13 the request of Developer, the City may consider the use of finance districts, special assessment districts, and other similar project-related public financing mechanisms to fund the Project's necessary infrastructure.
5.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition. With respect to the acquisition of any off-site interest in real property required by Developer in order to fulfill any condition required by the Project or the Entitlements, Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the necessary interest by private negotiations at the fair market value of such interest. If, after such reasonable efforts, Developer has been unable to acquire such interest and provided that Developer (i) provides evidence of a good faith effort to acquire the necessary property interest to the reasonable satisfaction of City and (ii) agrees to pay the cost of such acquisition, including reasonable attorney's fees, City shall make an offer to acquire the necessary property interest at its fair market value. If such offer has not been accepted within 60 days, City agrees, to the extent permitted by law, to cooperate and assist Developer in efforts to obtain such necessary property interest. Any such acquisition by City shall be subject to City's good faith discretion, which is expressly reserved by City, to make the necessary findings, including a finding thereby of public necessity, to acquire such interest. Subject to the reservation of such good faith discretion, the City shall schedule the necessary hearings, and if approved by City, thereafter prosecute to completion the proceedings and action to acquire the necessary property interests by power of eminent domain.
Developer shall fund all costs of the acquisition of such necessary property interests, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the event that such acquisition and/or condemnation is necessary.
6. Annual Review.
6.1 Good Faith Compliance. Developer shall annually provide documentation of good faith compliance with this agreement per Govt. Code Section 65865.1 to the City. The City may, at least every twelve (12) months, during the Term of this Agreement, conduct a public meeting to review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Landowner with the terms of this Agreement at Landowner’s expense.
Such periodic review shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1. Notice of such annual review will be provided by the Development Services Director to Landowner thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public meeting by the Planning Commission and shall include the statement that any review may result in amendment or termination of this Agreement as provided herein. A finding by the City of good faith compliance by the Landowner with the terms of Agreement shall conclusively determine the issue up to and including the date of such review. Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to create a duty of responsibility of City or Landowner or define an event of default that but for such concurrent review would not have been so created or defined.
6.2 Failure to Comply in Good Faith. If the City Council makes a finding that the Landowner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City shall provide written notice to the Landowner describing: (i) such failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement (referenced to herein as a "Default"); (ii) the actions, if any, required by the Landowner to cure such Default; and (iii) the time period within which such Default must be cured. The Landowner shall have, at a minimum, thirty (30) business days after the date of such notice to cure such Default, or in the event that such Default cannot be cured within such
14 thirty (30) day period but can be cured within one (1) year, the Landowner shall have commenced the actions necessary to cure such Default and shall be diligently proceeding to complete such actions necessary to cure such Default within thirty (30) days from the date of notice. If the Default cannot be cured within one (1) year, as determined by the City during periodic or special review, the City Council may modify or terminate this, Agreement as provided in Section 6.4 and Section 6.5.
6.3 Failure to Cure Default. If the Landowner fails to cure a Default within the time periods set forth above, the City Council may modify or terminate this Agreement as provided below.
6.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section 6.2 and the expiration of the cure period, the City determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, the City shall give written notice to the Landowner of its intention to do so. The notice shall be given at least fifteen (15) calendar days before the scheduled hearing and shall contain:
6.4.1 The time and place of the hearing;
6.4.2 A statement as to whether or not the City proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and
6.4.3 Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform the Landowner of the nature of the proceeding.
6.5 Hearings on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, the Landowner shall be given an opportunity to be heard, and the Landowner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on the issue shall be on the Landowner. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the Landowner has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement and impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the City.
7. Permitted Delays.
7.1 Extension of Times of Performance. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either Party under this Agreement shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or, defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts, walkouts, drought, riots, floods, earthquakes, fire, casualties, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, restrictions imposed by governmental or quasigovernmental entities other than the City, unusually severe weather, acts of the other Party, acts or the failure to act of any public or government agency or entity other than the City, or any other causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform. An extension of time for any such cause shall only be for the period of the enforced delay, which period shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of cause. If, however, notice by the Party claiming such extension of time is sent to the other Party more than thirty (30) days after the commencement of the cause, the period shall commence to run only thirty (30) days prior to the giving of such notice. Times of
15 performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the joint agreement of the City and Landowner. Litigation attacking the validity of this Agreement, or any permit, ordinance, or entitlement or other action of a governmental agency necessary for the development of the Property pursuant to this Agreement shall also be deemed to create an excusable delay under this Section.
7.2 Supersedure by Subsequent Laws. If any Law made or
enacted after the date of this Agreement prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, then the provisions of this Agreement shall, to the extent feasible, be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such new Law. Immediately after enactment of any such new Law, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of any such modification or suspension based on the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement. If such modification or suspension is infeasible in the Landowner's reasonable business Judgment, then the Landowner shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice to the City. The Landowner shall also have the right to challenge the new Law preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and, in the event such challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.
8. Termination.
8.1 City's Right to Terminate. The City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if the Landowner is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement and this default remains uncured, all as set forth in Section 6.
8.2 Landowner's Right to Terminate. The Landowner shall have the right to terminate this Agreement only under the following circumstances:
8.2.1 The Landowner has found the City in breach of this Agreement, has given the City notice of such breach and the City has not cured such breach within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice or, if the breach cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the City has not commenced to cure such breach within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice and is not diligently proceeding to cure such breach.
