Yuba City City Council
September 6, 2022

42 4.5.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.

There are no buildings on several areas of the site and there is no evidence that all areas of the site have historically been built on. The southern portion of the site is developed with an office park and onsite parking. The General Plan EIR did not identify any historical significance to the properties. No physical development of the project site is proposed as part of this project; however, future development of the office park areas and associated improvements will not require the removal of any existing structures.

Therefore, there are no impacts anticipated on any historical resources, directly or indirectly.

According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), any demolition of structures over 50 years old shall be evaluated for historic significance.

The eligibility criteria for the California Register are the definitive criteria for assessing the significance of historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (Office of Historic Preservation). Generally, a resource is considered "historically significant" if it meets one or more of the following criteria for listing on the California Register:
 Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
 Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.  Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.  Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1[c])
The site does not contain any existing structures not associated with the existing medical office park use.

Additionally, the General Plan EIR did not identify any historical significance to the properties. Therefore, there would be no impacts on any historical resources, directly or indirectly. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.

This project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 because the proposed project will only result in the removal of the X8 Overlay District from the existing C-O Zoning on the affected properties which will remove the requirement that a traffic circle (roundabout) be constructed along Market Street, south of its intersection with Del Norte Avenue. The removal of this requirement will have no direct physical change or impact to the environment.

Outreach to Native American tribes was completed pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 and there were no comments or requests for consultation received by affected Tribes.

According to Chapter 8.3 (Historic and Archaeological Resources) of the Yuba City General Plan, the region within which Yuba City lies is part of a valley that was formerly composed of extensive wetlands and broad, shallow lakes. Because of this location and availability of resources, it is believed that different tribes occupied the area on a year-round basis, for about ten thousand years. However, due to siltation of the area over the years, prehistoric sites have been buried at such depths that very little, if any, evidence

43 remains at the surface. Original land clearing and a hundred years of farming have further diminished any likely archaeological sites. As new development occurs within the Planning Area, there is the potential to uncover archaeological sites. As a precaution, the mitigation measures will be required at the time of future proposed expansion to ensure proper protocol is implemented during any accidental discovery of archaeological resources onsite during future construction activities.

This project does not propose any development so mitigation measures are not applicable to this application.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic features? This application will not directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic features because the proposed project will only result in the removal of the X8 Overlay District from the existing C-O Zoning on the affected properties which will remove the requirement that a traffic circle (roundabout) be constructed along Market Street, south of its intersection with Del Norte Avenue.

The removal of this requirement will have no direct physical change or impact to the environment.

Additionally, the Yuba City General Plan does not inventory any unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features either on the project site or in the vicinity. No impacts are anticipated. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? This application is not anticipated to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries because the site was historically used for commercial purposes for many years, and subsequently the property has been previously cleared and graded by past uses. As a result, there is not expected to be any significant archeological or paleontological resources present on this site.

Outreach to Native American tribes was completed pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 and there were no comments or requests for consultation received by affected Tribes.

No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the project site. No evidence of human remains at the project site have been documented, and it is unlikely that buried human remains are present. However, there still remains the potential for previously unknown sub-surface resources to be present. In order to avoid potential impacts to unknown remains, when development is proposed in the future, mitigation Measures are recommended in order to reduce the potential impacts of the future project. No impacts are anticipated by this project.

44 Energy
Table 3-6: Energy
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X

4.6.1. State Regulatory Setting
California has implemented numerous energy efficiency and conservation programs that have resulted in substantial energy savings. The State has adopted comprehensive energy efficiency standards as part of its Building Standards Code, California Codes of Regulations, Title 24. In 2009, the California Building Standards Commission adopted a voluntary Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen, which became mandatory in 2011. Both Title 24 and CALGreen are implemented by the City of Yuba City in conjunction with its processing of building permits.

CALGreen sets forth mandatory measures, applicable to new residential and nonresidential structures as well as additions and alterations, on water efficiency and conservation, building material conservation, interior environmental quality, and energy efficiency. California has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard, which requires electricity retailers in the state to generate 33% of electricity they sell from renewable energy sources (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric from small generators, etc.) by the end of 2020. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which increases the electricity generation requirement from renewable sources to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

4.6.2. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences
a) Project Energy Consumption
As with air pollutant emissions, the main sources of energy consumption would be future construction activities, above and beyond those which may already be occurring at the project site.

No new development is proposed as part of this project. Future proposed construction would likely involve fuel consumption and use of other non-renewable resources. Construction equipment used for such improvements typically runs on diesel fuel or gasoline. The same fuels typically are used for vehicles that transport equipment and workers to and from a construction site. However, construction-related

45 fuel consumption would be finite, short-term and consistent with construction activities of a similar character. This energy use would not be considered wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary.

Electricity may be used for equipment operation during construction activities. It is expected that more electrical construction equipment would be used in the future, as it would generate fewer air pollutant and GHG emissions. This electrical consumption would be consistent with construction activities of a similar character; therefore, the use of electricity in construction activities would not be considered wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption would be reduced. Moreover, under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard, a greater share of electricity would be provided from renewable energy sources over time, so less fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity would occur.

Future proposed development will increase the existing office park size therefore, build-out and operation of the project site will result in a slightly higher demand for natural gas and electricity to serve future development. However, this increase will represent a minimal increase compared to existing demand and supply provided by Pacific Gas and Electric. Additional long-term energy usage increases in vehicle transportation fuels would not result from an increase in daily trips due to the removal of the X8 Overlay District. No physical development of the site is proposed as part of this project. The removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels will eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue. The anticipated development that would potentially occur in the future would result in nominal increases in fuel usage compared to surrounding uses, therefore, this is impact is considered less than significant.

Future proposed development would be required to comply with CALGreen and with the building energy efficiency standards of California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 in effect at the time of project approval. Compliance with these standards would reduce energy consumption associated with project operations, although reductions from compliance cannot be readily quantified.

Overall, project construction and operations would not consume energy resources in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. This project is not anticipated to have an impact related to energy consumption.
b) Project Energy Consumption
In addition to reducing energy consumption, the proposed sustainability components would be consistent with state and local energy efficiency plans. All components would be consistent with the energy efficiency goals of CALGreen and Title 24, and similar measures (see Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). The project would be consistent with applicable state and local plans to increase energy efficiency. No development is proposed at this time, the removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels would eliminate the requirement to construct a round-a-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue. This project is not anticipated to impact energy consumption.

46 4.6 Geology and Soils
Table 3-6: Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the
California Building Code creating substantial risks
to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
X

4.6.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Topography and Geology: According to the Sutter County General Plan, Sutter County is located in the flat surface of the Great Valley geomorphic province of California. The Great Valley is an alluvial plain approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central portion of California. The Great Valley’s northern portion is the Sacramento Valley, drained by the Sacramento River, and its southern portion is the San Joaquin Valley, drained by the San Joaquin River. The geology of the Great Valley is typified by thick sequences of alluvial sediments derived primarily from erosion of the mountains of the Sierra Nevada to the east, and to a lesser extent, erosion of the Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range to the north. These sediments were transported downstream and subsequently laid down as a river channel, floodplain deposits, and alluvial fans.

Seismic Hazards: Earthquakes are due to a sudden slip of plates along a fault. Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause structural damage,

47 injury and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks such as water, power, gas, communication, and transportation lines. Other damage-causing effects of earthquakes include surface rupture, fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground. Secondary impacts can include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, and dam failure.

Seismicity: Although all of California is typically regarded as seismically active, the Central Valley region does not commonly experience strong ground shaking resulting from earthquakes along known and previously unknown active faults. Though no active earthquake faults are known to exist in Yuba City, active faults in the region could generate ground motion felt within the county. Numerous earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater on the Richter scale have occurred on regional faults, primarily those within the San Andreas Fault System in the region. There are several potentially active faults underlying the Sutter Buttes, which are associated with deep-seated volcanism.

The faults identified in Sutter County include the Quaternary Faults, located in the northern section of the County within the Sutter Buttes, and the Pre-Quaternary Fault, located in the southeast of the City, just east of where Highway 70 enters into the County. Both Faults are listed as non-active faults but have the potential for seismic activity.

Ground Shaking: As stated in the Sutter County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, although the County has felt ground shaking from earthquakes with epicenters located elsewhere, no major earthquakes or earthquake related damage has been recorded within the County. Based on historic data and known active or potentially active faults in the region, parts of Sutter County have the potential to experience low to moderate ground shaking. The intensity of ground shaking at any specific site depends on the characteristics of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake fault, and on the local geologic and soils conditions. Fault zone maps are used to identify where such hazards are more likely to occur based on analyses of faults, soils, topography, groundwater, and the potential for earthquake shaking sufficiently strong to trigger landslide and liquefaction.

Liquefaction: Liquefaction, which can occur in earthquakes with strong ground shaking, is mostly found in areas with sandy soil or fill and a high-water table located 50 feet or less below the ground surface.

Liquefaction can cause damage to property with the ground below structures liquefying making the structure unstable causing sinking or other major structural damage. Evidence of liquefaction may be observed in "sand boils,” which are expulsions of sand and water from below the surface due to increased pressure below the surface.

Liquefaction during an earthquake requires strong shaking and is not likely to occur in the city due to the relatively low occurrence of seismic activity in the area; however, the clean sandy layers paralleling the Sacramento River, Feather River, and Bear River have lower soil densities and high overall water table are potentially a higher risk area if major seismic activity were to occur. Areas of bedrock, including the Sutter Buttes have high density compacted soils and contain no liquefaction potential, although localized areas of valley fill alluvium can have moderate to high liquefaction potential.

Landslides: Landslides are downward and outward movements of slope forming materials which may be rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of such materials. The size of landslides varies from those containing less than a cubic yard of material to massive ones containing millions of cubic yards. Large landslides may move down slope for hundreds of yards or even several miles. A landslide may move rapidly or so slow that a change of position can be noted only over a period of weeks or years. A similar, but much slower movement is called creep. The susceptibility of a given area to landslides depends on a great many variables. With the exception of the Sutter Buttes, Yuba City is located in a landslide-free zone due to the flat topography. The Sutter Buttes are considered to be in a low landslide hazard zone as shown in Bulletin 198 by the California Division of Mines and Geology.

48 Soil Erosion: Erosion is a two-step process by which soils and rocks are broken down or fragmented and then transported. The breakdown processes include mechanical abrasion, dissolution, and weathering.

Erosion occurs naturally in most systems but is often accelerated by human activities that disturb soil and vegetation. The rate at which erosion occurs is largely a function of climate, soil cover, slope conditions, and inherent soil properties such as texture and structure. Water is the dominant agent of erosion and is responsible for most of the breakdown processes as well as most of the transport processes that result in erosion. Wind may also be an important erosion agent. The rate of erosion depends on many variables including the soil or rock texture and composition, soil permeability, slope, extent of vegetative cover, and precipitation amounts and patterns. Erosion increases with increasing slope, increasing precipitation, and decreasing vegetative cover. Erosion can be extremely high in areas where vegetation has been removed by fire, construction, or cultivation. High rates of erosion may have several negative impacts including degradation and loss of agricultural land, degradation of streams and other water habitats, and rapid silting of reservoirs.

Subsidence: Subsidence is the sinking of a large area of ground surface in which the material is displaced vertically downward, with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is usually a direct result of groundwater, oil, or gas withdrawal. These activities are common in several areas of California, including parts of the Sacramento Valley and in large areas of the San Joaquin Valley. Subsidence is a greater hazard in areas where subsurface geology includes compressible layers of silt and clay. Subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal generally affects larger areas and presents a more serious hazard than does subsidence due to oil and gas withdrawal. In portions of the San Joaquin Valley, subsidence has exceeded 20 feet over the past 50 years. In the Sacramento Valley, preliminary studies suggest that much smaller levels of subsidence, up to two feet may have occurred. In most of the valley, elevation data are inadequate to determine positively if subsidence has occurred. However, groundwater withdrawal in the Sacramento Valley has been increasing and groundwater levels have declined in some areas. The amount of subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal depends on several factors, including: (1) the extent of water level decline, (2) the thickness and depth of the water bearing strata tapped, (3) the thickness and compressibility of silt-clay layers within the vertical sections where groundwater withdrawal is occurring, (4) the duration of maintained groundwater level decline, (5) the number and magnitude of water withdrawals in a given area, and (6) the general geology and geologic structure of the groundwater basin.

The damaging effects of subsidence include gradient changes in roads, streams, canals, drains, sewers, and dikes. Many such systems are constructed with slight gradients and may be significantly damaged by even small elevation changes. Other effects include damage to water wells resulting from sediment compaction and increased likelihood of flooding of low-lying areas.

Expansive Soils: Expansive soils are prone to change in volume due to the presence of moisture. Soft clay soils have the tendency to increase in volume when moisture is present and shrink when it is dry (shrink/swell). Swelling soils contain high percentages of certain kinds of clay particles that are capable of absorbing large quantities of water, expanding up to 10 percent or more as the clay becomes wet. The force of expansion is capable of exerting pressure on foundations, slabs, and other confining structures.

Soils: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has mapped over 40 individual soil units in the county. The predominant soil series in the county are the Capay, Clear Lake, Conejo, Oswald, and Olashes soils, which account for over 60 percent of the total land area. The remaining soil units each account for smaller percentages the total land area. The Capay and Clear Lake soils are generally present in the western and southern parts of the county. The Conejo soils occur in the eastern part closer to the incorporated areas of the county. Oswald and Olashes soils are located in the central portion of the county extending north to south, with scattered areas along the southeastern edge of the county. Soil descriptions for the principal soil units in the county are provided

49 below. These descriptions, which were developed by the NRCS, are for native, undisturbed soils and are primarily associated with agricultural suitability. Soil characteristics may vary considerably from the mapped locations and descriptions due to development and other uses. Geotechnical studies are required to identify actual engineering properties of soils at specific locations to determine whether there are specific soil characteristics that could affect foundations, drainage, infrastructure, or other structural features.

4.6.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
Historic Sites Act of 1935: This Act became law on August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) and has been amended eight times. This Act establishes as a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings and objects, including geologic formations.

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which was first authorized by Congress in 1977, coordinates the earthquake-related activities of the Federal Government. The goal of NEHRP is to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States through basic and directed research and implementation activities in the fields of earthquake science and engineering. Under NEHRP, FEMA is responsible for developing effective earthquake risk reduction tools and promoting their implementation, as well as supporting the development of disaster-resistant building codes and standards. FEMA's NEHRP activities are led by the FEMA Headquarters (HQ), Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Risk Reduction Division, Building Science Branch, in strong partnership with other FEMA HQ Directorates, and in coordination with the FEMA Regions, the States, the earthquake consortia, and other public and private partners.

