), the City Council chooses instead to have inherent physi cal, financial, and market constraints direct and meter growth in these areas. The maximum number of new housing units (maximum of 7,000 dwelling units) , population, and square footage of non -residential space (maximum of 17,386,000 square feet) has not changed. Various growth phasing considerations have been imbedded

Page 84 ends

15 as policy considerations. Thus, the Proposed Project provides the City with greater flexibility to consider development opportunities that will provide the most benefit to the community. All d ecisions regarding future development in new growth areas will rely on a thorough assessment of the specific project proposal and its consistency with the 2035 General Plan goals and policies as well as the 2035 Climate Action Plan and EIR for the Proposed Project.

Due to the City Council’s d ecision to not select either the South or the East Alternative , and to instead have a modified growth strategy, the City modified the 2035 General Plan text and a few of the 2035 General Plan policies. The 2035 General Plan does not have any references to the two alternatives as the public review draft previously did. Instead, the Specific Plan Areas are described as specific areas and not within the context of being permitted to develop pursuant to one of the two alte rnatives. For example, page LU 2-61 removed all references to the different alternatives and instead describes the three different Specific Plan Areas. These changes are text changes only and do not create an environmental impact or worsen a previously identified environmental effect.

The City substantively modified certain policies to be consistent with its modified growth strategy. The City modified Policy 2.B.1 to provide protections for completion of infrastructure and amenities in existing specific plan areas while they are developing. This modified policy ensures that the appropriate infrastructure analysis is conducted as a specific plan is devel oping and strengthens the policy to ensure overall environmental protection rather than creating a new, or exacerbating an existing, environmental effect. Additionally, the City modified Policy 2.B.2 to prohibit the processing of any specific plan until the designs for projects to provide necessary 200 -year flood protection have been approved and the funding for construction secured. The City Council also modified the policy to require that the City Council approve any sale of the City -owned 900 acres that is a part of SP -2 by a four -fifths vote. This amended policy is to ensure adequate flood protection is consistent with state law related to flood protection. The City made similar changes to Policy 2.L.5 concerning Specific Plan -2 while also encouraging su stainable development with the goal of achieving zero net energy at the building and neighborhood level within SP-2. The City also modified Policy 2.L.1 to clarify that plans to develop new specific plan areas will be independently analyzed for consistency with the 2035 General Plan and to consider site-specific constraints.

The City Council also changed 2035 General Plan Policy 2.A.3 related to agricultural mitigation. The policy now provides that in addition to requiring one acre of agricultural land to be permanently conserved for every acre converted to urban use, the farmland being conserved must be of the same Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program type as the farmland that is being converted, or of a type of higher quality, and the conserved farmla nd should be located outside of, but as close to the Woodland Urban Limit Line as possible. It also provides that for projects proposing to convert agricultural land to an urban use, a soils analysis will be required to determine the farmland classification for purposes of determining the appropriate mitigation as a part of the environmental review conducted for the project. This change ensures that agricultural land will be conserved on a like for like basis and that the soil quality will be analyzed at th e time a project is proposed for development to ensure that the most accurate analysis is being conducted for the project. This change strengthens the policy and ensures additional environmental protection rather than creating a new, or exacerbating an existing, environmental effect.

During the May 16, 2017 City Council meeting, the City Council approved of three additional clarifying changes to the 2035 General Plan. The first change clarifies that the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) residential requirement is unlimited above the ground floor rather than stating that a revised density for this area is not applicable. This change permits residential uses above commercial development, which is consistent with the City’s current practice and does not exacerbate any existing, or create any ne w,

Page 85 ends

16 environmental impacts. The second change clarifies that the Commercial Mixed Use District described on page LU 2-45 of the General Plan is “commercial service” rather than “commercial.” This is a minor text change that does not substantively change the text of the General Plan and does not exacerbate an existing or create a new environmental impact. The third change clarifies that the development standard for Neighborhood Commercial (NC) is consistent with changes made on page LU 2 -58, Policy 2.J.4 that the maximum square foot floorplate for any single user is 60,000 square feet rather than 25,000 square feet.

This change is clerical in nature and does not create a new, or exacerbate an existing, environmental impact.

Given the clarifications to the Proposed Project and the lack of significant changes to the Proposed Project, the environmental impacts from the Proposed Project did not change. While the City now has a modified growth strategy rather than a preferred location to concentrate its growth, the maximum allowable General Plan buildout did not change. Thus, the analysis of significant environmental effects remained the same, and no changes to the EIR were warranted as a result of changes to the Proposed Project. The City Council has as Attachment B to its Resolution Adopting the 2035 General Plan and Attachment B to its Resolution Adopting the 2035 Climate Action Plan all of the changes made to the respective documents. Rather than setting out each of the numerous changes made to the 2035 General Pl an and 2035 Climate Action Plan, the City Council hereby incorporates by reference Attachment B to the City Council’s Resolution Adopting the 2035 General Plan and Attachment B to the City Council’s Resolution Adopting the 2035 Climate Action Plan. The City Council is anticipated to adopt the documents, as amended, subsequent to certifying the EIR.

Finding: None of the changes to the Proposed Project necessitated a change to the EIR. The changes did not create a new significant effect or worsen a previous ly identified one. The changes do not propose additional new residential units, square footage, or population to be permitted over what the EIR previously analyzed and disclosed. Neither do the changes propose or contemplate growth in a location that the EIR did not analyze. The public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment on any new or different environmental impacts and had multiple opportunities to provide input. The numerous changes to the Proposed Project do not require any changes to the EIR; thus, recirculation i s not necessary as the changes do not constitute significant new information under CEQA.

3. Changes to the EIR and Errata to FEIR

The City also made numerous changes to the Draft EIR since its release, which are described in Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” of the Final EIR , dated January 23, 2017. Most of the changes to the DEIR clarified text and did not substantively change the EIR. Since the City released the Final EIR, the City made four minor changes to mitigation measures and also amended the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to take into account these four changes as well as to include Table 2 -1 of the Final EIR in it. That errata is included as Attachment A to the City Council’s Resolution Certifying the EIR for the Proposed Project. The amendments to the four mitigation measures are set forth as follows (new text shown in italics, deleted text shown in strikethrough):

 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 (1:1 ratio). 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

Page 86 ends

17 conserved farmland should be located as close to the Woodland Urban Limit Line as possible. For projects proposing to convert agricultural land to urban use, require soils analysis to determine farmland classification for purposes of determining appropriate mitigation as part of environmental review conducted for the project.

Finding: The City Council finds that this modified Mitigation Measure ensures that farmland being conserved will be of the sa me quality as the farmland proposed for conversion, and ensures that lesser quality farmland will not be conserved when higher quality farmland will be converted. The revised Mitigation Measure also requires projects that propose to convert agricultural land to have a specific soils analysis prepared to determine the farmland classification, which will ensure that the most accurate analysis is used in determining the environmental impact of the proposed project.

This modified Mitigation Measure will not cre ate a new, or worsen an existing, environmental impact.

 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 300 150 feet from adjacent agricultural land where possible.

Equivalent means of providing agricultural buffers may be considered by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis for parcels where development potential would be precluded or severely limited as a result of the required buffer size. The buffer shall be landscaped/vegetated and may include public right of way.

Finding: This modified Mitigation Measure ensures that a buffer will be in place between new development at the edge of the Urban Limit Line but also continues to provide the City and landowner with flexibility of having an alternative to a buffer i f development potential would be precluded or severely limited as a result of the required buffer size. The City Council changed this Mitigation Measure in part to be consistent with neighboring jurisdictions ’ policies and in part because it recognizes the need for flexibility in addressing required buffers on private property.