8.2.2 The Landowner is unable to complete the Project because of supersedure by a subsequent law per Section 7.2 or court action.
8.2.3 The Landowner determines, in its business judgment, that it is not practical or reasonable to pursue development of the Property, however if termination occurs for this reason the City reserves the right to revoke any remaining entitlement to develop the property.
8.3 Mutual Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated upon the mutual Agreement of the Parties.
8.4 Effect of Termination.
8.4.1 General Effect. If this Agreement is terminated for any reason, such termination shall not affect any condition or obligation due to the City from the Landowner prior to the date of termination and such termination shall not otherwise
16 affect any other City entitlement or approval with respect to the Property that has been granted prior to the date of termination.
8.5 Recordation of Termination. In the event of a
termination, the City and Landowner agree to cooperate with one another in executing a Memorandum of Termination to record in the Official Records of Sutter County within thirty (30) days of the date of termination.
9. Remedies. Either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal or equitable action to cure, correct or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation or enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto.
10. Waiver: Cumulative Remedies. Failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, irrespective of the length of time for which such failure continues, shall not constitute a waiver of such Party's right to demand strict compliance by such other Party in the future. No waiver by a Party of an event of default shall be effective or binding upon such Party unless made in writing by such Party, and no such waiver shall be implied from any omission by a Party to take any action with respect to such event of default.
No express written waiver of any event of default shall affect any other event of default, or cover any other period of time, other than any event of default and/or period of time specified in such express waiver. Except as provided in this Section, all of the remedies permitted or available to a Party under this Agreement, or at law or in equity, shall be cumulative and not alternative, and invocation of any such right or remedy shall not constitute a waiver or election of remedies with respect to any other permitted or available right or remedy.
11. Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties that the Project is a private development. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Landowner and the City and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. The City and Landowner hereby renounce the existence of any third-party beneficiary to this Agreement and agree that nothing contained herein shall be construed as giving any other person or entity third-party beneficiary status. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement.
12. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Claim. In the event any legal action or proceeding is instituted by any third-party challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement or any action or decision taken or made hereunder, the Parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding.
13. Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may, at any time, and from time-totime, deliver written notice to the other Party requesting such Party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party: (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties; ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, and if so amended, identifying the amendments; (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and amount of any such defaults; and (iv) the requesting Party has been found to be in compliance with this
17 Agreement, and the date of the last determination of such compliance. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following receipt thereof. The Director shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by the Landowner hereunder. The City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees.
14. Right to Assign or Transfer. The Landowner's rights and responsibilities hereunder may be sold or assigned in conjunction with the transfer, sale or assignment of the Property at any time during the term of this Agreement subject to the following conditions precedent:
14.1 No default by Developer shall be outstanding and uncured as of the effective date of the proposed transfer, unless the City Council has received adequate assurances satisfactory to the City Council that such default shall be cured in a timely manner either by Developer or the transferee under the transfer.
14.2 Prior to the effective date of the proposed transfer, Developer or the proposed transferee has delivered to the City an executed and acknowledged assignment and assumption agreement (the “Assumption Agreement”) in recordable form. Such Assumption Agreement shall include provisions regarding: (a) the rights and interest proposed to be transferred to the proposed transferee; (b) the obligations of Developer under this Agreement that the proposed transferee will assume; and (c) the proposed transferee's acknowledgment that such transferee has reviewed and agrees to be bound by this Agreement. The Assumption Agreement shall also include the name, form of entity, and address of the proposed transferee, and shall provide that the transferee assumes the obligations of Developer to be assumed by the transferee in connection with the proposed transfer. The Assumption Agreement shall be recorded in the official records of the County of Sutter concurrently with the consummation of the transfer.
14.3 Prior to the effective date of the proposed transfer, the Developer must obtain the City’s consent in writing to the transfer, which may be evidenced by the City Council’s approval of an Assumption Agreement. City's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Factors the City may consider in determining whether to consent to the transfer include the financial capacity of the proposed transferee to comply with all of the terms of the Agreement and the history, if any, of compliance of transferee, its principals, officers or owners with the provisions of federal or state law, the Yuba City Municipal Code or agreements with the City relating to development projects within the City.
14.4 Mortgagee as Transferee. No Mortgage (including the execution and delivery thereof to the Mortgagee) shall constitute a transfer. A Mortgagee shall be a transferee only upon: (a) the acquisition by such Mortgagee of the affected interest of Developer encumbered by such Mortgagee's Mortgage; and (b) delivery to the City of an Assumption Agreement executed by the Mortgagee pursuant to which the Mortgagee assumes assuming, from and after the date such Mortgagee so acquires its interest, the applicable rights, duties and obligations of Developer under this Agreement. No further consent of the City shall be required for any such transfer to a Mortgagee.
14.5 Effect of Transfer. A transferee shall become a Party to this Agreement only with respect to the interest transferred to it under the transfer and then only to the extent set forth in the Assumption Agreement. If Developer transfers all of its rights, duties and obligations under this Agreement, Developer shall be released from any and all obligations
18 accruing after the date of the transfer under this Agreement. If Developer effectuates a transfer as to only some but not all of its rights, duties and obligations under this Agreement, Developer shall be released only from its obligations accruing after the date of the transfer which the transferee assumes in the Assumption Agreement.