4.6.3 State Regulatory Setting
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (originally enacted in 1972 and renamed in 1994) is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The statute prohibits the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and regulates construction in the corridors along active faults.

California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act: The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones.

Uniform Building Code: The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the Uniform Building Code with necessary California amendments. The Uniform Building Code is a widely adopted model building code in the United States published by the International Conference of Building Officials. About one-third of the text within the California Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions.

4.6.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

50 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
According to the Yuba City General Plan, no active earthquake faults are known to exist in Sutter County, although active faults in the region could produce ground motion in Yuba City (Dyett & Bhatia, 2004). The closest known fault zone is the Bear Mountain Fault Zone, located approximately 20 miles northeast of Yuba City (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2015). Potentially active faults do exist in the Sutter Buttes, but those faults are considered small and have not exhibited activity in recent history. Because the distance from the City to the closest known active fault zone is large, the potential for exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects from fault rupture is low. The project is only a request for a Rezone and does not include a specific development proposal at this time. Therefore, potential impact from an earthquake is considered to be less than significant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
In the event of a major regional earthquake, fault rupture or seismic ground shaking could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. Ground shaking could potentially expose people and property to seismic-related hazards, including localized liquefaction and ground failure. However, all new development will be required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards.

General Plan Implementing Policies 9.2-I-1 through 9.2-I-8 and City adopted Building Codes reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The proposed project is not located within a liquefaction zone according to the California Department of Conservation’s California Geologic Survey regulatory maps. Regardless, all new structures are required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards. Therefore, the potential impact from ground failure is less than significant. iv. Landslides?
According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan, due to the flat topography, erosion, landslides, and mudflows are not considered to be a significant risk in the City limits or within the City’s Sphere of Influence, nor at or adjacent to the project site due to its flat terrain. The are no circumstances surrounding the project site that would likely result in a risk of property damage or loss of life due to a landslide event. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Per Chapter 9.2 (Seismic and Geologic Hazards) of the Yuba City General Plan, potential erosion within the City is considered minimal as land within the region is generally flat, with moderate annual precipitation averages (between 15 -21 inches), and generally low wind velocities. Future development of the project site resulting from the proposed rezoning would result in the need for grading and site disturbance across a minority of the parcels for the installation of infrastructure, creation of building pads, and proper site

51 drainage. Even though the area is relatively flat, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the City drainage system. However, as part of any future construction of the candidate sites, the applicant will be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This triggers the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwaters moving offsite into receiving waters during the construction process. With these standards being met, as applied through existing standard City conditions of approval that will be attached to any future project specific approval, the impacts are considered less than significant.
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
There have not been any identified geological soil units considered to be unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of this project. This potential impact is therefore considered to be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property?
The extreme southwest corner of the Yuba City Sphere of Influence is the only known area to have expansive soils. The project area is not located within that area, and therefore will not be impacted by the presence of expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Future development will be required to connect to the City’s wastewater collection system per the established permitting system in place. No septic systems will be utilized with future development envisioned that will satisfy the RHNA requirements. Impacts with respect to this item are considered to be less than significant.

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 3.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X

52 4.7.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98), which became effective December 29, 2009, requires that all facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent per year beginning in 2010, report their emissions on an annual basis. On May 13, 2010, the USEPA issued a final rule that established an approach to addressing GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA) permitting programs. The final rule set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In addition, the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) found that the USEPA has the authority to list GHGs as pollutants and to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) under the CAA. On April 17, 2009, the USEPA found that CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride may contribute to air pollution and may endanger public health and welfare. This finding may result in the USEPA regulating GHG emissions; however, to date the USEPA has not propose regulations based on this finding.

4.7.2 State & Local Regulatory Setting
The City’s Resource Efficiency Plan as designed under the premise that the City, and the community it represents, is uniquely capable of addressing emissions associated with sources under the City’s jurisdiction and that the City’s emission reduction efforts should coordinate with the state strategies of reducing emissions in order to accomplish these reductions in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The City developed this document with the following purposes in mind:
 Local Control: The Efficiency Plan allows the City to identify strategies to reduce resource consumption, costs, and GHG emissions in all economic sectors in a way that maintains local control over the issues and fits the character of the community. It also may position the City for funding to implement programs tied to climate goals.
 Energy and Resource Efficiency: The Efficiency Plan identifies opportunities for the City to increase energy efficiency and lower GHG emissions in a manner that is most feasible within the community. Reducing energy consumption through increasing the efficiency of energy technologies, reducing energy use, and using renewable sources of energy are effective ways to reduce GHG emissions. Energy efficiency also provides opportunities for cost‐savings.  Improved Public Health: Many of the GHG reduction strategies identified in the Efficiency Plan also have local public health benefits. Benefits include local air quality improvements; creating a more active community through implementing resource‐efficient living practices; and reducing health risks, such as heat stroke, that would be otherwise elevated by climate change impacts such as increased extreme heat days.

Demonstrating Consistency with State GHG Reduction Goals—A GHG reduction plan may be used as GHG mitigation in the General Plan to demonstrate that the City is aligned with State goals for reducing GHG emissions to a level considered less than cumulatively considerable.

4.7.3 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

53 The project is only a request for a Rezone and does not include a specific development proposal nor will approval of this project result in any construction or long-term operational activities. No physical development of the site is proposed as part of this project. The removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels will eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue. Future development could result in an increase in construction and operational greenhouse gas emissions. The FRAQD does not yet have an established threshold of significance with regard to GHG emissions during construction or operational activitiesthough does utilize screening criteria for new developments (see discussion under Air Quality, above).

The City also encourages the use of the following in addressing energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissionsin future development of the site, to be addressed as a condition of future commercial projects, the future application of mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed in detail in Item (a) above, the project is required to conform with established plans and ordinances related to this greenhouse gas emissions.

This project does not propose new development. The removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels will eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

Future development will potentially create GHG emissions due to the use of motorized construction equipment and ongoing auto traffic generated by the commercial project as well as use of electricity, gas, and generation of wastewater and solid waste. The FRAQD does not have an established threshold of significance with regard to GHG emissions on a construction or operational scale. However, possible reasonable reductions could be applied to a future project in order to further minimize those impacts.

Specifically addressing this proposal, the City’s Resource Efficiency Plan addresses greenhouse gas concerns and provides a description of greenhouse gas reduction measures. The proposed project impacts are considered to be less than significant.

54 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Table 3-8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) 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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d) 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?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
X

4.8.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): The USEPA was established in 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard setting and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. USEPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment — air, water, and land — upon which life depends. USEPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress, is responsible for researching and

55 setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance. Where national standards are not met, USEPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states and tribes in reaching the desired levels of environmental quality.

Federal Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act: The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (U.S.

Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List (NPL).

CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) on October 17, 1986.

Clean Water Act/SPCC Rule: The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. As part of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. EPA oversees and enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation contained in Title 40 of the CFR, Part 112 (Title 40 CFR, Part 112) which is often referred to as the “SPCC rule” because the regulations describe the requirements for facilities to prepare, amend and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans: A facility is subject to SPCC regulations if a single oil storage tank has a capacity greater than 660 gallons, or the total above ground oil storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons, or the underground oil storage capacity exceeds 42,000 gallons, and if, due to its location, the facility could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into or upon the “Navigable Waters” of the United States. Other federal regulations overseen by the U.S. EPA relevant to hazardous materials and environmental contamination include Title 40, CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter D – Water Programs and Subchapter I – Solid Wastes. Title 40, CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Parts 116 and 117 designate hazardous substances under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act: Title 40, CFR, Part 116 sets forth a determination of the reportable quantity for each substance that is designated as hazardous. Title 40, CFR, Part 117 applies to quantities of designated substances equal to or greater than the reportable quantities that may be discharged into waters of the United States.

The NFPA 70®: National Electrical Code® is adopted in all 50 states. Any electrical work associated with the proposed project is required to comply with the standards set forth in this code. Several federal regulations govern hazards as they are related to transportation issues. They include:

56 Title 49, CFR, Sections 171-177 (49 CFR 171-177), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles. 49 CFR 350-399, and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways. 49 CFR 397.9, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish criteria and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials.

4.8.2 State Regulatory Setting
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA): The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991 by Governor’s Executive Order. The six boards, departments, and office were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of State resources. The mission of CalEPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC): DTSC is a department of Cal/EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans-up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Government Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, DHS lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and which have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.

Unified Program: The Unified Program (codified CCR Title 27, Division 1, Subdivision 4, Chapter 1, Sections 15100- 15620) consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of the following six environmental and emergency response programs:
 Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) program and Hazardous Waste On-site Treatment activities;  Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) program Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan requirements;
 Underground Storage Tank (UST) program;
 Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (HMRRP) program;  California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program;  Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMMP/HMIS) requirements.

The Secretary of CalEPA is directly responsible for coordinating the administration of the Unified Program.

The Unified Program requires all counties to apply to the CalEPA Secretary for the certification of a local unified program agency. Qualified cities are also permitted to apply for certification. The local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is required to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, fee structures, and inspection and enforcement activities for these

57 six program elements in the county. Most CUPAs have been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department.

Hazardous Waste Management Program: The Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) regulates hazardous waste through its permitting, enforcement, and Unified Program activities in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 25135 et seq. The main focus of HWMP is to ensure the safe storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was created by the California legislature in 1967. The mission of SWRCB is to ensure the highest reasonable quality for waters of the State, while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters.

California Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA): In California, every employer has a legal obligation to provide and maintain a safe and healthful workplace for employees, according to the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (per Title 8 of the CCR). The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) program is responsible for enforcing California laws and regulations pertaining to workplace safety and health and for providing assistance to employers and workers about workplace safety and health issues. Cal/OSHA regulations are administered through Title 8 of the CCR. The regulations require all manufacturers or importers to assess the hazards of substances that they produce or import and all employers to provide information to their employees about the hazardous substances to which they may be exposed.

California Fire Code: The California Fire Code is Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code. The California Fire Code incorporates the Uniform Fire Code with necessary California amendments. This Code prescribes regulations consistent with nationally recognized good practice for the safeguarding to a reasonable degree of life and property from the hazards of fire explosion, and dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the use or occupancy of buildings or premises and provisions to assist emergency response personnel.

4.8.3 Local Regulatory Setting
Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The SCACLUP was adopted in April 1994 by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). SACOG is the designated Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties under the provisions of the California Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670.1 Airport Land Use Commission Law. The purpose of the ALUC law is to (1) protect public health, safety, and welfare through the adoption of land use standards that minimize the public’s exposure to safety hazards and excessive levels of noise, and (2) Prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses around public-use airports, thereby preserving the utilities of these airports into the future.

4.8.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The project will allow for the Rezone and removal of the X8 Overlay District on several properties and does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. In the future, increased commercial use of the medical office park could develop on the proposed parcels with the approval of the

58 Rezone. There will be standard hazardous materials such as gasoline and diesel fuels in use during the future project development, however, regulations are in place on several levels (Federal, State, and local) which directly address potential threats associated with this item. Therefore, this potential impact is considered to be less than significant.
b) 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? The presence of hazardous materials anticipated with potential future development are primarily related to construction and grading equipment which includes solvents, oil and fuel. Regulations are in place on several levels (Federal, State, and local) which directly address potential threats associated with this item.

This project will allow for the Rezone and removal of the X8 Overlay District on several properties and will not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, this potential impact is considered less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no existing schools located within one-quarter mile of the project site. Mary Covillaud Elementary School is located approximately one and a half miles to the east of the project site. The proposed project is a Rezone that will remove the X8 Overlay District requirements on the project sites, though no specific development project is currently proposed as part of this project. It is anticipated that future commercial development would use household items that could contain hazardous chemicals including, but not limited to, motor oil and/ or diesel fuel, solvents, paint and paint waste, cleaning supplies, car batteries, and pesticides. The amount of materials used or stored associated with the project would be small, based on the anticipated site uses. It is anticipated that the use of such materials would be extremely limited and would not be expected to present a health risk when used according to manufacturers’ instructions. No impact is anticipated.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The project site is not on any listings of sites that are contaminated by hazardous wastes, including any wastes that may relate to historic agricultural use. No significant impact is anticipated. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The project site is not located within the boundaries of the Sutter County Airport Land Use Plan area.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
There are no private airports or airfields located within the city limits of Yuba City. The closest private airstrip is the Vanderford Ranch Company Airport, located approximately six miles southwest of the City, well beyond any safety or hazardous zones. Future development would also be subject to the

59 development standards of the C-O zone including height restrictions of new commercial buildings (4 stories not to exceed 52 feet, except as provided in Article 56). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Yuba City Fire and Police Departments currently provided emergency services to the project site. The project would result in a Rezone, no development of the site is proposed as part of this project. The removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels will eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

Neither agency has expressed concern over impacts the project may have on any emergency response plans. There would be a less than significant impact.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The project site is located in a planned urban area that is surrounded by a variety of land uses, including residential, commercial/office, and agricultural lands. There are no wildlands on the subject sites and the property is not mapped in a wildfire hazard area. The water side of the Feather River levee, which is in the vicinity to the east, does contain wildlands and the potential for wildfire. Although there is potential wildfire areas located to the east of this project site, the existing medical office facility has access to fire hydrant connections and future development will be required to have fire sprinklers installed. A les than significant impact is anticipated.

60 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 3-9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site in a manner that would:

X
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X

4.9.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act (CWA) is intended to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (33 CFR 1251). The regulations implementing the CWA protect waters of the U.S. including streams and wetlands (33 CFR 328.3). The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality by regulating point source and some non-point source discharges. Under Section 402 of the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process was established to regulate these discharges.

61 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones: The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) makes available federally subsidized flood insurance to owners of flood-prone properties. To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that can be used for planning purposes. Flood hazard areas identified on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map are identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA are defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.

SFHAs are labeled as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30. Moderate flood hazard areas, labeled Zone B or Zone X (shaded) are also shown on the FIRM, and are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annualchance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded).