This modified Mitigation Measure will not create a new, or worsen an existing, environmental impact.

 Mitigation Measure 4.13 -1a – The Draft 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.

Finding: The modified Mitigation Measure removes the reference to the East Alternative as the City Council chose to pursue a modified growth strategy and is not selecting one direction to grow in over another. This change would not create a new, or exacerb ate an existing, environmental impact.

 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 County Road 102 from E. Gibson R oad to Farmers Central Road as a 4-lane principal arterial.

Finding: Similar to modified Mitigation Measure 4.13 -1a, the modified Mitigation Measure removes the reference to the East Alternative as the City Council chose to pursue a modified

Page 87 ends

18 growth strategy and is not selecting one direction to grow in over another. This change would not create a new, or exacerbate an existing, environmental impact.

Due to the City’s decision to have a revised growth strategy, the City made a minor change to Impact

4.13-1 to remove the comparative reference to the East Alternative and South Alternative . Similar to the discussion above, this change comports with the City Council’s decision to pursue a modified growth strategy rather than growing primarily to the south or to the east and removes the reference to the two alternatives. The change reads as follows:

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

Finding: Similar to modified Mitigation Measure 4.13 -1a and 4.13-3b, this impact had a finding regarding both the East Alternative and the South Alternative. The removal of the language recognizes the City Council’s preferred modified growth strategy but d oes not add a new impact that had not previously been analyzed or worsen an existing impact. This language change does not constitute significant new information.

Finding: The Woodland City Council finds that the changes identified in the proposed revisi ons to both the Proposed Project and the EIR do not identify any new impacts or identify any substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that would not be reduced to a less than significant level through mitigation; nor would the revise d mitigation measures result in new significant environmental impacts.

Rather, Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1 provides more specificity concerning the process to use when agricultural land is being converted to urban development. It would result in an additional environmental impact or change in severity an existing impact. Mitigation Measure 4.2-3 changes the agricultural buffer from 300 feet to 150 feet and continues to provide an alternative if the buffer is impractical or otherwise not possible. The amended m itigation measure would not cause a new significant environmental impact to result from the amended measure and would cause an increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Amended Mitigation Measure s 4.13-1a and 4.13 -3b both referred to the East A lternative Circulation Diagram. Given the City Council’s growth strategy direction and its decision to not choose between the East Alternative and the South Alternative, these two Mitigation Measures have been amended to refer to the Circulation Diagram for the 2035 General Plan, rather than the Ea st Alternative.

Impact 4.13-1 referred to both the East and South Alternatives, distinctions that are no longer applicable in the 2035 General Plan. These changes conform to the City Council’s chosen growth strategy and would not result in a significant impact on the environment or increase in intensity any environmental effects.

All of t he mitigation measures that have been amended since release of the FEIR help clarify and strengthen the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to help further reduce or avoid an impact.

Because no new unmitigated environmental effects have been identified or created by the revised mitigation, and because no new significant information has been added to either the Proposed Project or the EIR, the EIR has not been changed in a way that depr ives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental impact of the Proposed Project. The revisions to the EIR are improvements to the environmental analysis. No impacts identified in the EIR would be substantially increased as a result of changes to the Proposed Project or the EIR. There are no new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that are considerably different from those considered in the EIR that

Page 88 ends

19 the City Council has declined to adopt. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is not required.

B. Findings Regarding Specific Environmental Impacts
The Draft EIR identified a number of less than significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project that do not require mitigation. The Draft EIR also identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that may be caused in whole or in part by the Proposed Project. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided or substantially lessened through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Other effects cannot be, and thus may be significant and unavoidable. For reasons set forth in Section VIII (Statement of Overriding Considerations), however, the City Council has determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable effects of the Proposed Project.

The City Council’s findings with respect to the Proposed P roject’s significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the Final EIR and these Findings of Fact. The Summary of Findings does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Please refer to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, the Final 2035 Genera l Plan, and the Final 2035 CAP for more detail.

Each of these documents is incorporated into these findings in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigating policies and implementation programs, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the 2035 General Plan in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

The Summary of Findings provides a summary description of each potentially significant and significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by the City Council, and states the findings of the City Council rega rding the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and associated record (described herein) , both of which are incorporated by reference. The City Council hereby ratifies, adopts , and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the record into these findings, and ratifies, adopts , and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relat ing to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

The following general findings are made by the City Council:

► For all impacts ide ntified as less -than-significant in the EIR, the less -than-significant impact determination is hereby confirmed by the City Council based on the evidence and analysis provided in the record.

► For all adopted mitigation measures, the City Council hereby directs that the stated mitigation measure (or its equivalent) shall be incorporated into the 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP. The City Council finds that each such measure is appropriate and feasible and will lessen the impact to some degree.

Some of the measures identified in these Findings may also be within the jurisdiction and control of other agencies. To the extent any of the mitigation measures are within the jurisdiction of other agencies, the City Council finds those agencies can and should implement those measures within their jurisdiction and control (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][2]).

Page 89 ends

20 1. Findings Regarding Less than Significant Impacts (No Mitigation Required) CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the Proposed Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to a number of environmental topics, as summarized below. Please refer to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, the Final 2035 General Plan, and the Final 2035 CAP for more detail.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Impact 4.1-1: Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista.

Finding: The impact is considered less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.1-22).

Explanation: Policies in the Proposed Project ensure that impacts on scenic views are minimized. Goal

7.C establishes that the City is responsible for promoting the preservation of agricultural land surrounding the ULL. Policies 2.A.1, 7.B.6, and 7.C.3 reinforce the Urban Limit Line and require the City to work with Yolo County and the City of Davis on an open space buffer and protection of agricultural land around Woodland. Policy 3.A.7 requires the City to promot e the use of grid and modified grid street patterns in new neighborhoods, which helps protect views of surrounding agricultural and open space land along transportation corridors. 2035 CAP actions protect open spaces, which provide scenic views, by focusing installation of renewable energy systems on developed land and structures. 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 (FEIR, p. 4.1-22).

Impact 4.1 -2: Substantially Damage Scenic Resources, Including, but not Limited to, Trees, Rock Outcroppings, and Historic Buildings within a State Scenic Highway.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.1-24).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.1-24).

Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Impact 4.2-2: Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use, or a Williamson Act Contract.

Finding: The impact is considered less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.2-37).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.2- 37).

Page 90 ends

21 Air Quality

Impact 4.3-4: Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.3-48).

Explanation: The WPCF headwork facility and pond system are also both odor sources within the City.

The headworks area includes an influent pump station, screens, and grit removal, all of which are open to atmosphere and not equipped with any odor controls and odor scrubbers for the headwork area. Although there have been odor abatement options identified in odor studies for the WPCF, the WPCF would incur substantial construction and operations and maintenance costs, and/or diminished operational flexibility in order to avoid future odor impacts. With implementation of proposed policies, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial odor exposure. Policy 7.F.6 requires odors associated with the wastewater treatment plant to be mitigated to acceptable levels in conjunction with planning and development for any land within an odor buffer. The odor buffer zone was developed through an evaluation of odor emissions associated with the WPCF and consideration of wind speeds and wind direction in the area surrounding this facility. Through this study of odor emissions, a buffer was developed, outside of which there would not be substantial odor emissions. The Proposed Project includes policies that would avoid exposure of a substantial number of people to objectionable odors (FEIR, p. 4.3-48).

Biological Resources

Impact 4.4-5: Interference with Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.4-51).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.4-51).

Impact 4.4-6: Conflict with Local Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.4-55).

Explanation: The 2035 General Plan policies and compliance with City ordinance would reduce potential impacts on protected trees (FEIR, p. 4.4-55).