15 Financing. Mortgages, deeds of trust, sales and leasebacks, or other forms of conveyance required for any reasonable method of financing requiring a security arrangement with respect to the Property (“Mortgages”) are permitted without the consent of the City, provided the Landowner complies with the following:
15.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement and any covenants entered into between the Developer and City shall be superior and senior to the conveyance of any Mortgage encumbering any interest in the Property. No default shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the conveyance of any Mortgage made for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person (including any Mortgagee) who acquires title to the Property or any portion thereof or interest therein or improvement thereon, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
15.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated; Mortgagee as Transferee. No Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement whatsoever, except that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize any Mortgagee to undertake any new construction or improvement in the Chima Ranch Project Area, or to otherwise have the benefit of any rights of Developer, or to enforce any obligation of the City, under this Agreement, unless and until such Mortgagee elects to become a Transferee in the manner specified in this Agreement. Any Mortgagee that affirmatively elects to become a Transferee shall be later released from all obligations and liabilities under this Agreement upon the subsequent Transfer by the Mortgagee of its interest as a transferee to another person.
15.3 Entitlement to Written Notice of Default. The Mortgagee of a Mortgage or beneficiary of a deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, and their successors and assigns shall, upon written request to the City, be entitled to receive from the City written notification of any default by Landowner of the performance of Landowner’s obligations under this Agreement which has not been cured within sixty (60) days following the date of default. Landowner shall reimburse the City for its actual costs, reasonably and necessarily incurred, to prepare this notice of default.
15.4 Priority of Mortgages and Subordination. Landowner shall ensure that all Mortgages subordinate to this Agreement. For purposes of exercising any remedy of a Mortgagee or for becoming a Transferee, the applicable laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, remedies and priorities of each Mortgagee, absent a written agreement between Mortgagees otherwise providing.
15.5 Collateral Assignment. As additional security to a Mortgagee under a Mortgage on the Property or any portion thereof, Developer shall have the right, without the consent of the City, to execute a collateral assignment of Developer’s rights, benefits and remedies under this Agreement in favor of the Mortgagee (a “Collateral Assignment”) on the standard form provided by the Mortgagee.
16. Covenants to Run with the Land. All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this
19 Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors, assignees, devises, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder: (i) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties; (ii) runs with such properties; and (iii) is binding upon each Party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and each person having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such properties, or any portion thereof, and shall benefit each Party and its property hereunder, and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties; provided that no liability or obligation shall accrue to any person, if this Agreement terminates pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement.
17. Amendment.
17.1 Amendment or Cancellation. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, this Agreement may be canceled, modified or amended only by mutual consent of the Parties in writing, and then only in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65868. Minor amendments to this Agreement may be made without a public hearing upon approval of the Development Services Director. "Minor Amendments" shall mean amendments which are similar in significance to the type of minor amendments to land use entitlements that may be made without a full public hearing or approval of the Planning Commission or City Council pursuant to the Yuba City Municipal Code.
17.2 Recordation. Any amendment, termination or cancellation of this Agreement shall be recorded by the City Clerk not later than ten (10) days after the effective date of the action effecting such amendment, termination or cancellation; however, a failure to record shall not affect the validity of the amendment, termination or cancellation.
18. Notices.
18.1 Procedure. Any notice to either Party shall be in writing and given by delivering the notice in person or by sending the notice by registered or certified mail, or Express Mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, to the Party's mailing address.
18.2 Mailing Addresses. The respective mailing addresses of the Parties are, until changed as hereinafter provided, the following:
City: Development Services Director
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.
Yuba City, CA 95993
With a copy to: City Manager
20 City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.
Yuba City, CA 95993
Landowners: Interwest Homes Corporation
Attn: Ron Scott
950 Tharp Road
Yuba City, CA 95993
With a copy to: MHM Incorporated
Attn: Sean Minard
P.O. Box B
Marysville, CA 95901
Either Party may change its mailing address at any time by giving ten (10) days’ notice of such change in the manner provided for in this section. All notices under this Agreement shall be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is affected or, if mailed, on the delivery date or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to prohibit communication by facsimile transmission, so long as an original is sent by first class mail, commercial carrier or is hand-delivered.