4.9.2 State Regulatory Setting
State Water Resources Control Board: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the agency with jurisdiction over water quality issues in the State of California. The WRCB is governed by the PorterCologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code), which establishes the legal framework for water quality control activities by the SWRCB. The intent of the Porter- Cologne Act is to regulate factors which may affect the quality of waters of the State to attain the highest quality which is reasonable, considering a full range of demands and values. Much of the implementation of the SWRCB's responsibilities is delegated to its nine Regional Boards. The project site is located within the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control board.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB): administers the NPDES storm waterpermitting program in the Central Valley region. Construction activities on one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). Additionally, CVRWQCB is responsible for issuing Waste Discharge Requirements Orders under California Water Code Section 13260, Article 4, Waste Discharge Requirements.

State Department of Water Resources: California Water Code (Sections 10004 et seq.) requires that the State Department of Water Resources update the State Water Plan every five years. The 2013 update is the most current review and included (but is not limited to) the following conclusions:
 The total number of wells completed in California between 1977 and 2010 is approximately 432,469 and ranges from a high of 108,346 wells for the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region to a low of 4,069 wells for the North Lahontan Hydrologic Region.  Based on the June 2014 California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) basin prioritization for California’s 515 groundwater basins, 43 basins are identified as high priority, 84 basins as medium priority, 27 basins as low priority, and the remaining 361 basins as very low priority.
 The 127 basins designated as high or medium priority account for 96 percent of the average annual statewide groundwater use and 88 percent of the 2010 population overlying the groundwater basin area.

62  Depth-to-groundwater contours were developed for the unconfined aquifer system in the Central Valley. In the Sacramento Valley, the spring 2010 groundwater depths range from less than 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) to approximately 50 feet bgs, with local areas showing maximum depths of as much as 160 feet bgs.
 The most prevalent groundwater contaminants affecting California’s community drinking water wells are arsenic, nitrate, gross alpha activity, and perchlorate.

California Government Code 65302 (d): The General Plan must contain a Conservation Element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, river and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources.

That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any County-wide water agency and with all district and city agencies which have developed, served, controlled or conserved water for any purpose for the County or city for which the plan is prepared. Coordination shall include the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information described in Section 65352.5, if that information has been submitted by the water agency to the city or County. The conservation element may also cover:
 The reclamation of land and waters.
 Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters.  Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan.
 Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores.  Protection of watersheds.
 The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel resources.  Flood control.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: On September 16, 2014 Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed historic legislation to strengthen local management and monitoring of groundwater basins most critical to the state’s water needs. The three bills, SB 1168 (Pavley) SB 1319 (Pavley) and AB 1739 (Dickinson) together makeup the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act comprehensively reforms groundwater management in California. The intent of the Act is to place management at the local level, although the state may intervene to manage basins when local agencies fail to take appropriate responsibility. The Act provides authority for local agency management of groundwater, and requires creation of groundwater sustainability agencies and implementation of plans to achieve groundwater sustainability within basins of high and medium-priority.

4.9.3 Local Regulatory Setting
The City requires demonstration of a viable water supply, storm water treatment planning and drainage controls as part of new residential subdivisions.

4.9.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

63 Due to the potential proposal for an increase of existing commercial development that would result after the approval of this Rezone project, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in consumption of water supplies. Most of the City’s public watersupply comesfrom the Feather River. The water is pumped from the river to the Water Treatment Plant located in northern Yuba City. The plant also sometimes utilizes a well in addition to surface water supplies due to recent drought conditions. The project will have no impact on the quality of City water, as the expected uses stemming from the project will be typical commercial uses which are not expected to violate any waste discharge standards.

Even though the area is relatively flat, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the City drainage system. However, as part of future development of the project sites, the developers will be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This triggers the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes City adopted Best Management Practices designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwaters moving offsite into receiving waters during the construction process. Assuming all necessary permits are acquired, impacts on water quality are anticipated to be less than significant.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Water consumption will not increase as a result of this project. The elimination of the roundabout requirement for the Market Street, Del Norte intersection will not impact ground water supplies of the region or interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact will result from the proposed project. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site in a manner that would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No development is proposed as part of this project. The removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels will eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

Future development will likely require the installation of storm drainage infrastructure to convey storm water runoff from the site into the City’s storm drainage system. Future development is required to comply with City standards for underground utility infrastructure.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the project sites are outside of the 100- year flood plain. It is classified as such because of the extensive series of levees and dams along the Feather River, which protects the City from potential flooding. Drainage system improvements required of this project will provide storm water relief to this area. Therefore, future development at the project site will not result in placement of structures in a floodway or result in redirection of flood flows.

64 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The City is not in proximity to the ocean or any large lakes, such that a seiche or tsunami is unlikely to happen in or near the City. Mudflows and landslides are unlikely to happen due to the relatively flat topography within the project area. Thus, it is unlikely that the project sites would be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow or landslide. Additionally, the future anticipated commercial development planned for the site would not contain, store or otherwise involve any large amounts of potential pollutants. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. e) Conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As previously stated, most of the City’s public water supply comes from the Feather River. The water is pumped from the river to the Water Treatment Plant located in northern Yuba City. The plant also sometimes utilizes a well in addition to surface water supplies due to recent drought conditions. The City does not have an adopted groundwater management plan. Since this project site only receives water through the City system, it is unlikely that the project could impact the water quality in the city system.

As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

4.10 Land Use and Planning
Table 3-10: Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? X

4.10.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The project is on vacant property and an existing office park area intended for office park urban development per the Yuba City General Plan. The site is surrounded by a variety of uses, including singlefamily residential (Mobile Home Park), industrial, and commercial uses. The project is designed to provide a transition of uses that will be compatible with the existing neighboring uses.

4.10.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal or state regulations pertaining to land use and planning relevant to the proposed project.

4.10.3 Local Regulatory Setting

65 The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes guidance for the ultimate pattern of growth in the City’s Sphere of Influence. It provides direction regarding how lands are to be used, where growth will occur, the density/intensity and physical form of that growth, and key design considerations.

4.10.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Physically divide an established community?
The project does not propose development and will not physically divide an established community. The site is surrounded by a variety of uses, including single-family residential, commercial, office park, industrial, and vacant property. The project will amend the project site’s zoning to remove the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels. This will eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

The removal of a planned (future) roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue will not divide the community. The planned uses are compatible with the surrounding land uses, roadway network, and existing infrastructure serving the site. Additional City review and permitting will be required for any subsequent development proposals for the project sites to ensure design compatibility with the existing neighboring uses. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

The proposed Rezone is consistent with the guiding goals and policies contained within the City of Yuba City General Plan. The project supports and forwards the following highlighted goals contained within the General Plan:

2.5-G-7: Enhance aspects of the community that help economic development and draw residents to Yuba City, including small-town ambience, educational, cultural, environmental and recreational resources, and affordable housing.

3.4-I-7: Promote infill development that maintains the scale and character of established neighborhoods.

6.3-G-2: Promote the development of medical facilities in Yuba City to serve a local and regional population.

The proposed removal of the X8 Combining Zone will not affect the current or future implementation of Land Use Implementation Policy 3.8-I-4 to ensure that neighborhood retail centers and commercial service buildings are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and with adjacent travel corridors.

Guiding Policy 5.2-G-7 of the General Plan to maximize the carrying capacity of arterial roadways by controlling the number of intersections and driveways, prohibiting residential access, and requiring sufficient off-street parking to meet the needs of each project, is not impacted by the removal of the Overlay District.

The project does not propose new development. The site is appropriately located along major transportation corridors within the City that provide an appropriate transition area from low density residential development to higher intensity uses such as commercial and industrial. Support for future development will increase the City’s economic vitality in attracting new residents and enhancing the community. This project will have no physical division impacts on established communities. b) to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

66 The current General Plan designation for the properties is Office & Office Park, providing for development of professional and medical offices. This classification includes neighborhood, community, and downtown offices as well as office development in low-intensity, campus-like setting. Neighborhood and community office sites could include a mix of uses, such as small-scale support services and residential uses that are secondary to the office development. Development intensity for buildout projections is assumed at 0.30 FAR, the maximum FAR is 1.0. The proposed project will Rezone 6 parcels from C-O, X8 (Office Commercial, X8 Overlay District) to C-O (Office Commercial) by removing the X8 Overlay District. No development is proposed as part of this project as it is strictly a Rezone of the site. The proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding residential, commercial, and office uses, and the subject parcels are appropriately situated along the intersection of major roadways (Market Street and Sutter Street) that will support the anticipated traffic, pedestrian connectivity, and infrastructure requirements associated with the removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels; the removal of the X8 District would eliminate the requirement to construct a round-a-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

While no physical development is proposed as part of this project, the project will result remove the requirement to construct a roundabout. The project will therefore not conflict with the City’s adopted land use plan or zoning requirements and any related mitigation related to land use, making this impact less than significant.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? There are currently no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservations plans within the City limits or the City’s sphere of influence. Therefore, no impacts will result.

4.11 Mineral Resources
Table 3-11: Mineral Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
X

4.11.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the proposed project.

4.11.2 State Regulatory Setting
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975: Enacted by the State Legislature in 1975, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq., insures a continuing supply of mineral resources for the State. The act also creates surface mining and reclamation policy to assure that:

67  Production and conservation of minerals is encouraged;  Environmental effects are prevented or minimized;
 Consideration is given to recreational activities, watersheds, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment;
 Mined lands are reclaimed to a useable condition once mining is completed; and  Hazards to public safety both now and in the future are eliminated.

Areas in the State (city or county) that do not have their own regulations for mining and reclamation activities rely on the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Office of Mine Reclamation to enforce this law. SMARA contains provisions for the inventory of mineral lands in the State of California.

The State Geologist, in accordance with the State Board’s Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, must classify Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) as designated below:
 MRZ-1. Areas where available geologic information indicates that there is minimal likelihood of significant resources.
 MRZ-2. Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant mineral deposits are located or likely to be located.
 MRZ-3. Areas where mineral deposits are found but the significance of the deposits cannot be evaluated without further exploration.
 MRZ-4. Areas where there is not enough information to assess the zone. These are areas that have unknown mineral resource significance.

SMARA only covers mining activities that impact or disturb the surface of the land. Deep mining (tunnel) or petroleum and gas production is not covered by SMARA.

4.11.3 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The subject properties contain no known mineral resources and there is little opportunity for mineral resource extraction. The Yuba City General Plan does not identify any mineral resource zones within the project boundary, and no mineral extraction facilities currently exist within the City. Additionally, the site is surrounded by uses that are generally considered incompatible with mineral extraction facilities.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The properties contain no known mineral resources and there is little opportunity for mineral resource extraction. The Yuba City General Plan does not identify any mineral resource zones within the City’s boundary, and no mineral extraction facilities currently exist within the City. Additionally, the sites are surrounded by uses that are generally considered incompatible with mineral extraction facilities.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

68 4.12 Noise
Table 3.12: Noise
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X

4.12.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment for Noise Noise can be generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain.

Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the frequency/sound power level spectrum.

The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency midrange. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of Aweighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements.

Noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. Noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise

69 sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual receptor. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts.

4.12.2 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment for Groundbourne Vibration Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS), as in RMS vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS (VbA) vibration velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal and is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings.

Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. As it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals, it is more prudent to use vibration velocity when measuring human response. The typical background vibration velocity level in residential areas is approximately 50 VdB. Groundborne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels.

Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. The approximate threshold of vibration perception is 65 VdB, while 85 VdB is the vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.

4.12.3 Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal Vibration Policies: The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FRA, fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 90 VdB without experiencing structural damage.97 The FTA has identified the human annoyance response to vibration levels as 75 VdB.

4.12.4 State Regulatory Setting
California Noise Control Act: The California Noise Control Act was enacted in 1973 (Health and Safety Code §46010 et seq.), and states that the Office of Noise Control (ONC) should provide assistance to local communities in developing local noise control programs. It also indicates that ONC staff would work with the Department of Resources Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to provide guidance for the preparation of the required noise elements in city and county General Plans, pursuant to Government Code § 65302(f). California Government Code § 65302(f) requires city and county general plans to include a noise element. The purpose of a noise element is to guide future development to enhance future land use compatibility.

Title 24 – Sound Transmission Control: Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) codifies Sound Transmission Control requirements, which establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards for new hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. Specifically, Title 24 states that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room of new dwellings Title 24, Part 2 requires an acoustical report that demonstrates the achievements of the required 45 dBA CNEL. Dwellings are

70 designed so that interior noise levels will meet this standard for at least ten years from the time of building permit application.

4.12.5 Local Regulatory Setting
City of Yuba City Municipal Code: Title 4, Chapter 17, Section 4-17.10(e) of the Yuba City Municipal Code prohibits the operation of noise‐generating construction equipment before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. daily, except Sunday and State or federal holidays when the prohibited time is before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m.

Figure 1: Noise Exposure

LAND USE CATEGORY
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE - Ldn or CNEL (dBA)
50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low Density
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile
Home
Residential – Multi-Family
Transient Lodging –
Motel/Hotel
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditorium, Concert Hall,
Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business,
Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

71 Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development generally should not be undertaken.

Source: State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2003. General Plan Guidelines.

4.12.6 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No physical development is proposed as part of this Rezone request. The removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels would eliminate the requirement to construct a round-a-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue. The ambient noise levels will not be impacted by the removal of the requirement to add a roundabout at the Del Norte Avenue intersection for the Mobile Home Park access.

Future development could impact the nearby single-family residences located along the Riverview Mobile Home Park access road and the Mobile Home Park that is adjacent to the project site’s vacant parcels.

During any future construction, which would be required to occur during daylight hours, Monday through Friday, noise from construction activities would contribute to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Activities involved in construction could generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 3, ranging from 79 to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers) and ranging from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, with feasible noise control.

Table 2: Noise Levels of Typical Construction
Type of Equipment (1) dBA at 50 ft.

Without Feasible Noise Control (2) With Feasible Noise Control Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Scraper 88 80
Front End Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Truck 91 75
(1)US Environmental Protection Agency. “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances.” Figure IV.H‐4. 1971.
(2)Feasible noise control includes the use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds operating in accordance with manufacturers specifications Compliance with City noise standards will ensure that noise generated by future project proposals would not result in a less than significant impact.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

72 Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Table 4 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.

Table 3: Typical Construction Levels
Equipment (1) VdB at 25 ft2
Small Bulldozer 58
Vibratory Roller 94
Jackhammer 79
Loaded Trucks 86
(1) US Environmental Protection Agency. “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances.” Figure IV.H‐4. 1971.