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.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.4-59).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.4-59).

Page 91 ends

22 Impact 4.5 -3: Develop Land Uses or Development Patterns that Cause Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.5-62).

Explanation: With implementation of policies in the 2035 General Plan and reduction strategies in the 2035 CAP, combined with current laws, regulations, and policies, the impact related to the use of energy would be reduced.

The environmental effects associated with the use of energy in the transportation sector, as well as for building energy use and construction, are evaluated in this section, as well as Section 4.3 of the EIR, “Air Quality” and Section 4.11 of the EIR, “Noise and Vibration.” Section 4.13 of the EIR , “Transportation and Circulation,” summarizes the traffic analysis prepared to support the EIR.

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 (FEIR, p. 4.5-62).

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.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.5-65).

Explanation: 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 reg ulations would reduce potential impacts. Construction of facilities would occur within the assumed development footprint of the Proposed Project, and impacts are considered throughout the EIR. There are no additional significant effects that are not already addressed (FEIR, p. 4.5-65).

Geology, Soils, Minerals Resources, and Paleontological Resources

Impact 4.7-1: Seismic Hazards Related to Surface Fault Rupture, Strong Seismic Ground Shaking, and Liquefaction.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.7-27).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.7-27).

Impact 4.7-2: Impacts Related to Soil Erosion.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.7-29).

Page 92 ends

23 Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.7-29).

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.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.8-31).

Explanation: Implementation of the Propos ed 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 (FEIR, p. 4.8-31).

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.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, pp. 4.8-33 and 4.8-34).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, pp. 4.8-33 and 4.8-34).

Impact 4.8-3: Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardo us Materials, Substances, or Waste within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.8-38).

Explanation: Projects that could potentially occur under the Proposed Project could emit hazard ous 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 (FEIR, p. 4.8-38).

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.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.8-40).

Explanation: 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

Page 93 ends

24 regulations and Proposed Project goals and policies, the impact is considered less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.8-40).

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.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.8-41).

Explanation: A portion of the Planning Area is in the SMF Airport Influence Area. The 2035 General Plan includes policies to avoid any adverse impact (FEIR, p. 4.8-41).

Impact 4.8-6: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.8-43).

Explanation: Proposed Project policies support the mitigation of and preparation for emergencies (FEIR, p. 4.8-43).

Impact 4.8 -7: Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Wildland Fires, Including Whe re 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.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.8-46).

Explanation: Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in new development in SP-1A, which is adjacent to a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, existing regulations related to fire flow, access, and clearances around structures would ensure a less than significant impact (FEIR, p. 4.8-46).

Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality

Impact 4.9 -4: Interference with Groundwater Recharge or Substantial Depletion of Groundwater Supplies.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.9-50).

Explanation: 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 substant ial 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 (FEIR, p. 4.9-50).

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.

Page 94 ends

25 Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.9-58).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.9-58).

Impact 4.9-6: Place Within a 200-year Flood Hazard Areas Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.9-60).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.9-60).

Land Use Planning, Population, and Housing

Impact 4.10-1: Physically Divide an Established Community.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.10-24).

Explanation: Goal 2.E establishes that the City must foster patterns and scales of development that encourage neighborhood interaction, which will reduce the potential for isolation and division of communities. Policy 2.A.8 requires the City to transform corridors to connect neighborhoods, and Policy

3.A.10 requires the City to eliminate barriers and gaps i n 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 Yolo County on developing truck routes for areas adjacent to the City, rather than through the City, which would o therwise have a greater potential to impact existing communities. The Proposed Project does not include new investment in infrastructure or development that would physically divide existing communities. In addition, the 2035 General Plan includes policies that reduce the potential for impact, by requiring the City to use corridors to connect neighborhoods, discourage wide highways, and locate truck routes outside of the city. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community (FEIR, p. 4.10-24).

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).

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.10-26).

Explanation: The 2035 General Plan proposes land use designations of unincorporated county land that differ from the land use designations in the Yolo County 2030 General Plan. Until the unincorporated land in the Planning Area is annexed, the County’s general plan and land use regulations apply (FEIR, p. 4.10- 26).

Page 95 ends

26 Impact 4.10-4: Displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.10-32).

Explanation: Policy 9.A.3 promotes the provision of adequate housing for all persons in the City by ensuring there is sufficient land for residential development and that it is zoned for a variety of housing types. Policies 9.B.1 and 9.D.2 promote infill development and the repair, rehabilitation, and retention of existing housing in the city thereby conserving existing housing stock and minimizing the displacement of existing people.

Compliance with the Proposed Project policies would ensure that new development pursuant to the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the constructio n of 7,000 residential dwelling units on the project site. Although the Proposed Project is not expected to result in substantial displacement, if there is unanticipated displacement, construction of 7,000 residential dwelling units would provide housing f or any displaced residents.

In addition, should any redevelopment of existing housing units be proposed, California Public Resources Code Section 7260(b), the California Relocation Law, establishes “a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a direct result of programs or projects undertaken by a public entity.” The law requires public entities to prepare a relocation plan, provide relocation payments, and identify substitute housing opportunities for any resident that w ould be displaced by a proposed project.

Privately funded projects would have no such requirement.

The Proposed Project does not propose converting established residential areas to a nonresidential land use or changing the land use or development charact er 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 housi ng for any displaced residents (FEIR, p. 4.10-32).

Noise and Vibration

Impact 4.11-4: Expose People to Excessive Airport Noise.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, pp. 4.11-63 and 4.11-64).

Explanation: The closest airport to the Planning Area is the Watts Woodland Airport, which is located

3.7 miles from the western city limits. The Sacramento International Airport is located approximately five miles northeast and Yolo County Airport approximately five m iles southwest of the City limits. Based upon the most recent noise contours for the Watts Woodland and Yolo County Airports contained within the Yolo County 2030 General Plan EIR (April 2009) and recent noise contours obtained from Sacramento International Airport Master Plan 2004, areas within the City’s Urban Limit Line are located outside of the 60 dB CNEL contours.

The Planning Area is outside of the 60 dB CNEL c ontours of all nearby airports (FEIR, pp. 4.11 -63 and

4.11-64).

Page 96 ends

27 Public Services and Recreation

Impact 4.12-1: Impacts Related to Fire Protection Services.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.12-32).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.12-32).

Impact 4.12-2: Impacts Related to Police Protection Services.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.12-35).

Explanation: Implementation of the P roposed 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 s ignificant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response time or other performance objectives for police protection (FEIR, p. 4.12-35).

Impact 4.12-4: Impacts Related to Parks and Recreation Services.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.12-43).

Explanation: 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 asso ciated 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 rat ios, response time or other pe rformance objectives for parks (FEIR, p.

4.12-43).

Impact 4.12-6: Impacts Related to Increased Use of Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.12-48).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.12-48).

Impact 4.12-7: Impacts Related to Recreational Facilities.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.12-52).

Explanation: 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 (FEIR, p. 4.12-52).

Page 97 ends

28 Transportation and Circulation

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.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.13-27).

Explanation: The 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP contain numerous goals, policies, implementation programs, strategies, and actions that are largely taken directly or derived from these adopted plans with regards to transit, bicycling, and walking. Further, this update to the General Plan complies with Assembly Bill (AB) 1358 requiring cities and counties to include a complete streets policy in their general plans, which stresses balance and compatibility across modes. Implementation of the Proposed Proje ct 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 (FEIR, p. 4.13-27).

Impact 4.13-5: Result in Changes to Air Traffic Patterns.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.13-29).