19. Indemnification.
19.1 Third Party Actions. To the furthest extent allowed by law, Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless and immediately defend with counsel of City’s choosing, City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, damages and costs (including attorney's fees, litigation expenses and administrative record preparation costs) arising from, resulting from, or in connection with any Third-Party Action (as hereinafter defined). The term “Third Party Action” collectively means any legal action or other proceeding instituted by (i) a third party or parties or (ii) a governmental body, agency or official other than the City or a City Agency, that: (a) challenges or contests any or all of this Agreement, the Chima Ranch Subdivision Map Applications and Approvals, or the Development Approvals; or (b) claims or alleges a violation of CEQA or another law in connection with the certification of the EIR by the City Council or the grant, issuance or approval by the City of any or all of this Agreement, the Chima Ranch Subdivision Map Applications and Approvals, and the Development Approvals. Developer’s obligations under this Section shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers are actively or passively negligent, but shall not apply to any loss, liability, fines, penalties forfeitures, costs or damages caused solely by the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. The provisions of this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
19.2 Damage Claims. The nature and extent of Developer’s obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City with regard to events or circumstances not addressed in Section 19.1 shall be governed by this Section 19.2. To the furthest extent allowed by law, Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and volunteers from any and all loss, liability,
21 fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs and damages (whether in contract, tort or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time and property damage) incurred by City, Developer or any other person, and from any and all claims, demands and actions in law or equity (including attorney's fees and litigation expenses), arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out of performance of this Agreement or the performance of any or all work to be done by Developer or its contractors, agents, successors and assigns pursuant to this Agreement (including, but not limited to design, construction and/or ongoing operation and maintenance of off-site improvements unless and until such off-site improvements are dedicated to and officially accepted by the City). Developer's obligations under the preceding sentence shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its officers, officials, employees, attorneys, or agents are passively negligent, but shall not apply to any loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs or damages caused by the active or sole negligence, or the willful misconduct, of City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, or volunteers.
If Developer should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Agreement, Developer shall require each subcontractor to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and volunteers in accordance with the terms of the preceding paragraph. The Developer further agrees that the use for any purpose and by any person of any and all of the streets and improvements required under this Agreement, shall be at the sole and exclusive risk of the Developer, at all times prior to final acceptance by the City of the completed street and other improvements, unless any loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs or damages arising from said use were caused by the active or sole negligence, or the willful misconduct, of the City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, to the extent that Subcontractor is a “design professional” as defined in Section 2782.8 of the California Civil Code and performing work hereunder as a “design professional” shall, in lieu of the preceding paragraph, be required to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers to the furthest extent allowed by law, from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs and damages (whether in Agreement, tort or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time and property damage), and from any and all claims, demands and actions in law or equity (including reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional, its principals, officers, employees, agents or volunteers in the performance of this Agreement.
This Section shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
20. Insurance. Prior to starting construction of any phase of the project through the date of City’s final formal acceptance of off-site improvements constructed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement (the “Insurance Period”), Developer shall pay for and maintain in full force and effect all policies of insurance described in this Section with an insurance company(ies) either (i) admitted by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in the State of California and rated not less than "A- VII" in Best's Insurance Rating Guide, or (ii) authorized by City’s Public Work’s Director. The following policies of insurance are required:
20.1 Commercial General Liability. Insurance which shall be at least as broad as the most current version of Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage Form CG 00 01 and shall include insurance for bodily injury, property damage and personal injury with coverage for premises and operations (including the use of
22 owned and non-owned equipment), products and completed operations, contractual liability (including indemnity obligations under this Agreement),with limits of liability of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage, $1,000,000 per occurrence for personal injury, $5,000,000 general aggregate and $5,000,000 aggregate for products and completed operations and $5,000,000 general aggregate.
20.2 Commercial Automobile Liability. insurance which shall be at least as broad as the most current version of Insurance Services Office (ISO) Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 and shall include coverage for all owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles or other licensed vehicles (Code 1 B Any Auto), with combined single limits of liability of not less than $5,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
20.3 Workers Compensation. insurance as required under the California Labor Code.
20.4 Employers Liability. with minimum limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 each accident, $1,000,000 policy limit and $1,000,000 for each employee.
In the event Developer purchases an Umbrella or Excess insurance policy(ies) to meet the “Minimum Limits of Insurance,” this insurance policy(ies) shall “follow form” and afford no less coverage than the primary insurance policy(ies).
Developer shall be responsible for payment of any deductibles contained in any insurance policies required hereunder and Developer shall also be responsible for payment of any selfinsured retentions.
The above described policies of insurance shall be endorsed to provide an unrestricted 30 calendar day written notice in favor of City of policy cancellation of coverage, except for the Workers' Compensation policy which shall provide a ten (10) calendar day written notice of such cancellation of coverage. In the event any policies are due to expire during the term of this Agreement, Developer shall provide a new certificate evidencing renewal of such policy not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the expiration date of the expiring policy(ies). Upon issuance by the insurer, broker, or agent of a notice of cancellation in coverage, Developer shall file with City a new certificate and all applicable endorsements for such policy(ies).
The General Liability and Automobile Liability insurance policies shall be written on an occurrence form and shall name City, its officers, officials, agents, attorneys, employees and volunteers as an additional insured. Such policy(ies) of insurance shall be endorsed so Developer's insurance shall be primary, and no contribution shall be required of City. Any Workers' Compensation insurance policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation as to City, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers. Developer shall have furnished City with the certificate(s) and applicable endorsements for all required insurance prior to start of construction of any phase of development. Developer shall furnish City with copies of the actual policies upon the request of City's Director of Public Works at any time during the life of the Agreement or any extension, and this requirement shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
If at any time during the Insurance Period, Developer fails to maintain the required insurance in full force and effect, the Director of Public Works, or designee, may order that the Developer, or its contractors or subcontractors, immediately discontinue any further work under this Agreement and take all necessary actions to secure the work site to ensure that public health
23 and safety is protected. All payments due or that become due to Developer shall be withheld until notice is received by City that the required insurance has been restored to full force and effect and that the premiums therefore have been paid for a period satisfactory to City. The insurance requirements set forth in this Section are material terms of this Agreement.