The project does not propose new development, the removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels would eliminate the requirement to construct a round-a-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

No new construction noise associated with future development is anticipated to be on the site. As noted above, construction activities are limited to daylight hours. Infrequent construction-related vibrations would be short-term and temporary, and operation of heavy-duty construction equipment would be intermittent throughout the day during construction. Therefore, with the lack of grading activities associated with the Rezone, the temporary impact to any uses in the vicinity of the project would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not within the boundaries of an airport land use plan. There are no private airports or airfields located within the City limits of Yuba City. The closest private airstrip is the Vanderford Ranch Company Airport, located approximately six miles southwest of the City, well beyond any safety or hazard zones. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

73 4.13 Population and Housing
Table 3-13: Population and Housing
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

4.13.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The proposed project is located in a planned urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by other commercial, residential, and industrial, uses.

4.13.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs or guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the proposed project.

4.13.3 State Regulatory Setting
California law (Government Code Section 65580, et seq.) requires cities and counties to include a housing element as a part of their general plan to address housing conditions and needs in the community.

Housing elements are prepared approximately every five years (eight following implementation of Senate Bill [SB] 375), following timetables set forth in the law. The housing element must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and “make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community,” among other requirements. The City adopted its current Housing Element in 2013.

4.13.4 Regional Regulatory Setting
State law mandates that all cities and counties offer a portion of housing to accommodate the increasing needs of regional population growth. The statewide housing demand is determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), while local governments and councils of governments decide and manage their specific regional and jurisdictional housing needs and develop a regional housing needs assessment (RHNA).

In the greater Sacramento region, which includes the City of Yuba City, SACOG has the responsibility of developing and approving an RHNA and a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) every eight years (Government Code, Section 65580 et seq.). This document has a central role of distributing the allocation

74 of housing for every county and city in the SACOG region. Housing needs are assessed for very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate households.

As described above, SACOG is the association of local governments that includes Yuba City, along with other jurisdictions comprising the six counties in the greater Sacramento region. In addition to preparing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region, SACOG approves the distribution of affordable housing in the region through its RHNP. SACOG also assists in planning for transit, bicycle networks, clean air and serves as the Airport Land Use Commission for the region.

4.13.5 Local Regulatory Setting
The City’s adopted Housing Element regulates Citywide housing goals and objectives.

4.13.6 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No new development is proposed as part of this project. The project site is located within an area that is currently designated for office and office park land uses and is planned by the General Plan to be built out with an urban environment supporting a mix of land uses, including professional and medical offices. The project site would utilize the existing roadways and utility infrastructure to construct and operate future development. This project will not impact population growth so no impacts are anticipated. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No new development is proposed as part of this project. The project site is currently vacant with an existing Office Park and parking areas. The project will amend the zoning designation to remove the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels, which would eliminate the requirement to construct a rounda-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

Future development will not displace any existing residents on the site. Therefore, no housing would be displaced. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

75 4.14 Public Services
Table 3-14: Public Services
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X

4.14.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Law enforcement serving the various new uses is provided by the Yuba City Police Department. Fire protection is provided by the Yuba City Fire Department. Nearby parks and other urban facilities that may be utilized by new residents and customers and employees are also provided by Yuba City.

4.14.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Fire Protection Association: The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international nonprofit organization that provides consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education on fire prevention and public safety. The NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 such codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks. The NFPA publishes the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, which provides requirements to establish a reasonable level of fire safety and property protection in new and existing buildings.

4.14.3 State Regulatory Setting
California Fire Code and Building Code: The 2013 California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provision of the Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service features such as fire apparatus access roads, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland urban interface areas.

76 California Health and Safety Code (HSC): State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California HSC, which includes regulations for building standards (as set forth in the CBC), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.

California Master Mutual Aid Agreement: The California Master Mutual Aid Agreement is a framework agreement between the State of California and local governments for aid and assistance by the interchange of services, facilities, and equipment, including but not limited to fire, police, medical and health, communication, and transportation services and facilities to cope with the problems of emergency rescue, relief, evacuation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

4.14.4 Local Regulatory Setting
The General Plan addresses the need for new development to be able to be serviced by the City with all essential services, including Police and Fire, before new development can be approved.

4.14.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection: The Yuba City Fire Department provides fire protection services to the subject properties.

No new development is proposed as part of this project. This proposal will result in the removal of the requirement to install a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

To date, the Fire Department has not expressed any concern with respect to providing services to this project area in the future. This would be a less than significant impact.

Police Protection: The Yuba City Police Department will provide police services to the site. The Police Department reviewed the proposal and did not express concerns, though did address traffic control measures along Market Street. The removal of the X8 Overlay District from the affected parcels would eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue. This would be a less than significant impact.

Schools: The Yuba City Unified School District did not voice any concerns over the project. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

Parks: This project does propose any physical development therefore the project would not be required to pay fees towards improvement of City parks. Future development of the project site will be required to pay park fees prior to issuance of building permits. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

Other Public Facilities: Future development would be provided with electrical and natural gas services by Pacific Gas and Electric, and communication and cable services provided by AT&T and Comcast. No physical development of the site is proposed as part of this project, the removal of the X8 Overlay District

77 from the affected parcels would eliminate the requirement to construct a round-a-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue. As a result, less than significant impact is anticipated.

4.15 Recreation
Table 3-15: Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X

4.15.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Yuba City has 22 City-owned parks and recreational areas, managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. This consists of 4 community parks, 15 neighborhood parks, and 3 passive or mini-parks.

4.15.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations regarding parks and open space that are applicable to the proposed project.

4.15.3 State Regulatory Setting
State Public Park Preservation Act: The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is the Public Park Preservation Act of 1971. Under the PRC section 5400-5409, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non-park use unless compensation or land, or both, are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides no net loss of parkland and facilities.

Quimby Act: California Government Code Section 66477, referred to as the Quimby Act, permits local jurisdictions to require the dedication of land and/or the payment of in-lieu fees solely for park and recreation purposes. The required dedication and/or fee are based upon the residential density and housing type, land cost, and other factors. Land dedicated and fees collected pursuant to the Quimby Act may be used for developing new, or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities.

4.15.4 Local Regulatory Setting
The Yuba City General Plan and the City’s Parks Master Plan provide a goal of providing 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents, while it also requires 1 acre of Neighborhood Park for every 1,000 residents.

The City’s development impact fee program collects fees for new development, which is allocated for the acquisition and development of open space in the City.

78 4.15.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No new development is proposed as part of this project. The closest City Park to the Site is Feather River Parkway, located approximately 0.4 miles to the northeast. The City’s development impact fee program requires collection of fees for new residential development and allocates fees to the acquisition and planned development and maintenance of open space/park areas in the City. Given this system, which is already in place, no new development is proposed by this application and is not anticipated to impact the existing parks or other recreational facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project does not propose physical development of the sites as the project is a Rezone of the site from C-O, X8 to C-O. The City’s development impact fee program collects fees for new development, which is allocated for the acquisition and development of open space in the City. Given this system which is already in place, no new development is proposed and is not anticipated to expand recreational facilities.

4.16 Transportation/Traffic
Table 3-16: Transportation Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

4.16.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal Highway Administration: FHWA is the agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the Federally-funded roadway system, including the interstate highway network and portions of the primary State highway network. FHWA funding is provided through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficiency Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA- LU can be used to fund local transportation improvement projects, such as projects to improve the efficiency of existing roadways, traffic signal coordination, bikeways, and transit system upgrades.

79 Several federal regulations govern transportation issues. They include:
 Title 49, CFR, Sections 171-177 (49 CFR 171-177), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles.
 Title 49 CFR 350-399, and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways.  Title 49 CFR 397.9, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, directs the U.S.

Department of Transportation to establish criteria and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials.
 Federal Aviation Administration: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates aviation at regional, public, and private airports. The FAA regulates objects affecting navigable airspace.

4.16.2 State Regulatory Setting
State of California Transportation Department Transportation Concept Reports: Each District of the State of California Transportation Department (Caltrans) prepares a Transportation Concept Report (TCR) for every state highway or portion thereof in its jurisdiction. The TCR usually represents the first step in Caltrans’ long-range corridor planning process. The purpose of the TCR is to determine how a highway will be developed and managed so that it delivers the targeted LOS and quality of operations that are feasible to attain over a 20-year period, otherwise known as the “route concept” or beyond 20 years, for what is known as the “ultimate concept”.

4.16.3 Local Regulatory Setting
The City’s General Plan Circulation Element contains a wide range of policies regulating new residential development, including provision of adequate roadways and circulation systems, provided at developer expense, to ensure safe and adequate vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access is available.

4.16.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The project does not include a specific development proposal, nor will it directly result in any new construction, resulting in increased generation of vehicle trips. The removal of the X8 Overlay District will remove the requirement to install a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue. It is anticipated that the removal of the requirement to construct a round-a-bout would result in other potentialroadway circulation improvements elsewhere along the project frontage, improving traffic circulation in the area. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact with regard to conflicts with a program, plan, or policy addressing the circulation system from the proposed Rezone. Future commercial development projects will be conditioned to contribute their fair share to the cost of circulation improvements via the existing citywide traffic impact fees that would be assessed.

Future development would be reviewed for compliance with City Standards and conditioned to construct required improvements and/or payment of applicable traffic mitigation fees or fair-share of public improvements. The project would include new driveways connecting to public streets and an internal circulation network that would be reviewed for design adequacy based on the anticipated traffic and

80 parking demands of the specific project design. Additionally, the project would be reviewed and required to improve public street frontages and other facilities such as pedestrian infrastructure, public transportation improvements, and traffic signals as part of the entitlement review. This review would ensure site design is adequate to serve the project and handle the anticipated traffic volumes produced from the development. The proposed rezone of the subject sites does not create a conflict with the General Plan Circulation Element so a less than significant impact is anticipated. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? The project is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines with respect to transportation, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). No new development is proposed. The City has not adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) criteria, though the project is not expected to result in any adverse impacts to either the local or City-wide transportation program, nor add inappropriate or unnecessary vehicle miles to the City traffic framework based on the removal of the requirement to construct a roundabout. The elimination of this requirement to install a round-a-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue would result in other potential roadway circulation improvements elsewhere along the project frontage, improving traffic circulation in the area of the project site. The project will not conflict with a program, plan, or ordinance addressing the circulation system. The project’s impact is therefore anticipated to be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The project site is located along Market Street which is a major arterial roadway providing key connections within the existing street network within the central portion of the City. Both the Public Works Department and the Police Department have reviewed the project and do not object to the proposed project. It is anticipated that the removal of the requirement to construct a roundabout will result in other potential roadway circulation improvements elsewhere along the project frontage, improving traffic circulation in the area. The project does not propose any physical development at this time, however it has been determined that the existing public roads fronting the project sites may be included in future roadway circulation improvement plans. Traffic circulation development along the project site frontage, without the round-a-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue is anticipated to be improved and will reduce hazards due to design features. There are no dangerous curves in the vicinity and it is anticipated there will be no conflict with uses such as farm equipment. No impact is anticipated as part of this project.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Fire Department and Police Departments have reviewed the requested Rezone request and do not object to the project and did not express concerns about emergency access to the project site. Traffic circulation development along the project site frontage, without the round-a-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue is anticipated to be improved and will reduce hazards due to design features. Roadways will be built to City standards, ensuring emergency vehicle access is available. No impact is anticipated as part of this project.

81 4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Table 3-17: Tribal Cult
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project cause of substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is :
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X

4.17.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) in the Master Plan. The following analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to TCRs is derived primarily from the following sources:
 California Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search, December 11, 2017.  Ethnographic overview of the Nisenan culture.
 Environmental Impact Report for the City of Yuba City General Plan (2004).  Consultation record with California Native American tribes under Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.

4.17.2 State Regulatory Setting
Assembly Bill 52: Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.

Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the

82 purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.

Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.

Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their TCRs and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies initiate consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs.

Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.

4.17.3 Cultural Setting
The Nisenan (also referred to as Southern Maidu) inhabited the General Plan area prior to large-scale European and Euroamerican settlement of the surrounding area. Nisenan territory comprised the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American Rivers, and the lower drainages of the Feather River. The Nisenan, together with the Maidu and Konkow, their northern neighbors, form the Maiduan language family of the Penutian linguistic stock (Shipley 1978:89). Kroeber (1976:392) noted three dialects:

Northern Hill Nisenan, Southern Hill Nisenan, and Valley Nisenan. Although cultural descriptions of this group in the English language are known from as early as 1849, most of our current cultural knowledge comes from various anthropologists in the early part of the 20th century (Levy 1978:413; Wilson and Towne 1978:397).

The basic subsistence strategy of the Nisenan was seasonally mobile hunting and gathering. Acorns, the primary staple of the Nisenan diet, were gathered in the valley along with seeds, buckeye, salmon, insects, and a wide variety of other plants and animals. During the warmer months, people moved to mountainous areas to hunt and collect food resources, such as pine nuts. Bedrock and portable mortars and pestles were used to process acorns. Nisenan settlement patterns were oriented to major river drainages and tributaries. In the foothills and lower Sierra Nevada, Nisenan located their villages in large flats or ridges near major streams. These villages tended to be smaller than the villages in the valley. (Wilson and Towne 1978:389–390.)
Trade provided other valuable resources that were not normally available in the Nisenan environment.

The Valley Nisenan received black acorns, pine nuts, manzanita berries, skins, bows, and bow wood from

83 the Hill Nisenan to their east, in exchange for fish, roots, grasses, shells, beads, salt, and feathers (Wilson and Towne 1978). To obtain, process, and utilize these material resources, the Nisenan had an array of tools to assist them. Wooden digging sticks, poles for shaking acorns loose, and baskets of primarily willow and redbud were used to gather vegetal resources. Stone mortars and pestles were used to process many of the vegetal foods; baskets, heated stones, and wooden stirring sticks were used for cooking. Basalt and obsidian were primary stone materials used for making knives, arrow and spear points, clubs, arrow straighteners, and scrapers. (Wilson and Towne 1978.)
Nisenan settlement locations depended primarily on elevation, exposure, and proximity to water and other resources. Permanent villages were usually located on low rises along major watercourses. Village size ranged from three houses to 40 or 50 houses. Larger villages often had semi-subterranean dance houses that were covered in earth and tule or brush, and had a central smoke hole at the top and an entrance that faced east (Wilson and Towne 1978:388). Early Nisenan contact with Europeans appears to have been limited to the southern reaches of their territory. Spanish expeditions intruded into Nisenan territory in the early 1800s. In the two or three years following the gold discovery, Nisenan territory was overrun by immigrants from all over the world. Gold seekers and the settlements that sprang up to support them were nearly fatal to the native inhabitants. Survivors worked as wage laborers and domestic help and lived on the edges of foothill towns. Despite severe depredations, descendants of the Nisenan still live in their original land area and maintain and pass on their cultural identity.