Explanation: Implementation of the Proposed Project includes land use changes that would have only a limited influence on air traffic patterns (FEIR, p. 4.13-29).

Impact 4.13-6: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.13-30).

Explanation: The Proposed Project would not increase hazards due to design features of transportation facilities. All existing facility modifications and new facilities resulting from the circulation diagram proposed improvements would be constructed to City of Woodlan d Community Design Standards that have been developed to minimize the potential for conflicts or collisions. 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 (FEIR, p. 4.13-30).

Impact 4.13-7: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.13-31).

Explanation: The Proposed Project contains policies that are des igned to ensure adequate facilities and services are provided for under daily and emergency response conditions. Responsibility for building and maintaining adequate facilities extends to development projects through these policies to ensure that changes to facilities and services are planned in accordance with growth over time. Implementation of the Proposed Project will alter land use patterns and increase travel demand on the transportation network that may influence emergency access (FEIR, p. 4.13-31).

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.

Page 98 ends

29 Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.13-33).

Explanation: The Proposed Project goals and policies are designed to accommodate the new travel demand by providing adequate facilities and services including complete streets. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not d isrupt any existing, or interfere with any planned, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or services. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities (FEIR, p.

4.13-33).

Utilities

Impact 4.14-1: Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.14-36).

Explanation: In addition to existing regulations at the federal, State, and local levels that reduce the potential environmental impact, 2035 General Plan Goal 5.H ensures that wastewater treatment facilities are provided in a timely fashion to serve existing and future n eeds. 2035 General Plan Policy 5.H.6 requires all sewage generators within its service area to connect to the City’s system, except those areas where the City has determined a connection to the City’s sewage collection system would be infeasible.

Woodland Municipal Code, Chapter 23C, Article VI requires all buildings to connect to the public sewer system, thus prohibiting the use of individual sewer systems, which are more likely to leak and contaminate water. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Muni cipal Code allows the City Council to permit continued use of or construction of a septic system, in accordance with the City engineer and county health officer. The Municipal Code also establishes design, construction, and maintenance standards of connect ions to the public sewer system. Additionally, the 2035 CAP supports increased efficiency in the wastewater system.

2035 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.

Policies 5.F.2, 5.F.3, 5.F.4, and 5.F.5 address fiscal and funding impacts of new development to ensure there is funding available to support public facilities and services. Policies 5.H.2, 5.H.3, 5.H.4, and 5.H.5 address the need to plan for wastewater needs by requiring updates to the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, consideration of the wastewater needs in amendments to the adopted General Plan, active planning for maintenance and repai rs, and evaluation and updates to the Capital Improvement Program. Policy

5.H.9 requires a reduction in wastewater system demand, and Police 5.H.10 requires continuation of the industrial pretreatment program. Implementation of the Proposed Project would n ot exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (FEIR, p. 4.14-36).

Impact 4.14-2: Require or Result in the Construction of New Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facili ties, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Effects.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.14-42).

Explanation: Policies listed under Impact 4.14 -1 reduce demand for wastewater facilities and ensure adequate wastewater treatment facilities are in place before development occurs. Other 2035 General Plan goals and policies strive to reduce water use and ensure water s ystem facilities are provided. Goal 5.G is

Page 99 ends

30 to provide an adequate potable water supply and delivery system to meet the needs of the City. 2035 General Plan Policy 5.G.1 directs the City to provide an adequate water supply, while 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 up dates 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 Implementat ion Program 5.8. Updates to the Capital Improvement Program to ensure delivery of necessary water infrastructure are supported by Policy 5.G.8 and Implementation Program 5.9. Policies

5.G.5, 5.G.7, 5.G.9, and 7.A.5 reduce the demand on potable water produc tion 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 requi res 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 suppor ted by a number of Actions. With compliance with existing and future local, State, and federal regulations and the Proposed Project goals and policies and the CAP objective, the potential impact will be reduced.

Implementation of the Proposed Project wou ld not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects (FEIR, p. 4.14-42).

Impact 4.14-3: Impacts Related to Construction or Expansion of Stormwater Facilities.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.14-46).

Explanation: The 2035 General Plan includes policies to reduce the demand for stormwater facilities and requires mitigation of impacts from projects. Policy 5.I.4 in the 2035 General Plan reduces demand for new stormwater drain capacity by requiring new development to incorporate low impact development features such as canopy trees and permeable paving. In addition, Policies 5.I.1, 5.I.3, 5.I.5, 5.I.7, 5.I.8, and

5.I.9 set standards for new storm drainage, the use of stormwater, and stormwater detention facilities.

Policy 5.I.6 requires adequate financing of stormwater management. Supported by Implementation Program 5.11, Policy 5.I.2 ensures that Woodland’s Storm Drainage Facilities Master Plan is updated as needed. The CAP also includes an action under Municipal Operations Objective 2 to reduce the need for increased stormwater pumping and reduce stormwater runoff.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause sig nificant environmental effects (FEIR, p. 4.14-46).

Impact 4.14-4: Water Supply Impacts.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.14-49).

Explanation: According to the Woodland 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Woodland’s surface water availability in 2035 is expected to meet the demand. It is expected that there will be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Proposed Project from existing entitlements and resources. In addition, the CAP includes goals and actions to reduce reliance on potable water supply and promote water conservation. The 2035 General Plan includes goals and policies requiring the promotion of water

Page 100 ends

31 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. 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.

In 2007, the Supreme Court issued a decision on the requirements for the water supply analysis in a land use plan EIR. The decision in the case, Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal. 4th 412 (2007), states that CEQA requires an EIR to show a likelihood of water availability. The court stated that the water supply does not have to be available during the adoption of the land use plan, but the water supply analysis must not rely on uncertain assumptions and must not ignore long-term demand. Based on the projections in the Woodland UWMP, there is likelihood that water will be available at least until 2035 to serve the demand from implementation of the Proposed Project.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in having insufficient water supplies avai lable to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, nor are new or expanded entitlements needed (FEIR, p. 4.14-49).

Impact 4.14-5: Wastewater Treatment Capacity Impacts.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.14-51).

Explanation: The policies in the 2035 General Plan minimize potential impact by requiring adequate public facilities and services for all new and existing development in the Planning Area, including wastewater treatment facilities. The City ’s Water Pollution Control Facility has the capacity to handle wastewater generated from approximately 70,000 residents and can be expanded to accommodate 105,000 residents. WPCF upgrades to accommodate additional future growth in the Planning Area will be made as needed by the City over the horizon of the Proposed Project.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate capacity to serve the Proposed Project’s projected demand (FEIR, p. 4.14-51).

Impact 4.14-6: Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Impacts.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, pp. 4.14-54 and 4.14-55).

Explanation: Development under the Proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to serve the project’s solid waste disposal needs (FEIR, pp. 4.14-54 and 4.14-55).

Impact 4.14 -7: Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste.

Finding: The impact is less than significant (FEIR, p. 4.14-56).

Explanation: Policies 5.J.1 and 5.J.2 require adequate solid waste services and compliance of solid waste collection in new development with local regulation s, and Policy 5.J.4 requires compliance with State regulation. Implementation of the Proposed Project would be compliant with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste (FEIR, p. 4.14-56).

Page 101 ends

32 2. Findings Regarding Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings of Fact that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less-than-significant level are summarized below. Please refer to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, the Final 2035 General Plan, and the Final 2035 CAP for more detail.

Air Quality

Impact 4.3-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations (Construction Related).

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, pp. 4.3-44 and 4.3-45).

Explanation: 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) emissi ons 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 potentially significant for construction activities and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.3-43).

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.