If Developer should hire a general contractor to provide all or any portion of the services or work to be performed under this Agreement, Developer shall require the general contractor to provide insurance protection in favor of City, its officers, officials, employees, attorneys, volunteers and agents in accordance with the terms of each of the preceding paragraphs, except that the general contractor’s certificates and endorsements shall be on file with Developer and City prior to the commencement of any work by the general contractor.
If the general contractor should subcontract all or a portion of the services or work to be performed under this Agreement to one or more subcontractors, Developer shall require the general contractor to require each subcontractor to provide insurance protection in favor of City, its officers, officials, employees, attorneys, volunteers and agents in accordance with the terms of each of the preceding paragraphs, except that each subcontractor shall be required to pay for and maintain Commercial General Liability insurance with limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage, $1,000,000 per occurrence for personal injury, $2,000,000 aggregate for products and completed operations and $2,000,000 general aggregate and Commercial Automobile Liability insurance with limits of liability of not less than less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
Subcontractors’ certificates and endorsements shall be on file with the general contractor, Developer and City prior to the commencement of any work by the subcontractor. Developer’s failure to comply with these requirements shall constitute a default of this Agreement.
21. Miscellaneous.
21.1 Approvals. Unless otherwise provided herein, whenever approval, consent or satisfaction (herein collectively referred to as an "approval") is required of a Party pursuant to this Agreement, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If a Party shall disapprove, the reasons therefor shall be stated in reasonable detail in writing. Approval by a Party to or of any act or request by the other Party shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary approval to or of any similar or subsequent acts or requests. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the intent of the Parties is that this Agreement be construed in a manner that protects the rights granted to Landowner herein to the as allowed by law. Except for the limitations on the exercise by the City of its police power which are provided in this Agreement or which are construed in accordance with the immediately preceding sentence, the Parties further acknowledge and agree that: (a) the City reserves all of its police power and/or statutory or other legal powers or responsibilities; and (b) this Agreement shall not be construed to limit the authority or obligation of the City to hold necessary public hearings, to limit the discretion of the City or any of its officers or officials with regard to rules, regulations, ordinances, laws, and entitlement of use which require the exercise of discretion by the City or any of its officers or officials. This Agreement shall not be construed to limit the obligations of the City to comply with CEQA or any other federal or state law.
21.2 Project Approvals Independent. All approvals that may be granted pursuant to this Agreement, and all approvals or other land use approvals which have been or may be issued or granted by the City with respect to the Property,
24 constitute independent actions and approvals by the City. If any provisions of this Agreement or the application of any provision of this Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if the City terminates this Agreement for any reason, such invalidity, unenforceability or termination of this Agreement or any part hereof shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of any approvals or other land use approvals. In such cases, such approvals will remain in effect pursuant to their own terms, provisions and conditions.
21.3 Not a Public Dedication. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of the Property, or of the Project, or any portion thereof, to the general public, for the general public, or for any-public use or purpose whatsoever. This proscription does not extend to any portion of the Property that may be dedicated in compliance with any conditions of approval. The Landowner shall have the right to prevent or prohibit the use of the Property, or any portion thereof, including common areas and buildings and improvements located thereon; by any person for any purposes inimical to the operation of a private, integrated Project as contemplated by this Agreement.
21.4 Severability. Invalidation of any of the provisions contained in this Agreement, or of the application thereof to any person, by judgment or court order, shall in no way affect any of the other provisions hereof or the application thereof to any other person or circumstance and the same shall remain in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Agreement as so invalidated would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of this Agreement.
21.5 Construction of Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement and the Exhibits shall be construed as a whole according to their common meaning and not strictly for or against any Party in order to achieve the objectives and purpose of the Parties. The captions preceding the text of each Article, Section, Subsection and the Table of Contents are included only for convenience of reference and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. Wherever required by the context, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine or neuter genders, or vice versa. All references to "person" shall include, without limitation, any and all corporations, partnerships or other legal entities.
21.6 Other Necessary Acts. Each Party covenants, on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs and assigns, to take all actions and do all things, and to execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if required, any and all further instruments, documents and writings as may be reasonably necessary or proper to achieve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement and to secure the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder.
21.7 Applicable Law. This Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the Parties, shall be construed by and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
21.8 Equal Authorship. This Agreement has been reviewed by legal counsel for both the Landowner and City, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities
25 shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement.
21.9 Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof. In particular, the City agrees to act in a timely fashion in accepting, processing, checking and approving all maps, documents, plans, permit applications and any other matters requiring the City's review or approval relating to the Project or Property. Subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, unreasonable delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default.
21.10 Subsequent Projects. After the effective date of this Agreement, the City may approve other projects that place a burden on the City's infrastructure; however, it is the intent and agreement of the Parties that Landowner's right to build and occupy the Project, as described in this Agreement, shall not be diminished despite the increased burden of future approved development on public facilities.
21.11 Entire Agreement. This written Agreement and the Exhibits contain all the representations and the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, any prior correspondence, memoranda, agreements, warranties or representations are superseded in total by this Agreement and Exhibits.
21.12 Form of Agreement: Exhibits. This Agreement is executed in three duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. Said exhibits are identified as follows:
Exhibit A-1: Property legal description
Exhibit A-2: Chima Ranch Subdivision
All attachments to this Agreement, including all exhibits referenced herein, and all subparts thereto, are incorporated herein by this reference.