4.17.4 Summary of Native American Consultation
See discussion in Section 4.5.4 of this Initial Study.

4.17.5 Tribal Cultural Resources within Project Area
See discussion in Section 4.5.4 of this Initial Study.

4.17.6 Thresholds of Significance
AB 52 established that a substantial adverse change to a TCR has a significant effect on the environment.

The thresholds of significance for impacts to TCRs are as follows:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR, defined in Section 21074 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a Native American tribe that are:
 Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
 Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision k of Section 5010.1; and/or
 Determined by the City to be significant, as supported by substantial evidence, including:
o A cultural landscape with a geographically defined boundary; o A historical resource as described in Section 21084.1 (either eligible for or listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or listed on a local registry); o A unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2; and/or o A non-unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2.

84 In assessing substantial adverse change, the City must determine whether or not the project will adversely affect the qualities of the resource that convey its significance. The qualities are expressed through integrity. Integrity of a resource is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association [CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)]. Impacts are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired [CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)]. Accordingly, impacts to a TCR would likely be significant if the project negatively affects the qualities of integrity that made it significant in the first place. In making this determination, the City need only address the aspects of integrity that are important to the TCR’s significance.

4.17.7 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).

No known tribal cultural resources have been identified (as defined in Section 21074) on the project site or in the immediate area. There are no historical resources listed or identified as being eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register are present. See discussion above, under Cultural Resources, to address potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. No impact is anticipated as part of this project.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Research to date has not resulted in the establishment of a significant resource at the project site. See Section 4.5.4 of this Initial Study to address any potential for accidental discovery or archaeological, cultural or Tribal resources, therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

85 4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Table 3-18: Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water or wastewater
treatment or storm drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projected demand in addition to the existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

4.18.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wastewater:

Yuba City owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that provides sewer service to approximately 60,000 residents and numerous businesses. The remainder of the residents and businesses in the Yuba City Sphere of Influence (SOI) are currently serviced by private septic systems. In the early 1970s, the City’s original sewage treatment plant was abandoned and the current Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) was constructed.

Water:

The water supply source for the City is surface water from the Feather River with use of a backup groundwater well. The City of Yuba City is a public water agency with over 18,000 connections. City policy only allows areas annexed within the city limits to be served by the surface water system. The site is served by the City’s water system.

86 Reuse and Recycling:

Solid waste generated in Yuba City is collected by Recology Yuba-Sutter. Recology offers residential, commercial, industrial, electronic, and hazardous waste collection, processing, recycling and disposal, as well as construction and demolition waste processing, diversion, and transfer to a disposal facility. The City’s municipal solid waste is delivered to the Ostrom Road Landfill; a State-permitted solid waste facility that provides a full range of transfer and diversion services. This landfill has a remaining capacity of 39,223,000 cubic yards (90 percent remaining capacity reported in 2007).1

4.18.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Discharge of treated wastewater to surface water(s) of the U.S., including wetlands, requires an NPDES permit. In California, the RWQCB administers the issuance of these federal permits. Obtaining a NPDES permit requires preparation of detailed information, including characterization of wastewater sources, treatment processes, and effluent quality. Any future development that exceeds one acre in size would be required to comply with NPDES criteria, including preparation of a Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the inclusion of BMPs to control erosion and offsite transport of soils.

4.18.3 State Regulatory Setting
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): Waste Discharge Requirements Program. State regulations pertaining to the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, CCR, Section 20005 et seq. (hereafter Title 27). In general, the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Program (sometimes also referred to as the “Non Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program”) regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 20230 of Title 27. Several programs are administered under the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs.

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle): The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track the 76 million tons of waste generated each year in California. CalRecycle develops laws and regulations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.

The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40050 et seq. or Assembly Bill (AB 939, codified in PRC 40000), administered by CalRecycle, requires all local and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills.

This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.
1 CalRecycle, 2017. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/58-AA-0011/Detail/. Accessed August 15, 2017.

87 Regional Water Quality Control Boards: The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The State Board sets statewide policy for the implementation of state and federal laws and regulations. The Regional Boards adopt and implement Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans), which recognize regional differences in natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into water of the United States. In California, it is the responsibility of Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve and enhance the quality of the state’s waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge requirements (WDRs). WDRs for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits.

California Department of Water Resources: The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is a department within the California Resources Agency. The DWR is responsible for the State of California's management and regulation of water usage.

4.18.4 Local Regulatory Setting
The City’s General Plan Public Utilities Element, along with various infrastructure Master Plans, address provision of water and wastewater services within the City.

4.18.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No new development is proposed as part of this project, the removal of the X8 Overlay District will eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue. Future increased demand for treated water is not anticipated as part of this project and will therefore not exceed the capacity of the water treatment plant and distribution system. In addition, City policies provide for adequate water treatment, storage, and distribution infrastructure for new development. Noted is the presence of overhead utility lines along the property frontage along Market Street. These facilities may require relocation or undergrounding as part of a future physical development proposal on the site. This impact is considered less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Water supplies have been determined by the City to be adequate to serve the project site, in multiple dry year conditions. No new development is proposed as part of this project and no increase in demand for water supplies is anticipated. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan identifies adequate supplies to meet anticipated existing and planned demand for multiple years. This potential impact is considered to be less-than-significant impact.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the existing commitments?

88 The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plan has been identified by the City as having adequate capacity to treat wastewater generated by the project site. No new development is proposed as part of this project, the removal of the X8 District will eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

Additional impermeable surface that will be created by future development will generate additional storm water drainage. Future development will be subject to pay appropriate storm water drainage system impact fees which covers the project’s fair share of the impact on the storm water collection system.

Given this action, this impact would be considered less than significant. d) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs?
The landfill operated by Recology Yuba-Sutter has adequate landfill capacity for multiple years to come.

There would be a less than significant impact.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Transportation and disposal of all waste due to future development of the subject site would be facilitated in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations. There would be a less than significant impact.

4.19 Wildfire
Table 3-20: Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X

89 4.19.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wildland fires are an annual hazard in Sutter County and, to a lesser degree due to urbanized development, Yuba City. Wildland fires burn natural vegetation on undeveloped lands and include rangeland, brush, and grass fires. Long, hot, and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100°F add to the County’s fire hazard. Human activities are the major causes of wildland fires, while lightning causes the remaining wildland fires.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program identifies fire threat based on a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). These two factors are combined in determining the following Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. These zones apply to areas designated as State Responsibility Areas – areas in which the State has primary firefighting responsibility.

The project site is not within a State Responsibility Area and therefore has not been placed in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

4.19.2 Impact Assessment/ Environmental Consequences
a) Emergency Response and Emergency Evacuation Plans.

As discussed in Section 4.16 of this Initial Study, no project construction is proposed, future development is not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area. Project operations likewise would not obstruct any roadways. Impacts related to emergency response or evacuations would not be impacted.
b) Exposure of Project Occupants to Wildfire Hazards.

As noted in Section 4.10 of this Initial Study, the project site is in a planned urbanized area, and no development is proposed as part of this project. The project will Rezone the subject parcels to remove the X8 Overlay District to eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue. The project site is not within a State Responsibility Area and therefore has not been placed in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. No Impacts of the project related to wildland fire hazards would increase exposure of project occupants to wildfire hazards. c) Installation and Maintenance of Infrastructure.

No physical development is proposed as part of this project. Future development will require the installation of new roadway circulation updates, and the utilization of existing utilities adjacent to the sites. The installation of these facilities is not expected to exacerbate the wildfire risk on the project site, as explained in b) above. Impacts of the project would be less than significant. d) Risks from Runoff, Post-Fire Slope Instability, or Drainage Changes.

As noted in Section 4.9 of this Initial Study, the project sites are located in a topographically flat area.

There are no streams or other channels that cross the site. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Impacts related to these issues would be less than significant.

90 4.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Table 3-19: Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important example of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
X
c) Have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X

4.20.1 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
No new development is proposed as part of this project.

The project site is on a previously disturbed site within the urbanized area and there is little plant or animal habitat value as the sites have been disturbed by historical agricultural operations. There are no wetlands or similar habitat on the project site. Therefore, future expanded development of the C-O parcels will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory by removing the X8 District Overlay.

Mitigation is also included addressing potential accidental discovery of archaeological, cultural or Tribal resources. No impacts are anticipated as part of this project.

91 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

Future development is not associated with the removal of the X8 Overlay District, including the removal of the requirement to install a round-a-bout at the intersection of Market Street and Del Norte Avenue.

New construction will be required to pay transportation impact fees that offset any impacts the project may have on City streets. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative traffic impacts.

Pertaining to potential cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions, the site grading process shall comply with the GHG Reduction Measures provided in the adopted Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan.

Future additional paving area may create some minor air quality and greenhouse gas, noise and hazardous material cumulative impacts, however those impacts have been found to be considered less than significant for the site.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed project to remove the X8 Overlay District from the designated APNs in and of itself would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction-related air quality, noise, and hazardous materials exposure impacts from future development would occur for a relatively short period and only be a minor impact during that time period. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans.

92 5 Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference According to Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, an MND may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public record. The incorporated language will be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the ND. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at, or can be obtained through, the City of Yuba City Development Services Department located at the address provided above. The following documents are incorporated by reference:

Airport Land Use Commission. 1994. Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. April 1994.

Airport Land Use Commission. 2011. Yuba County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted March 17, 2011
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland 2018.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2013. Sutter County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014.

Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.

Yuba City, City of. 2016. City of Yuba City Municipal Code. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/yuba_city/codes/code_of_ordinances Dyett & Bhatia. 2004. City of Yuba City General Plan. Adopted April 8, 2004.

Yuba City General Plan, 2004 Environmental Impact Report. (SCH #2001072105).

Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1995. Yuba-Sutter Bikeway Master Plan. December 1995. “Determination of 1-in-200 Year Floodplain for Yuba City Urban Level of Flood Protection Determination,” prepared for Yuba City by MBK Engineers, November 2015.

Sutter County General Plan.

Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) CEQA Significance Thresholds.

Yuba Sutter Transit Route Map.

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. “Fault Zone Activity Map.” AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor. Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland Map.

93 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.

City of Yuba City Wastewater Master Plan.

Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, April, 1994.

Yuba County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Sept., 2010.

Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1995. Yuba-Sutter Bikeway Master Plan. December 1995.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System website. Updated September 7, 2011. Available at
http://dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm

ATTACHMENT 6

490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 707.542.9500 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND
June 3, 2022
Mr. David Swartz
California Engineering Company
1100 Civic Center Boulevard, Suite 404
Yuba City, CA 95993
Focused Transportation Analysis for the Ampla Health Campus Expansion Project
Dear Mr. Swartz;
As requested, W-Trans has prepared a focused transportation analysis for the proposed expansion to the Ampla Health Campus located at 935 Market Street in the City of Yuba City. Although Level of Service (LOS) is no longer used to assess impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project was evaluated to determine if it would result in any adverse effects, as defined by the City’s General Plan, at nearby intersections.

The project was also screened for potential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts and the project’s access points were evaluated in terms of potential need for enhanced traffic controls; recommendations are provided that can be implemented as part of the proposed expansion.

Project Description
The proposed project includes the renovation of existing administration and medical facilities and the addition of 600 square feet of new administration space and 41,600 square feet of new medical office floor area. The new medical space would be in the form of a two-story addition to the existing medical building adjacent to Lamon Way. As part of the project, additional surface parking would be provided near the northern property boundary.

The proposed conceptual site plan is enclosed for reference.

Study Area and Periods
The study area consists of the sections of Sutter Street and Market Street fronting the project site and the following intersections and driveways. It is noted that while the alignment of Sutter Street is curved along the project frontage, the street was considered to run north-south and the intersecting minor streets and driveways are treated as being oriented east-west to be consistent throughout the study area.

1. Market Street/Del Norte Avenue-Project Driveway North

2. Sutter Street/Market Street

3. Sutter Street/Project Driveway South

4. Sutter Street/Lamon Way
Operating conditions during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours were evaluated as these time periods reflect the highest traffic volumes for the proposed project and on the local transportation network. The weekday morning peak period occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute while the evening peak period occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion of the day during the homeward-bound commute.

Study Roadway
Sutter Street-Market Street is approximately 50 feet wide along the project frontage and has a three-lane crosssection consisting of a single travel lane in each direction and a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). The roadway is classified as a minor arterial in the City’s General Plan and has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). Pedestrian crossing signage is present along the project frontage, though there are no marked crosswalks.

The section along the project site has a curved alignment and changes names between Sutter Street and Market

Mr. David Swartz Page 2 June 3, 2022
Street at the Market Street intersection. Based on count data collected in September 2021 specifically for this analysis, the roadway section along the project frontage has an a.m. peak hour volume of approximately 1,210 vehicles and a p.m. peak hour volume of approximately 1,330 vehicles. Traffic count data posted on the City’s website collected in 2016 indicates that Sutter Street has an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of about 15,600 vehicles along the project frontage. The pavement striping and markings are in poor condition adjacent to the project site and have completely faded away in some areas.

Study Intersections and Driveways
Market Street/Del Norte Avenue-Project Driveway North is a four-legged intersection with stop controls on the minor Del Norte Avenue and Project Driveway North approaches and free flow on the northbound and southbound Market Street approaches. A TWLTL is provided on Market Street, which facilitates left turns into the project site and onto Del Norte Avenue as well as two-stage left turns from the minor streets onto Market Street.

The eastbound Del Norte Avenue approach has enough width for motorists turning right to queue up beside drivers waiting for an acceptable gap to turn left.

Sutter Street/Market Street is a three-legged Y-intersection where Market Street and Sutter Street intersect at a skewed angle. Sutter Street becomes Market Street to the north of the intersection. The northbound and southbound approaches are free flowing and the eastbound Market Street approach is stop-controlled. A channelized right-turn lane is provided for southbound traffic continuing onto Market Street. The eastbound Market Street approach is approximately 24 feet wide, which is adequate for motorists turning right to pass by those waiting for an acceptable gap to turn left. The TWLTL on Sutter Street facilitates northbound left turns onto Market Street and two-stage left turns from Market Street.