Implementation Program Air Quality 3 includes as an option to use an equipment mix, including the use of Tier 4 engine emission standards, which ha s been shown to reduce PM emissions by more than 90 percent from current levels or site-specific analysis and mitigation with clear performance outcomes tied to YSAQMD-recommended thresholds. With the incorporation of mitigation, the TAC impact attributable to construction activities would be less than significant (FEIR, pp. 4.3-44 and 4.3-45).

Biological Resources

Impact 4.4-1: Loss of Special-status Plants and Loss of Special-status Plant Habitat.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.4-36).

Explanation: 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

Page 102 ends

33 through habitat degradation. The impact is potentially sig nificant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p p.

4.4-34 through 4.4-36).

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 Incidental Take Permits (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 d etermines 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 proje ct 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 (USFWS) or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 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 p lan, 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 monitori ng 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.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b – Policy 7.B.5., Policy 7.B.7, and Policy 7.B.11 should be amended as follows:

Page 103 ends

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

Policy 7.B.7 Woodland Regional Park. Protect and maintain Woodland Regional Park as an important wildlife preserve and habitat for 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 special-status plant and wildlife habitats.

Implementation of these mitigation measures combined with current laws, regulations, and policies would reduce impacts because the General Plan would preserve the majority of the known special -status plant occurrences and suitable habitat in the Planning Area, within designated Open Space land uses that would be protected under permanent conservation easements. These provisions would require new developments to identify and avoid special -status plant populations an d their habitats to the extent feasible and compensate for the loss of special -status plants through establishment of new populations or other appropriate measures in coordination with state and federal agencies (FEIR, p. 4.4-36).

Impact 4.4-2: Loss and Degradation of Habitat for Special -status Wildlife Species and Potential Direct Take of Individuals.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.4-44).

Explanation: Implementation of the Proposed Project would allow conversion of undevelo ped 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 potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.4-44).

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a – Policy 7.B.6 and 7.B.8 should be incorporated 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 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

Page 104 ends

35 Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4.1b

With implementation of these changes, impacts would be reduced because these provisions would preserve the majority of sensitive habitats (e.g., alkali prairie and vernal pools) that could support special- status wildlife within the Open Space land use designation, would require development projects to identify and avoid special-status wildlife or provide compensation for loss of habitat (FEIR, p. 4.4-44).

Impact 4.4-3: Loss and Degradation of Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.4-47).

Explanation: Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in conversion of undeveloped land that currently supports a limited amount of riparian h abitat 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 implement ation 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 potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, pp. 4.4-46 and 4.4-47).

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 alterat ion 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

With implementation of these changes, impacts would be reduced because these provisions would preserve the majority of sensitive habitats (e.g., alkali prairie and riparian forest) within the Open Space land use designation, and would require development projects to identify and avoid sensitive habitats or provide compensation for loss of habitat (FEIR, p. 4.4-47).

Impact 4.4-4: Loss and Degradation of Federally Protected Wetlands.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.4-50).

Explanation: 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

Page 105 ends

36 result in loss and degradation of federally protected wetlands. The impact is potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, pp. 4.4-49 and 4.4-50).

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 distu rbance 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

With implementation of these changes, impacts would be reduced because it would preserve the majority of wetland and aquatic habitats (e.g., alkali sink and freshwater wetlands) within the Open Space land use designation and would require dev elopment projects to identify and avoid wetland habitats or provide compensation resulting in no net loss of habitat functions and values. Policies requiring protection of special-status species and their habitats also protect wetlands and drainages because these include special- status species such as vernal pool branchiopods, vernal pool plants, and giant garter snake that are associated with aquatic habitats (FEIR, p. 4.4-50).

Impact 4.4-7: Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Natural Commu nity Conservation Plan.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.4-57).

Explanation: The General Plan Land Use Diagram and 2035 General Plan policies and implementation programs have been designed to provide consistency with the propos ed Yolo HCP/NCCP. The impact is potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.4-57).

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

With implementation of these changes, impacts would be reduced because these provisions would ensure that growth projected under the Proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the Yolo HCP/NCCP because it would preserve habitat id entified for preservation under the current Draft

Page 106 ends

37 HCP/NCCP and would require project applicants to participate in the Plan, if adopted, to mitigate impacts on covered species and habitats consistent with the Yolo HCP/NCCP conservation strategy (FEIR, p. 4.4- 57).

Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy

Impact 4.5-1: Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Finding: Less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.5-41).

Explanation: 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, SB 32, and Executive Order S-3-05 emissions reductions. There is a significant cumulative impact and mitigation is identified (FEIR, pp. 4.5-38 and 4.5-39).

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.

Page 107 ends

38 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.
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

As noted, the City developed a preliminary CAP that demonstrates a 15 percent reduction in emissions compared to 2005 levels by 2020. The 2005 baseline was estimated to be approximately 566,389 MT CO2e. Statewide measures would reduce emissions in 2020 to approximately 541,657 MT CO2e. Local reductions in the preliminary CAP demonstrate another 60,226 MT CO2e of reductions, resulting in a 2020 estimate of approximately 481,431 MT CO2e, or a 15 percent reduction from 2005 levels. Please see the 2035 CAP, rel eased under a separate cover, for details. Pursuant to AB 32, ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in December 2008, outlining measures to meet the 2020 GHG reduction target (i.e., achieve 1990 emissions levels by year 2020). To meet the target, California must reduce its GHG emissions by 15 percent from 2005 levels. The City’s emission reductions of 15 percent from 2005 levels are consistent with the mandate established for the State government under AB

32. The Proposed Project cont ains several policies that would promote mixed -use and infill development.

Several policies would site residents, jobs, and retail amenities in proximity of each other to reduce the need for motor vehicle travel. The Proposed Project would encourage alternative modes of transportation.

Many policies through various mechanisms would support development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would promote non-vehicular modes of travel. For the water and wastewater sector, policies have been developed to en courage minimizing water use and wastewater generation. Policies have also been developed to encourage methods to minimize solid waste generation and increase waste diversion systems. Policies have also been developed to encourage alternative transportation and transit that would reduce transportation-related air quality impacts. Policies require development to be consistent with the

Page 108 ends

39 City’s 2035 CAP and that the City maintain and update its GHG inventory as new information becomes available. Policies commit the City to implementing a CAP, including targets for 2020 and 2035.

The 2035 CAP would achieve local annual reductions that, when combined with estimated future statewide reductions, will achieve an efficiency level of 2.25 MT CO2e per service populati on per year, which is consistent with what the State of California would need to achieve goals for the State government under AB 32, Executive Order B-30-15, SB 32, and Executive Order S-3-05. Achieving this level of GHG emissions efficiency in Woodland fo r the 2035 General Plan horizon year also demonstrates the City’s progress toward longer -term reduction target years, such as 2050. This is because the efficiency based reduction target of 2.25 MT CO2e per service population per year is extrapolated betwee n State’s own goals for 2030 (Executive Order B -30-15 and SB 32) and 2050 (Executive Order S -3-05). Lastly, numerous policies would promote low impact development to reduce energy and water consumption, which would also indirectly reduce air pollutant emis sions – both criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions – but are not specifically factored into the calculations on emission reductions. The Proposed Project policies would reduce GHG emissions from various sources (e.g., energy, water, solid waste, transportation). Implementation of these policies would result in an additional reduction in total annual GHG emissions.

The State has just initiated the effort to begin gathering public and stakeholder input regarding approaches that could achieve the nearer-term of the two post-2020 targets (the Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 goal for the State to reduce emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030).

According to ARB’s 2030 Target Scoping Plan Concept Paper, Governor Brown has articulated some of the key concepts that will be explored further, including (ARB 2016):
► reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; ► increasing from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived from renewable sources; ► doubling the efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; ► reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short lived climate pollutants; and ► managing farm and rangelands, forests and wetlands so they can store carbon.