21.13 Attorneys’ Fees. If either Party commences any action for the interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation or rescission hereof, or for specific performance of the breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and costs, and any judgment, order or decree rendered in such action, suit or proceeding shall include an award thereof. Attorneys' fees under this Section shall include attorneys' fees on any appeal and any postjudgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment. This provision is separate and several and shall survive the merger of this Agreement into any judgment on this Agreement.
21.14 Limitation of Legal Acts. In no event shall the City, or its officers, agents, attorneys, or employees, be liable in damages for any breach or violation of this Agreement, it being expressly understood and agreed that the Developer's sole legal remedy for a breach or violation of this Agreement by the City shall be a legal action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.
26 21.15 Interpretation and Governing State Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objective and purposes of the Parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, both Parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. All legal actions brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement shall be brought and heard in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sutter.
21.16 Successor Statutes Incorporated. All references to a statute or ordinance, shall incorporate any, or all, successor statute or ordinance enacted to govern the activity now governed by the statute or ordinance, noted herein to the extent, however, that incorporation of such successor statute or ordinance does not adversely affect the benefits and protections granted to the Developer under this Agreement.
21.17 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and each of which shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each Party signs each such counterpart.
21.18 Signature Pages. For convenience, the signatures of the Parties to this Agreement may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages which, when attached to this Agreement, shall constitute this as one complete Agreement.
21.19 Days. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, the term “days” means calendar days.
21.20 Authority. The Parties hereby represent that the person hereby signing this Agreement on behalf of each respective Party has the authority to bind the Party to the Agreement.
[SIGNATURES ARE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
"City"
CITY OF YUBA CITY,
A General Law City
By:
Wade Kirchner, Mayor
Date:
"Landowner"
Interwest Homes Corporation,
a California Corporation
By: Interwest Homes Corporation
a California Corporation
By:
James R. Scott, President
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT 3
4 3
2 1
8 7
6 5
NAGRA
056-060-002
FELTON
056-060-001
LA RUE
056-030-046
9 BAINS
065-020-002
12 11
10 9 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 26
25 ADU*
27 28
29 30
31 32
40 ADU*
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
10 11
12 13
9 8
APPROVED
SUBDIVISION MAP
BAINS REV 12 TR
065-020-004
30 29
28 27
26 2524
23 22
21 20 19 18
17 16
3 2
1 4
5 6
7 14
15 37
38 39
40 41
31 42
32 33
34 35
36 90.7'
53.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 55.0' 50.0' 50.1' 50.0' 57.6'
55.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 55.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 73.0' 111.6' 112.2' 112.7' 113.3' 103.0' 103.0' 103.0' 103.0' 103.0' 103.0' 103.0' 103.0' 103.0' 103.0' 114.0' 114.3' 111.4' 110.4' 110.5'
39.8' 55.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 53.0'
84.2' 83.0'
53.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 55.0' 40.0'
83.0' 83.0'
60.0' 55.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 73.0'
50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 72.8'
55.0' 55.0' 60.2'
127.9' 37.2'
55.0'
133.0'
96.3'
103.0'
103.0'
103.0'
103.0'
103.0'
33.1' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 53.0'
83.0'
55.0' 144.8' 60.0' 50.0' 50.0'
76.5'
40.0' 50.0' 50.0' 20.0'
97.4'
104.5'
105.4'
103.5'
83.0'
103.0'
103.0'
103.0'
103.0'
50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 48.0'
50.0' 50.0' 14.3'
55.3' 69.4'
50.3' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 68.2'
108.2'
103.0'
68.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.2'
55.4'
75.0'
68.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 55.0' 79.9'
96.8' 100.0' 138.2' 135.9'
103.0' 107.2'
100.0'
97.7'
101.9'
106.7'
107.5'
108.1'
103.0'
103.0'
103.2' 103.0'
103.0'
103.0'
103.0' 103.0'
103.0' 103.0'
109.3'
108.7'
77.9'
77.0' 55.1'
55.1'
50.2' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 48.0'
90.1'
50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 48.0'
83.0'
48.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.2'
HAUGEN
056-030-062
SULLIVAN
056-030-063 RODRIGUEZ
065-020-007
BURNARD
056-030-036
PACK
056-030-037
PEGANY
056-030-061
SINGH
056-030-060
SINGH
056-030-059
TAYLOR
056-050-001
R&S FAMILY
065-020-005
R&S FAMILY
065-020-008
RAM
056-030-035
KAHLON
056-030-049
BUMANGLAG
056-030-048
DUNCAN
056-030-047
8 2
1 MINTON
056-050-002
96.2'
96.2'
TRAFFIC CALMING
(NO PARKING AREA)
99.0'
99.0'
67.4' 55.0'
TRAFFIC CALMING
(NO PARKING AREA)
PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE
SANBORN ROAD
KARINNA COURT
BRIANNA WAY
KIKO DRIVE
SAILA WAY
BRIANNA WAY
SANBORN ROAD
50.0'
104.8'
109.8'
115.0'
115.0'
115.0'
50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 49.8' 115.0' 115.0'
94.6'
50.0'
95.4'
51.1'
115.0'
115.0'
50.0'
115.0'
115.0'
50.0' 50.0'
115.0'
115.0'
115.0'
55.0' 50.0' 55.0'
115.0'
115.0'
62.3'
50.0'
PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE
2 1
PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE
SANBORN ROAD
KARINNA COURT
BRIANNA WAY
KIKO DRIVE
SAILA WAY
BRIANNA WAY
SANBORN ROAD
PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE
0 20' 40' 80' 160'
LOT SUMMARY*
VILLAGE NO. 1 = 42 LOTS 7.30 AC 5.75 DU/ACVILLAGE NO. 2 = 40 LOTS, 2 ADU** 6.67 AC 6.30 DU/AC SUBTOTAL = 82 LOTS, 2 ADU 13.91 AC 6.04 DU/AC
(RESIDENTIAL)
PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE 0.95 AC
SUBTOTAL = 0.95 AC
(ROADWAY)
TOTAL = 14.86 AC
* VILLAGE NO. 1 IS LOCATED IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND VILLAGE NO. 2 IS LOCATED IN LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL. THIS PROJECT IS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. ** VILLAGE NO. 2 LOT 25 AND 40 SHALL INCLUDE AN ADDITIONALDWELLING UNIT (ADU). WE RESERVE RIGHT TO DO MORE ADU. *** DENSITIES EXCLUDE PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE.