Sutter Street/Project Driveway South is located approximately 175 feet south of the Market Street intersection and is offset slightly from a driveway to a 7-Eleven gas station. As it is not technically an intersection and therefore not controlled by stop signs, the driveway approaches are de facto stop-controlled by nature of being private driveways located on an arterial roadway. The TWLTL on Sutter Street facilitates left turns into the driveways and two-stage left turns out of the driveways.

Sutter Street/Lamon Way is a tee-intersection stop-controlled on the Lamon Way approach. A TWLTL on Sutter Street to the north of Lamon Way facilities southbound left turns and a dedicated right-turn lane is provided on the northbound Sutter Street approach. The westbound Lamon Way approach is approximately 22 feet wide, which is adequate for simultaneous left and right turns.

Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The most current five-year period available at the time of the analysis was August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2021.

As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2018 Crash Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). These average rates statewide are for intersections in the same environment (urban, suburban, or rural), with the same number of approaches (three or four), and the same controls (all-way stop, one- or two-way stop, or traffic signal). Given that the collision rates for three of the four study locations are less than the statewide averages for similar facilities, these intersections appear to be operating within normal safety parameters. The intersection of Sutter Street/Lamon Way had a calculated collision rate slightly above the statewide average so the collisions that occurred at this location were further reviewed, as discussed below. The collision rate calculations are enclosed.

Mr. David Swartz Page 3 June 3, 2022
Table 1 – Collision Rates for the Study Intersections
Study Intersection/Driveway Number of
Collisions
(2016-2021)
Calculated
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
Statewide Average
Collision Rate
(c/mve)

1. Market St/Del Norte Ave-Project Dwy N 2 0.08 0.14

2. Sutter St/Market St 1 0.04 0.09

3. Sutter St/Project Dwy S 2 0.08 0.14

4. Sutter St/Lamon Way 3 0.12 0.09
Note: c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering; bold text denotes rate is higher than the statewide average The three collisions that occurred at Sutter Street/Lamon Way consisted of one head-on collision and two overturn collisions. The head-on collision involved a bicyclist riding southbound and was attributed to improper turning.

Both overturn collisions involved motorists traveling in the northbound direction, of which one was attributed to improper turning and the other to unsafe speed. Additionally, it should be noted that the two collisions that occurred at the adjacent Project Driveway South intersection with Sutter Street were also attributed to unsafe speed. During a review of field conditions, motorists were generally found to be traveling above the 25-mph speed limit, especially in the northbound direction after exiting the SR 20 off-ramp and turning onto Sutter Street via the channelized right-turn lane. To reduce travel speeds on Sutter Street and consequently the number of collisions related to unsafe speed, it is recommended that a solar powered speed-feedback sign be installed facing northbound traffic on the existing streetlight pole approximately 120 feet south of Lamon Way. It is also recommended that speed reduction markings be installed in the northbound travel lane in the area adjacent to the right-turn lane.

Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017 for “General Office Building” (LU #710) and “Medical-Dental Office Building (LU #720). Rates for General Office Building were applied to the net increase in administration floor area and rates for Medical-Dental Office Building were applied to the net increase in medical floor area. Based on application of these rates, the proposed expansion would be expected to result in 1,454 new daily trips to the surrounding roadway network on average, including 117 new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 145 new trips during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 – Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
General Office 0.6 ksf 9.74 6 1.16 1 1 0 1.15 1 0 1
Medical-Dental Office 41.6 ksf 34.80 1,448 2.78 116 90 26 3.46 144 40 104 Net New Trips 1,454 117 91 26 145 40 105
Note: ksf = 1,000 square feet
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was determined based on a review of existing turning movements counts, familiarity with travel patterns in the area, and likely origins and destinations for patrons of the project. The applied trip distribution assumptions are shown in Table 3.

Mr. David Swartz Page 4 June 3, 2022
Table 3 – Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Percent
To/from North via Market St 20%
To/from South via Market St 20%
To/from West via Del Norte Ave 10%
To/from South via Sutter St 50%
TOTAL 100%
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The potential for the project to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) was evaluated based the project’s anticipated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

Background and Guidance
Senate Bill (SB) 743 established VMT as the metric to be applied in determining transportation impacts associated with development projects. As of the date of this analysis, the City of Yuba City has not yet adopted a policy or thresholds of significance regarding VMT so the project-related VMT impacts were assessed based on guidance provided by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the publication Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, 2018 as well as information contained within the SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for the City of Yuba City, 2020, Fehr & Peers. Many of the recommendations in the City’s Implementation Guidelines are consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory. As indicated in these documents, each component of the proposed project was assessed individually considering both employees and medical patients.

Employee VMT
VMT impacts associated with employees of the proposed expansion were assessed based on guidance contained in the both the Technical Advisory and the City’s Implementation Guidelines, which indicate that an employeebased project generating vehicle travel that is 15 or more percent below the existing average VMT per worker may indicate a less-than-significant VMT impact. OPR encourages the use of screening maps to establish geographic areas that achieve the 15 percent below regional average thresholds, allowing jurisdictions to “screen” projects in those areas from quantitative VMT analysis since impacts can be presumed to be less than significant.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) developed a screening map for the six county Sacramento Region that can be used to screen employment-based projects that are located in low VMT-generating areas. The map uses data from the SACOG travel demand model which is an activity/tour-based model designed to estimate per person daily travel accounting for land use, transportation, and demographics that influence travel behaviors.

The VMT screening map uses HEX geography zones where the work-based VMT per employee is calculated by tallying all the work-based VMT in the HEX and dividing by the total jobs in the HEX. The VMT for each HEX is then compared to the regional average value and classified into groups of less than 50 percent of the regional average, 50 to 85 percent, 85 to 100 percent, 100 to 115 percent, 115 to 150 percent, and greater than 150 percent. The Ampla Health Campus site falls within a screened area with employee VMT of 50 to 85 percent of the regional average value indicating that employee VMT may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact.

Mr. David Swartz Page 5 June 3, 2022
Finding – Employees of the proposed project would be expected to have a less-than-significant transportation impact on VMT.

Patient VMT
The OPR Technical Advisory does not specifically address medical uses, indicating that lead agencies may develop their own thresholds for other land use types, and also allowing assessment on a case-by-case basis. The City’s Implementation Procedures also specify that medical centers “should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis using available information and applying the general intent of the Technical Advisory.” For land uses not addressed in the Technical Advisory, it is common practice to consider whether the land use of interest has travel characteristics that are similar to the residential, employment-based, or retail land use types that are addressed. If so, similar VMT assessment methodologies can often be used. In some cases, medical uses can have similarities to retail, in that the total demand for services (shopping trips, or in this case medical visits) tends to remain steady at a regional level and customers/patients often choose to visit a store/facility based on convenience and its proximity to their home or work.

While medical facilities like hospitals often serve a broad geographic area and can attract regional traffic, medical office uses have distinctly different characteristics in that they are intended to be more local-serving in nature since they primarily provide routine medical care via the scheduling of an appointment. Generally, patients prefer to select a medical office and providers that are conveniently located to their place of work or residence for the routine medical care offered at such facilities. Therefore, from a VMT perspective, it was determined that it would be appropriate to evaluate the patient component of the proposed project similarly to a retail use.

The OPR Technical Advisory and the City’s Implementation Procedures both indicate that retail projects should generally be analyzed by examining total VMT, with an increase in total regional VMT being considered a significant impact. The Technical Advisory also indicates that local-serving retail uses may generally be presumed by lead agencies to have a less-than-significant VMT impact (see Technical Advisory pages 16-17). OPR based this presumption on substantial evidence and research demonstrating that adding local-serving retail uses typically improves destination accessibility to customers. The theory behind this criterion is that while a larger retail project may generate interregional trips that increase a region’s total VMT, small retail establishments do not necessarily add new trips to a region, but change where existing customers shop within the region, and often shorten trip lengths. OPR cites a size of 50,000 square feet or greater as being a potential indicator of regional-serving retail (versus local-serving) that would typically require a quantitative VMT analysis.

The medical office component of the proposed project totals 41,600 square feet, which is below the local-serving retail screening threshold of 50,000 square feet that indicates a local-serving use designation. Applying the logic behind the screening of local-serving retail uses to the proposed medical office uses, adding new medical office facilities to the urban fabric of a city can be expected to shift automobile travel patterns within the city but would be unlikely to increase the region’s total VMT, and in fact may result in a reduction in total VMT by improving destination proximity for patients. The broad premise is that the addition of new medical office space would shift where existing medical trips occur within Yuba City but not create new medical trips. The proposed project’s location near the geographic center of the Yuba City/Marysville/Linda urbanized area should also result in short trip lengths, which again may replace existing trips that are longer (thereby reducing VMT). Given the nature of the proposed project as a local-serving use along with its centralized location, it is reasonable to conclude that the patient component of the project would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

The Technical Advisory and Implementation Procedures both also indicate that projects within one-half mile of an “existing major transit stop” or an “existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor” can generally be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 0.3 miles from an existing Yuba-Sutter Transit stop located at the intersection of Shasta Street/Alturas Street with headways of less than 15 minutes so this criterion would be satisfied.

Mr. David Swartz Page 6 June 3, 2022
Finding – The proposed medical office uses would reasonably be classified as local-serving uses with a less-thansignificant transportation impact on patient VMT.

Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.

The study intersections and driveways have side-street stop controls so were analyzed using the “Two-Way StopControlled” intersection capacity method published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2018. This methodology determines a Level of Service for each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. Results are presented for individual movements together with the weighted overall average delay for the intersection.

The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 4.

Table 4 – Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection Level of Service Criteria LOS A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in traffic are readily available for drivers exiting the minor street.

LOS B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are somewhat less readily available than with LOS A, but no queuing occurs on the minor street.

LOS C Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Acceptable gaps in traffic are less frequent, and drivers may approach while another vehicle is already waiting to exit the side street.

LOS D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There are fewer acceptable gaps in traffic, and drivers may enter a queue of one or two vehicles on the side street.

LOS E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few acceptable gaps in traffic are available, and longer queues may form on the side street.

LOS F Delay of more than 50 seconds. Drivers may wait for long periods before there is an acceptable gap in traffic for exiting the side streets, creating long queues.

Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018 Traffic Operation Standards
As outlined in Policy 5.2-1-12 of the Transportation section of the Yuba City General Plan, LOS D is considered the minimum acceptable operating standard for all major roadways and intersections in the City. This policy does not extend to residential streets (i.e., streets with direct driveway access to homes) or bridges across the Feather River.

Exceptions to LOS D may be allowed by the City Council in certain areas, such as Downtown, where allowing a lower service level would result in clear benefit to the public.

Based on this Policy, the following criteria were applied in order to determine if the project would have an adverse effect on operation of the surrounding roadway network.  Project traffic would cause LOS at a study intersection to degrade from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. This applies to the overall operation of signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections and to the minor-street approach for side-street stop-controlled intersections.  Project traffic would exacerbate the no-project LOS at a study intersection already operating at LOS E or F by increasing the average delay at a signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersection by five seconds or more or

Mr. David Swartz Page 7 June 3, 2022
the average delay on a side-street stop-controlled approach at an unsignalized intersection by five seconds or more.

It is noted that while private driveway approaches are not typically evaluated for Levels of Service since the City’s General Plan is only applicable to major intersections of public streets, the driveways that provide access to the Ampla Health Campus are prominent driveways located on an arterial so were evaluated for informational purposes to inform design of the site moving forward.

Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic volumes during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition accounts for existing traffic occurring at the Ampla Health Campus but does not include project-related traffic volumes. Count data was collected in September 2021 during clear weather and typical traffic conditions. Peak hour factors (PHFs) were calculated based on the counts obtained and used in the LOS calculations. Under Existing Conditions, the study intersections and project driveways all operate acceptably at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Project Driveway North approach, which operates at LOS E with delays in excess of 40 seconds during each peak hour. While LOS E is considered unacceptable operation under the City’s General Plan, the standard is not applicable to private driveways and the delays are within the range that would be expected for motorists entering an arterial roadway from a private driveway.

The majority of the expansion medical floor area and new surface parking would be located near the southern side of the project site; therefore, it was assumed that two-thirds of the new project trips would access the site via the southern driveway and one-third would use the northern driveway. With the addition of project-related traffic, three of the four study intersections would all be expected to continue operating acceptably with delays that translate to LOS D or better during both peak hours. However, the westbound Project Driveway North approach would operate at LOS F during both peak hours, with delays in excess of what would typically be considered tolerable for motorists. While this would not be considered an adverse effect per the General Plan since the approach is a private driveway, it is recommended that improvements be made to support safe and efficient egress from the project site, as detailed later in this report.

Existing and Existing plus Project operating conditions are summarized in Table 5 and copies of the Level of Service calculations for all evaluated scenarios are enclosed.

Table 5 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection/Driveway
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Market St/Del Norte Ave-Project Dwy N 2.2 A 2.4 A 3.5 A 10.4 B Eastbound Del Norte Ave Approach 25.2 D 17.9 C 29.6 D 19.7 C Westbound Project Dwy N Approach 48.9 E 41.9 E 79.1 F 180.4 F

2. Sutter St/Market St 0.7 A 0.8 A 0.9 A 1.0 A
Eastbound Market St Approach 13.9 B 15.8 C 14.4 B 16.5 C

3. Sutter St/Project Dwy S 0.8 A 1.5 A 1.3 A 3.3 A
Westbound Project Dwy S Approach 15.4 C 21.1 C 17.4 C 30.2 D

Mr. David Swartz Page 8 June 3, 2022
Table 5 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection/Driveway
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

4. Sutter St/Lamon Way 0.4 A 0.7 A 0.4 A 0.7 A
Westbound Lamon Way Approach 16.2 C 19.3 C 17.1 C 20.3 C Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; bold text denotes delay indicative of LOS E or F operation Queuing
Under each scenario, the projected 95th percentile queues in the TWLTL along the project frontage were tabulated as reported from Vistro in order to determine if there would be any queuing issues associated with the addition of project trips. Additionally, queues on the project driveway approaches were evaluated to determine if the project would increase queuing to a point where it could restrict on-site circulation. For the purposes of evaluating queuing within the continuous TWLTL along the project frontage, it was assumed that the storage length available for each left-turn movement was one half of the distance between consecutive access points.

As shown in Table 6, there are no anticipated issues associated with queuing in the TWLTL on Sutter Street or Market Street. However, with the addition of project trips, queues would be expected to reach 137 feet (approximately five to six vehicles) during the p.m. peak hour at the north driveway and 72 feet (three vehicles) at the south driveway, both of which would have the potential to restrict circulation within the site including access to parking stalls.