The 2030 target for the State government will require multiple efforts that achieve reductions from multiple sources, including existing efforts that are already underway, along with new programs. In order to achieve more ambitious emission reduction goals, the State will nee d to be flexible enough to accommodate innovation and change, provide incentives for voluntary efforts, and remove regulatory barriers (ARB 2016). A holistic perspective that continues California’s efforts to link related policy priorities will be needed f or post -2020 emission reduction goals. For example, the State will need to continue to connect infrastructure investments with GHG reduction goals for passenger vehicles, connect open space preservation objectives with sequestration potential, and connect economic development goals for both rural and urban communities with progress on environmental justice (ARB 2016). Although the State is just initiating its efforts on developing a strategy to achieve post-2020 goals, it appears that it will be important i n defining this strategy to identify areas where there is synergy among multiple positive outcomes.

The next Scoping Plan will outline the actions necessary to achieve the 2030 goal and is expected to help contribute also to the more ambitious 2050 goal established in Executive Order S -3-05 for the State government. Without any information about how the next Scoping Plan will approach the 2030 goal, and without any information about how the State may approach a 2050 goal, it is not possible to determine whether GHG emissions in Woodland would mirror the State’s efforts toward either of these milestones.

However, the 2035 CAP and the 2035 General Plan commit the City to revisiting the emissions inventory

Page 109 ends

40 and CAP reduction strategies when new information is available and making appropriate changes. The General Plan includes several policies, as noted above, that address the major emission sources for Woodland: transportation and energy. Policies that promote mixed-use and infill development and locate residents in proximity of jobs, amenities, entertainment, and other destinations will help to reduce travel demand and the main source of local emissions. Policies throughout the Proposed Project encourage non- vehicular modes of transportation and support develop ment of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Proposed Project policies would reduce GHG emissions from various sources (e.g., energy, water, solid waste, transportation). Implementation of these policies would result in an additional reduction in total annual GHG emissions. Policies in the 2035 General Plan, reduction strategies in the 2035 CAP, and mitigation identified in this section will reduce local GHG emissions and commit the City to adjust policies and reduction measures, as needed, when future information related to the State’s efforts become available (FEIR, p. 4.5-41).

Impact 4.5 -2: Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.5-43).

Explanation: 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 GH G 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 and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.5-43).

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.

The methodology and purpose of the City’s estimate of development capacity under the Proposed Project is different from the methodology and purpose of SACOG’s forecast for the purposes of the MTP/SCS.

The SACOG projections are market-based growth estimates that project the amount and location of likely growth in the region based on a variety of socio -economic factors that are updated every four years. The City’s General Plan is a long range planning tool that seeks to create opportunities for growth and provide a range of land use options to encourage economic investment and promote other City policy objectives.

Given these different purposes, it is reasonable to expect variations in the growth forecasts between the two. For development projects that seek to utilize the CEQA streamlining allowed under SB 375 and other related legislation, it will be necessary to demonstrate project-level consistency with the MTP/SCS. With the identified mitigation, the City’s policy is clear that consistency with the MTP/SCS will be required in order to use streamlining that is related to the MTP/SCS (FEIR, p. 4.5-43).

Geology, Soils, Minerals Resources, and Paleontological Resources

Impact 4.7-3: Geologic Hazards Related to Unstable Soils, Expansive Soils, and Soil Unsuitable for Septic Systems.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, pp. 4.7-32 and 4.7-33).

Page 110 ends

41 Explanation: 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. The impact is potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.7-32).

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.

With implementation of these changes, impacts would be reduced since the City’s requirement for site - specific geotechnical reports will identify specific methods to reduce hazards from construction in unstable and expansive soils, and because on -site wastewater treatment systems would be appropriately designed and engineered (FEIR, pp. 4.7-32 and 4.7-33).

Impact 4.7-4: Loss or Damage to Paleontological Resources during Earth-Moving Activities.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.7-35).

Explanation: 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. The impact is potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, pp. 4.7-34 and 4.7-35).

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 one (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 p ossibility 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.

Page 111 ends

42 • 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.

Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 would create a new implementation program that co ntains additional resource disturbance prevention activities and a cease-work requirement upon paleontological resource discovery.

With implementation of these changes, impacts would be reduced because earth -moving activities in paleontologically sensitive rock formations would be subject to requirements consisting of construction worker personnel education, halting of work in the vicinity of any fossil specimen(s) uncovered, and preparation of a recovery plan for said specimen(s) (FEIR, p. 4.7-35).

Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality

Impact 4.9-1: Violation of Water Quality Standards.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.9-39).

Explanation: 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 relate d 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 potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, pp. 4.9-38 and 4.9-39).

Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 – Policy 5.1.4 should be amended to read:

Policy 5.I.4. Low Impact Development (LID). 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 stormw ater 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.

Implementation of the this mit igation measure in addition to policies outlined in the Proposed Project would serve to minimize long-term water quality impacts associated with increased urbanization. The goal of these policies as they relate to wastewater collection, treatment, disposal , and reuse is to ensure that

Page 112 ends

43 adequate facilities are provided in a timely fashion to accommodate current and future needs, and thereby manage wastewater to protect receiving water quality.

Inadequate stormwater drainage infrastructure can lead to locali zed flooding, as well as erosion and sedimentation. Adequate stormwater conveyance capacity and pre -treatment through the use of LID technologies and BMPs is critical since stormwater in the City of Woodland is discharged untreated through a series of sloughs that eventually connect to Yolo Bypass.

The goal of the General Plan policies as they relate to stormwater management is to provide flood protection, enhance water quality, prevent infrastructure deterioration, and facilitate compliance with State and federal laws. Successful implementation of the 2035 General Plan policies would avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential water quality impacts by requiring projects to reduce pollution and runoff through implementation of LID technologies, BMPs, pret reatment, and upgrades to stormwater and wastewater treatment capacity, as needed.

Policies related to the safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials would also protect water quality through the proper handling, use, and disposal of hazardous mate rials, as well as emergency response planning to minimize potential water quality impacts from accidental spills. Together, these polices assist the City in complying with federal and State regulations, such as the Clean Water Act, EPA’s water quality criteria, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Adoption and implementation of the proposed policies and compliance with existing stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations would reduce this potential impact (FEIR, p. 4.9-39).

Impact 4.9-2: Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.9-43).

Explanation: 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 pollutant s 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 mitig ation 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, the impact is potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.9-43).

Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.9-1

Successful implementation of the General Plan policies would avoid and minimize water quality impacts during construction because they would require implementation of LID technologies and BMPs to protect receiving water quality; appropriate hazardous materials handling, storage, and disposal; and prohibit grading activities in the rainy season when erosion potential is at its highest. Compliance with General Plan policies and existing regulations, including acquisition of appropriate regulatory permits and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and BMPs, would reduce potential impacts related to erosion and water quality during construction (FEIR, p. 4.9-43).

Impact 4.9-3: On-Site and Downstream Erosion and Sedimentation and Alteration of Drainage Patterns.

Page 113 ends

44 Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.9-47).

Explanation: 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 reg ulations, this impact is considered significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.9-47).

Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1

General Plan policies require implementation of LID technologies, BMPs, and hydromodification management techniques to protect receiving water quality, mitigate excessive runoff, and mimic the runoff of a natural environment. Additional policies would serve to maintain and improve the City’s storm drainage system. Prohibiting grading activities in t he rainy season would also serve to reduce erosion potential. Finally, policies addressing open space and sensitive habitat conservation would restrict incompatible land uses and development from areas including riparian corridors, drainages, and floodplains. Adoption and implementation of the policies in the 2035 General Plan, combined with enforcement of the existing grading, erosion, and flood control regulations would reduce this potential impact (FEIR, p. 4.9-47).