LAND USE SUMMARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION (EXISTING PARCELS):
HE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SUTTER, CITY OF YUBA CITY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL ONE: (APN: 065-020-010)
LOT 3 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "MAP OFTHE SE-1/4 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 3 E., M.D.M. IN SUTTER CO., CAL., AS SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS FOR JAMES LITTLEJOHN" FILED 1N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTYRECORDER OF SUTTER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1906 IN BOOK 1 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 40 .
PARCEL TWO: (APN: 065-020-009)
THE SOUTH S ACRES OF LOT 2 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN
MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE SE-1 /4 OF SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 3 E., M. D. M., IN SUTTER CO., CAL., AS SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS FOR JAMES LITTLEJOHN"
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY LTCCORDER OF
SUTTER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1906, IN
BOOK I OF SURVEYS, PAGE 40.
Exp. 12-31-22
No. C52593
N
A
S
REGIST
M
E
RNAES
STAT
ERED
P
CI V I
. MI
OF COFES
IA
L
RD
A
LI FORN
IONAL
ENGINEER
SCALE 1' = 40'
LOCATION MAP
FIRE PROTECTION
SERVICE AREA G - CITY OF YUBA CITY
FIRE DEPARTMENTLAW ENFORCEMENT
SHORT TERM - SUTTER CO. SHERIFF
LONG TERM - YUBA CITY POLICE
SANITARY SEWER
CITY OF YUBA CITY PUBLIC WORKS
DOMESTIC WATER
CITY OF YUBA CITY PUBLIC WORKS
STORM DRAINAGE
CITY OF YUBA CITY PUBLIC WORKS
AND GILSIZER DRAINAGE DISTRICT
ELECTRICITY
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRICNATURAL GAS (OPTIONAL)PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMMUNICATION
AT&T AND COMCAST
CABLE (OPTIONAL)COMCAST
PROJECT NOTES
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SUBDIVIDER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PHASE DEVELOPMENT AND FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 (A) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. THIS PROJECT COULD BE 1 TO 3 PHASES.
2. A 12.0 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT SHALL BE LOCATED PROVIDED ON ALL STREETS WITH 10 FEET BEHIND SIDEWALK AND
2.0 FEET LOCATED UNDER SIDEWALK. ADJACENT TO CUL-DE-SAC BULBS THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT SHALL BE 10 FEETBEHIND SIDEWALK UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
3. THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR TENTATIVE MAP PURPOSES ONLY, ACTUAL DIMENSIONS, ROAD ALIGNMENTS, ACREAGE, AND YIELDS ARE TO BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP.
4. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD).
5. VILLAGE NUMBERING IS FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT INDICATE PHASING ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT.
ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT PHASING WILL BE ORDERLY AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT FINAL MAP AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLAN STAGE. TWO POTENTIAL PHASES ARE SHOWN BUT DEVELOPER RESERVES RIGHT TO RECORD WITH MORE OR LESS.
6. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, SEPTIC TANKS, AND WELLS TO BE REMOVED OR DESTROYED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.7. STREET TREES SHALL BE PLANTED PURSUANT TO CITY OF YUBA CITY STANDARDS. ADDITIONAL DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
8. OWNERS, APPLICANT, ENGINEER, AND SURVEYOR SHALL RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR NOTICES RELATED TO THIS PROJECT. MHM INC, SEAN MINARD, IS THE ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR OF RECORD FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP.
EXISTING USE
ORCHARD AND SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONLOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALLOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALPROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONLOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALLOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALEXISTING ZONING R-1 AND R-2
PROPOSED ZONING
R-1 (PD) AND R-2 (PD)LEVEE PROTECTION
LEVEE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SUTTER COUNTYELEMENTARTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
NONE - INDIVIDUAL WATER WELLS
OWNERCHIMA FAMILY TRUST
KARNAIL SINGH CHIMA LP
1749 SANBORN ROAD
YUBA CITY, CA 95991
CONTACT: PAUL CHIMA
PHONE: (530) 682-1507
APPLICANT
INTERWEST HOMES CORPORATION
950 THARP ROAD, SUITE 1402
YUBA CITY, CA 95993
CONTACT: RON SCOTT
PHONE: (530) 671-4600ENGINEER/SURVEYORMHM INCORPORATED
1204 E STREET, P.O. BOX B
MARYSVILLE, CA 95901
CONTACT: SEAN MINARD, P.E., P.L.S.