Table 6 – 95th Percentile Queues at the Study Intersections and Driveways Study Intersection/Driveway
Movement/Approach
Available
Storage
95th Percentile Queues
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
E E+P E E+P

1. Market St/Del Norte Ave-Project Dwy N
Northbound Left Turn 250 5 5 3 3
Southbound Left Turn 105 3 3 1 1
Westbound Project Dwy N 30 11 30 30 137

2. Sutter St/Market St
Northbound Left Turn 65 1 1 3 5

3. Sutter St/Project Dwy S
Southbound Left Turn 65 4 7 1 2
Westbound Project Dwy S 30 5 10 26 72

4. Sutter St/Lamon Way
Southbound Left Turn 60 2 2 1 1
Notes: 95th Percentile Queue as reported from the Vistro software; all distances are measured in feet; E = Existing Conditions; E+P = Existing plus Project Conditions; bold text denotes queue exceeds available storage

Mr. David Swartz Page 9 June 3, 2022
Vehicle Access
Sight Distance
Sight distances along Sutter Street and Market Street at the project access points were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. The recommended sight distances for minor street approaches that are either a private road or a driveway are based on stopping sight distance with approach travel speed used as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance.

Although the posted speed limit is 25 mph, vehicles were regularly observed traveling well above 25 mph along the project frontage so a design speed of 35 mph was applied. For speeds of 35 mph, the minimum stopping sight distance needed is 250 feet. Based on a review of field conditions, sight lines at the northern project driveway were measured to extend more than 400 feet to the north but are restricted to approximately 220 feet looking south due to the horizontal curve in the alignment of Sutter Street-Market Street and the presence of shrubbery and trees along the project frontage. At the southern project driveway, sight lines extend more than 400 feet to the south to the SR 20 off-ramp, but again are restricted looking north due to the horizontal curvature of the roadway and the vegetation along the project frontage. Removal of the trees and shrubbery along the project frontage between driveways and replacement with low-lying vegetation less than three feet in height would improve sight lines to more than 250 feet in all directions, which would be adequate for speeds of 35 mph.

Traffic Signal Warrants
A signal warrant analysis was performed to determine potential need for a traffic signal at the project driveways.

Chapter 4C of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) provides guidance on when a traffic signal should be considered. There are nine different warrants, or criteria, presented, as follows:
 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
 Warrant 3, Peak Hour Volume
 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
 Warrant 5, School Crossing
 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
 Warrant 7, Crash Experience
 Warrant 8, Roadway Network
 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
Warrant 3, which determines the need for traffic control based on the highest volume hour of the day, was used as an initial indication of traffic control needs. This warrant is often the first warrant to be met and is common practice for planning studies. Under the Peak Hour Warrant the need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met:

A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day:

1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach; or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and

2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and

3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches.

Mr. David Swartz Page 10 June 3, 2022
B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.

Based on Existing plus Project volumes, the peak hour volume warrant would not be met at the northern driveway despite the deterioration in operation; however, volumes would be sufficient to meet the signal warrant threshold at the southern driveway. Although warranted, signalization is not recommended at the southern driveway due to the proximity of the driveway to the public street intersections of Sutter Street/Market Street and Sutter Street/Lamon Way. Copies of the traffic signal warrants analysis sheets are enclosed.

Design Recommendations
Driveway Improvements – It is recommended that the northern project driveway be relocated to the north to create a new access south of the mobile home park driveway. The southern driveway should be shifted slightly north to better align with the 7-Eleven driveway and separate left- and right-turn lanes should be provided on both driveway approaches. It is recommended that employee-only parking be provided in the spaces along the Sutter Street-Market Street frontage and patient parking occur near the rear of the site to minimize the circulation impacts that queues forming on the driveway approaches may have on patient access, as well as general congestion near the access points. These driveway modifications would improve operations at both driveways, though they would create another offset driveway on the roadway segment and could introduce new conflict points with the mobile home park driveway. The benefits of these improvements include:
 Improved operations at both driveways with provision of separate left- and right-turn lanes.  Improved operations at the Del Norte Avenue intersection.  Improved sight lines at the northern project driveway.  Clarified motorist right-of-way between the south driveway and the 7-Eleven driveway.  Ability to provide more storage for queuing to occur without restricting circulation within the project site.

Roundabout at Sutter Street/Market Street – The skewed Y-shaped angle at the Sutter Street/Market Street intersection results in an expansive intersection that can be confusing to motorists and difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate. The geometry of the intersection and large footprint is well suited for installation of a modern roundabout. It is recommended that Ampla Health pursue discussions with the City about the potential feasibility and funding sources available for installation of a roundabout at this location, which would provide the greatest benefit to site access and general circulation in the vicinity. Installation of a roundabout would not preclude the aforementioned driveway improvements but could be constructed simultaneously with the recommended driveway modifications, or at a later date. The splitter island of the roundabout would likely restrict access at the southern project driveway to right-turn movements only; however, U-turns would be accommodated at the roundabout so there would be minimal change to circulation patterns. The benefits of a roundabout include:
 Reduction in conflict points along Sutter Street-Market Street.  Reduction in average delay per vehicle and therefore reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  Traffic calming effects and speed reduction.
 Improved safety for all modes of transportation.
 Improved sight lines.
 Capacity to accommodate future growth projections.
 Ability to incorporate pedestrian crossings on Sutter Street-Market Street.  Ability to be layered with the driveway modifications.

An exhibit showing the recommended access and circulation improvements that could be incorporated into the site design is enclosed for reference.

Mr. David Swartz Page 11 June 3, 2022
Conclusions
 The collision rates for the intersections of Market Street/Del Norte Avenue-Project Driveway North, Sutter Street/Market Street, and Sutter Street/Project Driveway South are less than the statewide averages for similar facilities indicating that these intersections appear to be operating within normal safety parameters.

However, the intersection of Sutter Street/Lamon Way had a calculated collision rate slightly above the statewide average and there was a preponderance of collisions attributed to unsafe speed near the southern end of the project site.
 The proposed expansion would be expected to result in 1,454 new daily vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway network on average, including 117 new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 145 new trips during the p.m. peak hour.
 Both employees and patients of the proposed project would be expected to have less-than-significant transportation impacts on vehicle miles traveled based on applicable screening criteria.  With the addition of project-related traffic to Existing volumes, acceptable operation is anticipated except that the westbound Project Driveway North approach would operate at LOS F during both peak hours with delays in excess of what would typically be considered tolerable for motorists.  With the addition of project traffic to existing volumes, there would be no anticipated issues associated with queuing in the TWLTL on Sutter Street or Market Street. However, queues would be expected to reach 137 feet (approximately five to six vehicles) during the p.m. peak hour at the north driveway and 72 feet (three vehicles) at the south driveway, both of which would have the potential to restrict circulation within the site including access to parking stalls.
 Sight lines are restricted to approximately 220 feet looking south from the northern driveway and looking north from the southern driveway due to the horizontal curve in the alignment of Sutter Street-Market Street and the presence of shrubbery and trees along the project frontage. While these sight lines are adequate for the posted speed limit of 25 mph, many vehicles were observed traveling in excess of 25 mph so 35 mph was used as the design speed.
 Based on Existing plus Project volumes, the peak hour traffic signal warrant would not be met at the northern driveway despite the high calculated delay but would be met by volumes at the southern driveway. However, signalization is not recommended due to the proximity of the driveway to the public street intersections of Sutter Street/Market Street and Sutter Street/Lamon Way.

Recommendations
 To reduce travel speeds on Sutter Street and consequently the number of collisions related to unsafe speeding, it is recommended that a solar powered speed-feedback sign be installed facing northbound traffic on the existing streetlight pole approximately 120 feet south of Lamon Way. It is also recommended that speed reduction markings be installed in the northbound travel lane in the area adjacent to the right-turn lane.
 The existing pavement striping and markings should be refreshed with new thermoplastic on Sutter StreetMarket Street between Ainsley Avenue and the SR 20 westbound off-ramp.  To improve sight lines for motorists exiting the project site, the existing trees and shrubbery along the project frontage with Sutter Street-Market Street should be removed and replaced with low-lying vegetation less than three feet in height.

Mr. David Swartz Page 12 June 3, 2022
 As part of the site design, the following driveway improvements are recommended:
o Shift the northern project driveway to the north to create a new access south of the mobile home park driveway.
o Shift the southern driveway slightly north to better align with the 7-Eleven driveway. o Provide separate left- and right-turn lanes on both driveway approaches. o Provide employee-only parking in the spaces along the Sutter Street-Market Street frontage and patient parking near the rear of the site to minimize the circulation impacts that queues forming on the driveway approaches may have on patient access, as well as general congestion near the access points.  Pursue funding opportunities to evaluate the feasibility of the future installation of a roundabout at the Sutter Street/Market Street intersection.

Thank you for giving W-Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Cameron Nye, EIT
Associate Engineer
Steve Weinberger, PE, PTOE
Senior Principal
SJW/cn/YCI003.L1
Enclosures: Conceptual Site Plan
Collision Rate Calculations
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Traffic Signal Warrants
Recommended Improvements Exhibit

1257+
not to scale

M A R K E T S T R E E T
L A M
O
N
S
T.

S
U
T
T
E
S T.

R

EXISTING

MEDICAL
renovate

EXISTING ADMIN
renovate
entry
entry
Existing
Pediatrics
PARKING REQUIREMENTS (1 space/200 s.f. for medical)
(1 space/300 s.f. for admin)
building area parking required
935 Market St. (existing admin) 16,400 s.f. 55 spaces935 Market St. (admin new entry) 600 s.f. 2 spaces931 Market St. (existing medical) 6,500 s.f. 33 spaces 931 Market St. (medical new entry) 600 s.f. 2 spaces
1000 Sutter St. (existing admin) 2,100 s.f. 7 spaces1000 Sutter St. (existing medical) 12,650 s.f. 64 spaces1000 Sutter St. (new medical) 41,000 s.f. 205 spacesTotal parking required 80,000 s.f. 368 spacesAccessible (table 11B-208.2): 301-400 = 8 spacesVan Accessible Space: 1/6 accessible spaces = 2 spaces entry
PARKING PROVIDEDStandard Spaces: 353 spacesAccessible Spaces: 15 spaces (5 van)Loading Zones: 2 spacesTotal: 370 spaces

MEDICAL, DENTAL
& PEDIATRICS
2-story
addition / building
entry
entry
the neenan company
date: 6.10.2021 Ampla Health - Yuba City I Site Plan
generator
possible generatorlocation dependingon size
need a locationfor generator

Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 2
Number of Injuries: 1
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 14200
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
2x
14,200 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.08 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.14 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 1
Number of Injuries: 0
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 14500
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Y
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
1x
14,500 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.04 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.09 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans

0.0%
Collision Rate Fatality Rate
Collision Rate = 365
2:

Number of Collisions x 1 Million

1.1%
Collision Rate = ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years

50.0%
1,000,000
Injury Rate
Fatality Rate

0.0%
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years

0.0%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

1.2%
Collision Rate Injury Rate
Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
August 1, 2016
July 31, 2021
Intersection # Market St & Del Norte Ave-Project Driveway North Collision Rate = 1,000,000
Sutter St & Market Street

46.2%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection August 1, 2016
365
Intersection #
July 31, 2021
Number of Collisions x 1 Million Collision Rate =
1:

Ampla Health Campus Expansion
Thursday, September 2, 2021
Thursday, September 2, 2021

46.9%
W-Trans
11/9/2021

Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 2
Number of Injuries: 1
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 14200
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
2x
14,200 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.08 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.14 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 3
Number of Injuries: 2
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 13800
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Tee
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
3x
13,800 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.12 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.09 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Sutter St & Lamon Wy
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

1.1%
Thursday, September 2, 2021

50.0%
4:

46.2%
Ampla Health Campus Expansion
August 1, 2016

46.9%
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
August 1, 2016
Collision Rate =
Intersection #

0.0%
July 31, 2021
Collision Rate =
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
Intersection #
Fatality Rate
365
Collision Rate
3: Sutter St & Project Driveway South
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Injury Rate
July 31, 2021
Number of Collisions x 1 Million

1.2%

0.0% 66.7%
1,000,000
365
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Thursday, September 2, 2021
Collision Rate =
Collision Rate
W-Trans
11/9/2021

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
)
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
0DUNHW6WUHHW'HO1RUWH$YHQXH3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@    
6SHHG>PSK@    
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW            
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW            
/DQH:LGWK>IW@             7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W 'HO1RUWH$YH 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@    
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@             7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@             2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             3HDN+RXU)DFWRU             7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@             2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@            
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@             3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@            
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@            
*URZWK)DFWRU             +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@             %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@             1DPH 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W 'HO1RUWH$YH 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK 9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 )
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ ' (
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@ 
 


WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@            

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@ 
          
0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ ) ) & ) ) &
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@
  
        

9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR             0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ    
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@    
)ODUHG/DQH <HV 1R
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF



/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
&
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW0DUNHW6WUHHW
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@   
6SHHG>PSK@   
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@      
1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW      
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@       1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW      
/DQH:LGWK>IW@      
7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 5LJKW
/DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@   
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@   
  
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@  
   
2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@      
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@      
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@      
3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@      
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@      
*URZWK)DFWRU       +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@       %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@      
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W
9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 &
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ %
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@   

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@      

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@      

0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ & %
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@ 
    

9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR      

0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ   
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@   
)ODUHG/DQH <HV
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
&
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@    
6SHHG>PSK@    
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW            
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW            
/DQH:LGWK>IW@             7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W (OHYHQ'ULYHZD\ 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@    
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@  
          
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@             2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@     
       
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@            
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@             3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@            
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@            
*URZWK)DFWRU             +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@             %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@     
       
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W (OHYHQ'ULYHZD\ 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK 9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 &
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ % &
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@    

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@            

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@             0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ & & % & & %
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@   
    
    
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR             0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ    
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@    
)ODUHG/DQH 1R 1R
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
'
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW/DPRQ:D\
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@   
6SHHG>PSK@   
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@      
1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW      
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@       1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW      
/DQH:LGWK>IW@      
7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX /HIW 5LJKW
/DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W /DPRQ:\
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@   
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@      
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@      
2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@      
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@      
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@      
3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@      
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@      
*URZWK)DFWRU       +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@       %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@      
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W /DPRQ:\
9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 '
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ &
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@   

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@      

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@       0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ ' %
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@  
   