Public Services and Recreation

Impact 4.12-3: Impacts Related to School Services.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.12-39).

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” (FEIR, p. 4.12-39).

Impact 4.12-5: Impacts Associated with Other Public Facilities.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.12-46).

Explanation: 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

Page 114 ends

45 other public facilities. The impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.12-46).

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.

The 2035 General Plan is an expression of the City of Woodland’s vision for future physical growth within the Planning Area and con sists of a series of policies and implementation programs necessary for achieving that vision. The 2035 General Plan does not establish service standards for public facilities and therefore is in conflict with the existing service standards for public facilities in the existing 2002 General Plan. The mitigation measure listed above would ensure that future space needs are identified and standards are established for public facilities to support the City as it continues to grow, even though the standards are not included in the 2035 General Plan itself. However, before this Master Plan is prepared, it cannot be known whether the standards within it will be equal to or better than those included in the 2002 General Plan. The only other mitigation would be to n ot adopt the 2035 General Plan, which is not a feasible action that would still achieve the objectives of the Proposed Project (FEIR, p. 4.12-46).

Transportation and Circulation

Impact 4.13 -1: Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Ordinance or Policy Establi shing Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System by Resulting in Unacceptable Levels of Service on City of Woodland Roadways.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.13-20).

Explanation: Implementation of the Proposed Project could cause unacceptable LOS conditions on some roadway segments. The impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, pp.

4.13-17 through 4.13-19).

Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a – The 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following modification of the 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 edit ion 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.

Page 115 ends

46 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 follow ing 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
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 compared 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 CEQ A 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.

This mitigation would recognize that potential physical changes to this section East Gum Avenue to increase its capacity are not desirable due to access or right -of-way impacts on adjacent properties or the environment. The mitigation would also strengthen the policy’s influence on reducing vehicle travel associated with new development projects helping to reduce p.m. peak hour traffic volumes (FEIR, p.

4.13-20).

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.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.13-21).

Page 116 ends

47 Explanation: 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 and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.13-21).

Mitigation Measure 4.13-2 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.13-1c.

This mitigation would strengthen the policy’s influence on reducing vehicle travel associated with new development projects helping to reduce p.m. peak hour traffic volumes (FEIR, p. 4.13-21).

Impact 4.13 -3: Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program by Resulting in Unacceptable Levels of Service on CMP Network Roadways.

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation (FEIR, p. 4.13-23).

Explanation: Implementation of the Proposed Project would cause unacceptable LOS conditions on one CMP roadway segment. The impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is identified (FEIR, p. 4.13-22).

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.

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

This mitigation would strengthen the policy’s influence on reducing vehicle travel associated with new development projects. This mitigation would result in a physical capacity expansion to the roadway under this classification that would improve the LOS t o C or better. A potential indirect effect of Mitigation Measure 4.13-3b is an increase in VMT due to the increase in roadway capacity. This effect is captured in the VMT forecasts contained in Table 4.13 -3 for buildout where this segment of County Road 10 2 is planned as a four-lane principal arterial (FEIR, p. 4.13-23).

3. Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant
The City Council hereby finds that the following impacts from the Proposed Project cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level with any feasible mitigation, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore required.

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

Finding: The Proposed Project facilitates new development that will change the existing visual character of the Planning Area. However, impacts on visual cha racter and quality of the site are subjective and variable between different individuals.

Page 117 ends

48 Policies from the 2035 General Plan provide guidance for development and conservation that relate to aesthetics and visual resources. Implementation Program 2.13 requires the City to update the Community Design Standards to identify the City’s expectations for planning, designing, and reviewing development proposals, consistent with the balance of the 2035 General Plan. Implementation Program 2.23 requires the City t o develop historic design guidelines that provide context sensitivity in historic districts and neighborhoods. Despite proposed policies and implementation programs, implementation of the 2035 General Plan is still expected to result in development in infi ll and new growth areas that will inherently change Woodland’s visual character. The City has presented all feasible mitigation in the form of policies and programs in the Proposed Project. There is no additional feasible mitigation available (FEIR, p. 4.1- 31).

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.1-31). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

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

Finding: Implementation of the Proposed Project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect da y or nighttime views in the area. The impact is considered significant.

Mitigation is included (FEIR, p. 4.1-33).

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.

The mitigation measures limit the impact from light and glare, but it is not feasible to mitigate the impacts completely without prohibiting the use of light in new development.

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.1-33). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

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.

Finding: Implementation of the Proposed Project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. Mitigation is included (FEIR, p. 4.2-35).

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

Policy 2.A.3 Agricultural Mitigation. For impacts to agricultural land within the ULL, require one acre to be permanently conserved for every acre converted to urban development (1:1 ratio). The farmland being conserved must be of t he same Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program type (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland

Page 118 ends

49 of Local Importance) as the farmland that is being converted, or of a type of higher quality, and the conserved farmland shoul d be located outside of, but as close to the Woodland Urban Limit Line as possible. For projects proposing to convert agricultural land to urban use, require soils analysis to determine farmland classification for purposes of determining appropriate mitiga tion as part of environmental review conducted for the project.

Implementation of the 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP policies, as well as the Yolo County Agricultural Conservation Policy, will reduce the impacts on farmland conversion. The ULL was adopted for the purpose of permanently circumscribing development and preserving surrounding agricultural lands. This action of the voters identified those lands intended to be converted to urban uses over time in the form of an urban limit line and permanently p rotected lands outside of that boundary. Ballot initiatives are not subject to environmental impact review under CEQA and therefore the 2006 action by the voters did not include an assessment of the impacts resulting from the urban limit line. As enacted by the voters, Policy

2.A.1 prohibits City public services and facilities beyond Woodland’s ULL. In addition, Policy 2.A.3 requires agricultural mitigation of farmland within the ULL at a rate of one acre of permanently conserved farmland for every acre con verted to urban development or non -agricultural uses. The policy specif ies conservation of the same type of farmland, therefore loss of Prime Farmland c an only be mitigated with the conservation of Farmland of equal or higher quality. Goal 7.6 prioritizes the preservation of agricultural land, and Policy 7.C.1 requires the City to minimize the amount of annexed land.

In addition, several policies prioritize infill and compact development. The focus of the Proposed Project on infill and compact development in strategic new growth areas within the ULL aims to minimize the magnitude of farmland conversion and to help protect large tracts of farmland in agricultural areas.

Actions under Objective 2 Strategy E-6 and Objective 2 Strategy UF-5 in the 2035 CAP require the City to promote the installation of solar systems on existing development, rather than on agricultural land or open space. Additional policies require the maintenance of the ULL and support for legislative efforts that incentivize agricultural land preservation.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 ensures that for every acre of a certain type of farmland that is converted as a result of the Proposed Project, an acre of that same type (or better) of farmland will be conserved.

However, there would still be a net loss of farmland that cannot be completely mitigated (FEIR, pp. 4.2- 35 and 4.2-36). Thus, the impact is significant and unavoidable.

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, pp. 4.2-35 and 4.2-36). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

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.

Finding: 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. Mitigation is included (FEIR, p. 4.2-41).

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 150 feet from adjacent agricultural land where possible.

Page 119 ends

50 Equivalent means of providing agricultural buffers may be considered b y 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.

In addition to the policies that lessen direct impacts on farmland discussed in Impact 4.2-1, the Proposed Project includes policies and goals to support agriculture in Woodland and minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural uses. 2035 General Plan Policy 7.C.4 requires the City to ensure that urban development within the ULL does not affect the economic viability of adjacent farms outside of the ULL. 2035 General Plan Policies 2.D.2, 6.C.1, and 4.G.2 help strengthen specific segments of the agricultural industry, similar to the 2035 CAP policy listed above. Policy 4.C.9 explicitly supports the continuation and development of the agricultural industry in Woodland, and Policy 8.G.10 requires the City’s support for both the City’s and the County’s right to farm ordinances. P olicy 7.C.2 helps protect existing agriculture within the ULL, and Policy 7.C.3 requires Woodland to support Yolo County’s agricultural conservation efforts.

Although policies in the Proposed Project will reduce the impact that development and other chan ges to the existing environment would have on existing agricultural uses and support the continued viability of the agricultural industry in Woodland, it cannot be guaranteed that farmland would not be indirectly impacted by development envisioned in the Plan. With the addition of Mitigation Measure 4.2-3, the City has presented all feasible mitigation in the form of policies and programs in the Proposed Project. There is no additional feasible mitigation available (FEIR, p. 4.2-41).

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.2-41). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Air Quality

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

Finding: 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.

Mitigation is included (FEIR, pp. 4.3-24 and 4.3-25).

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.

Page 120 ends

51 c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials. d. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut - and-fill operations and hydroseed area.
e. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days). f. Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.
g. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. h. Cover inactive storage piles.
i. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. j. Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6 to 12 inch layer of wood chips or mulch.
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 to read:

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.

The above policy and mitigation measures would reduce construction-related impacts. However, because the District estimates that these measures have a range of effectiveness that can be well below 100 percent, construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could still exceed s ignificance thresholds. Such emissions could exceed or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and/or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, these emissions could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to address this significant impact (FEIR, p. 4.3-25).

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.3-25). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

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

Finding: 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 be low relevant thresholds. The impact is considered significant. Mitigation is included (FEIR, p. 4.3-32).

Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b.

Page 121 ends

52 The Proposed Project contains several policies that would promote mixed -use and infil l development.

Policies have been developed to site residents, jobs, and retail amenities in proximity of each other to reduce the need for motor vehicle travel. The Proposed Project would encourage modes of transportation that can reduce or eliminate air pollutant emissions. Since transportation is a major source of criteria air pollutants, this is important for reducing the operational impacts of the Proposed Project. Policies would support development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would promo te non -vehicular modes of travel. In order to eliminate or minimize transportation-related emissions, policies have also been designed to encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access and mobility that would reduce transportation-related air quality im pacts. In addition, the 2035 CAP’s actions related to energy, transportation and land use, water and waste, and municipal operations would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also criteria air pollutants.

General Plan policies would reduce long -term operation al air quality impacts. However, because the precise effectiveness of these measures cannot be determined at the time of this analysis, it is likely that operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could still exceed sign ificance thresholds.

Such emissions could exceed or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and/or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, these emissions could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures available to address this significant impact (FEIR, p. 4.3-33).

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.3-33). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

Impact 4.3-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations (Stationary).

Finding: 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 con tribute 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 sen sitive 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 potent ial exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact is considered significant. Mitigation is included (FEIR, pp. 4.3-43 and 4.3-44).

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a – Policy 7.F.3 should be amended to read:

Policy 7.F.3. Protect Sensitive Receptor s. For the purposes of environmental review of potential toxic air contaminant impacts, consider residentially designated land uses, hospitals and other medical facilities, and residential care facilities, schools, day care centers, playgrounds to be “sensitive receptors.” Discourage the location of new sensitive receptor uses within 500 feet of a limited access state highway (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.

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)

Page 122 ends

53 a. New development shall be required to demonstrate adherence with applicable YSAQMD-recommended health risk thresholds in volving 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.
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 r isk 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 enh anced 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 exist ing 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.

The Proposed Project contains policies to reduce emissions associ ated with both construction and operational activities. The Proposed Project includes Policy 7.F.3 that would discourage development in locations that would conflict with the buffer recommendations in the ARB Air Quality and Land Use

Page 123 ends

54 Handbook. Mitigation M easures 4.3 -3c and 4.3 -3d provide specific guidance tied to performance standards that have been developed to protect the public health. The buffer distances incorporated into Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c are consistent with guidance from ARB. Implementation Program Air Quality 3 includes as an option to use an equipment mix, including the use of Tier 4 engine emission standards, which have been shown to reduce PM emissions by more than 90 percent from current levels or site - specific analysis and mitigation wi th clear performance outcomes tied to YSAQMD -recommended thresholds.

However, the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations from stationary sources remains significant, even with the Proposed Project’s policies and mitigation measures described above. There is not additional feasible mitigation. The impact related to stationary sources of TACs is significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.3-45).

The impact would remain significant and unavoidable (FEIR, p. 4.3-45). As described in Section VIII, specific social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the identified potential unavoidable significant impacts.

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.

Finding: The Proposed Project plans for the construction of new buildings and structures. Modification of ex isting 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 uniq ue 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. Mitigation is included (FEIR, pp. 4.6-25 through 4.6-29).

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 hist oric 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 replacem ent 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 potent ially 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:

Page 124 ends

55 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 Ame rican 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 relative level of cultural sensitivity. b. Request updated information from the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System to determine whether the project area has been previously surveyed and whether archaeological resources were identified. In the event the records indicate that no previous survey has been conducted or existing survey data is greater than five years old, the applicant will retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to assess the adequacy of the existing data (if any) and assess the archaeological sensitivity of the project area. If the survey did not meet current professional standards or regulatory guidelines, or relies on outdated information, a qualified archaeologis t will make a recommendation on whether a survey is warranted based on the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological resources. c. If a survey is warranted, it will include all necessary background research in addition to an archaeological pedestr ian survey. Based on findings of the survey, additional technical studies may be required, such as geoarchaeological sensitivity analysis, or other analysis scaled according to the nature of the individual project. A report will document the results of the survey and provide appropriate management recommendations, and include recordation of identified archaeological resources on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation site record forms and cultural resources reports.
d. Management recomme ndations may include, but are not limited to additional studies to evaluate identified sites or archaeological monitoring at locations determined by a qualified archaeologist to be sensitive for subsurface cultural resource deposits. e. Once approved by th e City, provide the Northwest Information Center with appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation site record forms and cultural resources reports for any resources identified. Any subsequent reports completed as a result of additional technical work will likewise be submitted to the Northwest Information Center. f. If no archeological resources are identified that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, mitigation is complete as there would be no adverse change to documented archeological resources. The exception would be in the event of the discovery of a previously unknown archaeological site inadvertently exposed during project implementation. In such an event, a qualified archaeologist will be retained to assess the d iscovery and provide management recommendations as necessary.
g. When a project will impact a known archaeological site, and avoidance is not a feasible option, a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the eligibility of the site for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. If the archaeological site is found to be a historical resource as per CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 (a)(3), the qualified archaeologist shall recommend further mitigative treatment which could include preservation in p lace or data recovery.
h. If a site to be tested is prehistoric, local tribal representatives should be afforded the opportunity to monitor the ground -disturbing activities. Appropriate mitigation may include curation of artifacts removed during subsurface testing. i. If significant archaeological resources that meet the definition of historical or unique archaeological resources are identified in the project area, the preferred mitigation of impacts is preservation in place. If impacts cannot be avoided through project design, appropriate and feasible treatment measures are required, which may consist of, but are not limited to actions,

Page 125 ends

Woodland City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Woodland City Council
May 19, 2026