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR      
0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ   
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH 1R
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@   
)ODUHG/DQH <HV
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
)
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
0DUNHW6WUHHW'HO1RUWH$YHQXH3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@    
6SHHG>PSK@    
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW            
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW            
/DQH:LGWK>IW@             7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W 'HO1RUWH$YH 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@    
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@         
  
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@

         
2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@         
 
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@            
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@             3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@            
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@            
*URZWK)DFWRU             +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@             %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@         
 
1DPH 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W 'HO1RUWH$YH 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK 9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 )
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ & (
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@    


WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@         
 
   

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@             0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ ) ) % ) ) '
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@   
       


9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR            

0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ    
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@    
)ODUHG/DQH <HV 1R
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
&
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW0DUNHW6WUHHW
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@   
6SHHG>PSK@   
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@      
1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW      
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@       1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW      
/DQH:LGWK>IW@      
7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 5LJKW
/DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@   
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@  
 
  
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@      
2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@  
    
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@      
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@      
3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@      
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@      
*URZWK)DFWRU       +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@       %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@  
    
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W
9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 &
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ &
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@   

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@     


WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@      

0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ & %
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@       9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR      
0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ   
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@   
)ODUHG/DQH <HV
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
&
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@    
6SHHG>PSK@    
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW            
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW            
/DQH:LGWK>IW@             7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W (OHYHQ'ULYHZD\ 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@    
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@   
       
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@             2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@  
    
     
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@            
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@             3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@            
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@            
*URZWK)DFWRU             +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@             %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@  
    
     
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W (OHYHQ'ULYHZD\ 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK 9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 &
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ % &
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@    

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@ 

          

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@             0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ & & % & & &
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@   
    
    

9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR             0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ    
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@    
)ODUHG/DQH 1R 1R
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF



/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
'
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW/DPRQ:D\
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@   
6SHHG>PSK@   
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@      
1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW      
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@       1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW      
/DQH:LGWK>IW@      
7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX /HIW 5LJKW
/DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W /DPRQ:\
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@   
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@  
   
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@     

2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@    

2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@      
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@      
3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@      
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@      
*URZWK)DFWRU       +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@       %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@    

1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W /DPRQ:\
9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 '
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ &
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@   


WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@   
 
 


WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@       0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ ' &
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@  
   

9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR      
0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ   
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH 1R
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@   
)ODUHG/DQH <HV
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ
63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
)
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
0DUNHW6WUHHW'HO1RUWH$YHQXH3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@    
6SHHG>PSK@    
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW            
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW            
/DQH:LGWK>IW@             7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W 'HO1RUWH$YH 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@    
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@ 


        
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@   
       
2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             3HDN+RXU)DFWRU             7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@  
  
      
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@            
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@             3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@            
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@            
*URZWK)DFWRU             +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@             %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@             1DPH 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W 'HO1RUWH$YH 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK 9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 )
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ ' )
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@ 
 
 


WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@         
 
   

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@             0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ ) ) & ) ) (
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@
  
      
 
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR        
   
0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ    
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@    
)ODUHG/DQH <HV 1R
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF



/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
&
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW0DUNHW6WUHHW
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@   
6SHHG>PSK@   
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@      
1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW      
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@       1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW      
/DQH:LGWK>IW@      
7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 5LJKW
/DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@   
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@  
   
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@      
2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@    
 

2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@      
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@      
3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@      
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@      
*URZWK)DFWRU       +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@       %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@      
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W
9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 &
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 

$SSURDFK/26 $ $ %
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@   

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@      

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@       0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ & %
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@ 
    
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR     

0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ   
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@   
)ODUHG/DQH <HV
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
&
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@    
6SHHG>PSK@    
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW            
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW            
/DQH:LGWK>IW@             7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W (OHYHQ'ULYHZD\ 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@    
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@             7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@    
       
2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@  
         
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@            
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@             3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@            
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@         


,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@            
*URZWK)DFWRU             +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@             %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@     
       
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W (OHYHQ'ULYHZD\ 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK 9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 &
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ % &
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@    

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@            

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@             0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ & & % & & &
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@   
       
 
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR    
       
0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ    
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@    
)ODUHG/DQH 1R 1R
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
'
'HOD\
VHFYHK



$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW/DPRQ:D\
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@   
6SHHG>PSK@   
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@      
1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW      
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@       1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW      
/DQH:LGWK>IW@      
7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX /HIW 5LJKW
/DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W /DPRQ:\
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@   
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@ 
     
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@ 
     
2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@      
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@      
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@      
3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@      
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@      
*URZWK)DFWRU       +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@       %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@      
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W /DPRQ:\
9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 '
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ &
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@   

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@      

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@       0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ ' %
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@  
  
 
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR      
0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ   
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH 1R
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@   
)ODUHG/DQH <HV
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
$0([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
)
'HOD\
VHFYHK



$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
0DUNHW6WUHHW'HO1RUWH$YHQXH3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@    
6SHHG>PSK@    
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW            
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW            
/DQH:LGWK>IW@             7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W 'HO1RUWH$YH 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@    
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@  
          
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@         


2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@  
 
       
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@            
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@             3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@            
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@  
        
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@            
*URZWK)DFWRU             +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@             %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@         
 
1DPH 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W 'HO1RUWH$YH 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\1RUWK 9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 )
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ & )
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@   
 

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@ 
        
 
 


WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@             0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ ) ) % ) ) )
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@   

       
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR             0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ    
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@    
)ODUHG/DQH <HV 1R
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
&
'HOD\
VHFYHK



$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW0DUNHW6WUHHW
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@   
6SHHG>PSK@   
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@      
1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW      
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@       1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW      
/DQH:LGWK>IW@      
7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 5LJKW
/DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@   
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@ 
    
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@    

2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@   

  

2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@      
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@      
3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@      
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@      
*URZWK)DFWRU       +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@       %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@  
    
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 0DUNHW6W 0DUNHW6W
9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 &
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 

$SSURDFK/26 $ $ &
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@   

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@      

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@       0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ & %
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@ 
   
 
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR      
0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ   
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@   
)ODUHG/DQH <HV
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
'
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@    
6SHHG>PSK@    
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW            
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@             1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW            
/DQH:LGWK>IW@             7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX 5LJKW /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG (DVWERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W (OHYHQ'ULYHZD\ 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@    
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@             7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@             2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@      
     
2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@            
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@             3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@            
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@            
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@             ,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@            
*URZWK)DFWRU             +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@             %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU             %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@  
    
     
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W (OHYHQ'ULYHZD\ 3URMHFW'ULYHZD\6RXWK 9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 '
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ % '
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@    

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@            

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@          
 
 

0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ $ $ & & % ' ' '
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@   
    
 
  
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR             0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ    
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH <HV <HV
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@    
)ODUHG/DQH 1R 1R
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

9ROXPHWR&DSDFLW\
YF


/HYHO2I6HUYLFH
'
'HOD\
VHFYHK


$QDO\VLV3HULRG
PLQXWHV
$QDO\VLV0HWKRG
+&0WK(GLWLRQ
&RQWURO7\SH
7ZRZD\VWRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ
6XWWHU6WUHHW/DPRQ:D\
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/HYHO2I6HUYLFH5HSRUW
&URVVZDON 1R 1R 1R
*UDGH>@   
6SHHG>PSK@   
([LW3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@      
1RRI/DQHVLQ([LW3RFNHW      
(QWU\3RFNHW/HQJWK>IW@       1RRI/DQHVLQ(QWU\3RFNHW      
/DQH:LGWK>IW@      
7XUQLQJ0RYHPHQW 7KUX 5LJKW /HIW 7KUX /HIW 5LJKW
/DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQ
$SSURDFK 1RUWKERXQG 6RXWKERXQG :HVWERXQG
1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W /DPRQ:\
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWXS
3HGHVWULDQ9ROXPH>SHGK@   
7RWDO$QDO\VLV9ROXPH>YHKK@  
   
7RWDO0LQXWH9ROXPH>YHKK@     

2WKHU$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       3HDN+RXU)DFWRU 
 
 
 
 
 

7RWDO+RXUO\9ROXPH>YHKK@    

2WKHU9ROXPH>YHKK@      
([LVWLQJ6LWH$GMXVWPHQW9ROXPH>YHKK@      
3DVVE\7ULSV>YHKK@      
'LYHUWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
6LWH*HQHUDWHG7ULSV>YHKK@      
,Q3URFHVV9ROXPH>YHKK@      
*URZWK)DFWRU       +HDY\9HKLFOHV3HUFHQWDJH>@       %DVH9ROXPH$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU       %DVH9ROXPH,QSXW>YHKK@    

1DPH 6XWWHU6W 6XWWHU6W /DPRQ:\
9ROXPHV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK
,QWHUVHFWLRQ/26 '
GB,,QWHUVHFWLRQ'HOD\>VYHK@ 
$SSURDFK/26 $ $ &
GB$$SSURDFK'HOD\>VYHK@  


WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>IWOQ@      

WK3HUFHQWLOH4XHXH/HQJWK>YHKOQ@       0RYHPHQW/26 $ $ $ $ ' &
GB0'HOD\IRU0RYHPHQW>VYHK@  
   
9&0RYHPHQW9&5DWLR      
0RYHPHQW$SSURDFK ,QWHUVHFWLRQ5HVXOWV
1XPEHURI6WRUDJH6SDFHVLQ0HGLDQ   
7ZR6WDJH*DS$FFHSWDQFH 1R
6WRUDJH$UHD>YHK@   
)ODUHG/DQH <HV
3ULRULW\6FKHPH )UHH )UHH 6WRS
,QWHUVHFWLRQ6HWWLQJV

:7UDQV
30([LVWLQJ3URMHFW$PSOD+HDOWK&DPSXV([SDQVLRQ9HUVLRQ 63
*HQHUDWHGZLWK

Warrant 3: Peak-Hour Volumes and Delay
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lanes
Approach Speed
Population less than 10,000? No
Date of Count:

Scenario:

Warrant 3 Met?: Met when either Condition A or B is met No Condition A: Met when conditions A1, A2, and A3 are met Not Met Condition A1 Not Met

0.68 Condition A2 Not Met
66 vph
Condition A3 Met
1376 vph
Condition B Not Met
Market St & Del Norte Ave-Project Dwy N Project Name: Ampla Health Campus Expansion City of Yuba City
Intersection: 1
Major Street Minor Street
Market St Del Norte Ave-Project Dwy N

N-S E-W
The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic of 150 vph for two moving lanes 11 25 25
AM Existing + Project
The total delay experienced by traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one lane approach, or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach
Minor Approach Delay: vehicle-hours
Thursday, September 2, 2021
Minor Approach Volume:

The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more appraches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches
Total Entering Volume:

The plotted point falls above the curve
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

MINOR STREET
―HIGHER VOLUME

APPROACH (VPH)
MAJOR STREET―TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES

VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
11/9/2021 Signal Warrant Analysis

Warrant 3: Peak-Hour Volumes and Delay
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lanes
Approach Speed
Population less than 10,000? No
Date of Count:

Scenario:

Warrant 3 Met?: Met when either Condition A or B is met No Condition A: Met when conditions A1, A2, and A3 are met Not Met Condition A1 Not Met

0.18 Condition A2 Not Met
37 vph
Condition A3 Met
1388 vph
Condition B Not Met
Minor Approach Volume:

The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more appraches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches
Total Entering Volume:

The plotted point falls above the curve
The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic of 150 vph for two moving lanes 11 25 25
AM Existing + Project
The total delay experienced by traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one lane approach, or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach
Minor Approach Delay: vehicle-hours
Thursday, September 2, 2021
Major Street Minor Street
Sutter St Project Dwy S

N-S E-W
Sutter St & Project Dwy S Project Name: Ampla Health Campus Expansion City of Yuba City
Intersection: 3
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

MINOR STREET
―HIGHER VOLUME

APPROACH (VPH)
MAJOR STREET―TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES

VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
11/9/2021 Signal Warrant Analysis

Warrant 3: Peak-Hour Volumes and Delay
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lanes
Approach Speed
Population less than 10,000? No
Date of Count:

Scenario:

Warrant 3 Met?: Met when either Condition A or B is met No Condition A: Met when conditions A1, A2, and A3 are met Not Met Condition A1 Not Met

3.71 Condition A2 Not Met
74 vph
Condition A3 Met
1498 vph
Condition B Not Met
Minor Approach Volume:

The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more appraches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches
Total Entering Volume:

The plotted point falls above the curve
The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic of 150 vph for two moving lanes 11 25 25
PM Existing + Project
The total delay experienced by traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one lane approach, or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach
Minor Approach Delay: vehicle-hours
Thursday, September 2, 2021
Major Street Minor Street
Market St Del Norte Ave-Project Dwy N

N-S E-W
Market St & Del Norte Ave-Project Dwy N Project Name: Ampla Health Campus Expansion City of Yuba City
Intersection: 1
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

MINOR STREET
―HIGHER VOLUME

APPROACH (VPH)
MAJOR STREET―TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES

VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
11/9/2021 Signal Warrant Analysis

Warrant 3: Peak-Hour Volumes and Delay
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lanes
Approach Speed
Population less than 10,000? No
Date of Count:

Scenario:

Warrant 3 Met?: Met when either Condition A or B is met Yes Condition A: Met when conditions A1, A2, and A3 are met Not Met Condition A1 Not Met

1.22 Condition A2 Met
146 vph
Condition A3 Met
1541 vph
Condition B Met
Minor Approach Volume:

The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more appraches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches
Total Entering Volume:

The plotted point falls above the curve
The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic of 150 vph for two moving lanes 11 25 25
PM Existing + Project
The total delay experienced by traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one lane approach, or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach
Minor Approach Delay: vehicle-hours
Thursday, September 2, 2021
Major Street Minor Street
Sutter St Project Dwy S

N-S E-W
Sutter St & Project Dwy S Project Name: Ampla Health Campus Expansion City of Yuba City
Intersection: 3
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

MINOR STREET
―HIGHER VOLUME

APPROACH (VPH)
MAJOR STREET―TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES

VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
11/9/2021 Signal Warrant Analysis

Access and Circulation Improvements AMPLA HEALTH CAMPUS Concept Exhibit Yuba City

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Future Agenda Items
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Espindola
- Councilmember Harris
- Vice Mayor Kirchner
- Mayor Shaw

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Manager’s Report

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Council Reports
- Councilmember Espindola
- Councilmember Harris
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Vice Mayor Kirchner
- Mayor Shaw
Adjournment