PHONE: (530) 742-6485
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.APN 065-020-009 (5.0 AC)APN 065-020-010 (10.0 AC)AREA OF TENTATIVE MAP
14.86 GROSS ACRE
SURVEYORS STATEMENT:
I HEREBY STATE THAT ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD
ARE SHOWN AND LABELED PER PRELIMINARY
TITLE REPORT BY OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANYORDER NUMBER 4211019682-JS DATED JUNE 24, 2022.
SEAN MINARD, P.E. 52593, P.L.S. 8397
TEL: 530.742.6485
FAX: 530.742.5639
1204 E STREET, P.O. BOX B
MARYSVILLE, CA 95901
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS SINCE 1892
JULY 22, 2022 REVISED JANUARY 3, 2023
YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
CHIMA RANCH (SM 22-07 SMALL)
2INDICATES PROPOSED PHASE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVAL:
THE CITY OF YUBA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED AND APPROVED RESOLUTION 22-0XX APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 2022-007 (SMALL LOT) DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER26, 2022. ______________________________________________ CITY OF YUBA CITY DATE:
SCALE 1' = 500'
6.0'
CLASS 2 A.B.
16.0' @ 2%
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
SIDEWALK
ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER
19.0' ROADWAY
4.0' 2.5'
12.0'
PUE
0.5'
10.0'
TRAVEL
LANE
8.0'
PARKING
PL CL
NOT TO SCALE
B OPTIONAL FOR ALL INTERIOR ROADS LISTED IN SECTION A MINOR RESIDENTIAL - 38.0' R/W (DEATTACHED)
19.5'
PSE
DEATTACHED SIDEWALK OPTION. THEPLANTER STRIP SHALL ALSO BE USEDFOR STORM WATER MITIGATION.
PUE SHALL BE A TOTAL OF 12 FEET
WITH 10 FEET BEHIND SIDEWALK
AND 2 FEET UNDERSIDEWALK.
MINOR RESIDENTIAL - 46.0' R/W (ATTACHED)
A NOT TO SCALE KARINNA COURT - SAILA WAY - KIKO DRIVE - BRIANNA WAY PL CL
8.0'
PARKING
10.0'
TRAVEL
LANE
0.5' 2.5'
23.0' ROADWAY
ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER
SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
16.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.
4.0'
6.0'
CLASS 2 A.B.
16.0' @ 2%
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
SIDEWALK
ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER
19.0' ROADWAY
2.5' 4.0'
12.0'
PUE
0.5'
10.0'
TRAVEL
LANE
8.0'
PARKING
19.5'
PSE
PL
12.0'
PUE
PL
8.0'
PARKING
10.0'
TRAVEL
LANE
0.5' 2.5'
23.0' ROADWAY
ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER
SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
16.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.
4.0'
12.0'
PUE
PUE SHALL BE A TOTAL OF 12 FEET
WITH 10 FEET BEHIND SIDEWALK
AND 2 FEET UNDERSIDEWALK.
SANBORN ROAD
CL
NOT TO SCALE
C PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE COLLECTOR - 54.0' R/W
20.5'
PSE
PL
0.5' 12.0'
PUE 5.0' 2.5'
27.0' ROADWAY
SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
24.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.
6.0'
ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER
6.0'
BIKE
LANE
12.0'
TRAVEL
LANE
8.0'
PARKING
BOGUE ROAD
PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE
HARBOR TOWN DRIVE
AUGUSTA LANE
ALICIA DRIVE
NAND DRIVE
BURGANDY DRIVE
TUSCANY DRIVE
BAY DRIVE
BOGUE ROAD
WITHIN 30 FEET OF CORNER, THE
SIDEWALK SHALL BE ATTACHED FOR
POTENTIAL BUS DROP AS REQUESTED BYYUBA SUTTER TRANSIT.
CL
NOT TO SCALE
D SANBORN ROAD (FRONTAGE ONLY) COLLECTOR - 47.0' TO 59.0' R/W
2.5'
SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
24.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.
5.0'
10.0'
PUE
0.5'
PL
2.5'
20.0' TO 32.0' (EXIST AND FUTURE)
BARRIER CURB
& GUTTER
SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
12.0' TO 24.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.
5.0'
ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER
6.0'
BIKE
LANE
12.0'
TRAVEL
LANE
8.0'
PARKING
0'-6'
BIKE
LANE
12.0'
TRAVEL
LANE
0.0'-8.0'
PARKING
SAWCUT AT FOGLINE
(1.0' FROM EP)
20.5'
PSE
PL
0.5' 12.0'
PUE 2.5' 5.0'
27.0' ROADWAY
SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
24.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.
6.0'
ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER
6.0'
BIKE
LANE
12.0'
TRAVEL
LANE
8.0'
PARKING
TRAFFIC CALMING - AT THE INTERSECTIONOF SAILA WAY THERE SHALL BE NOPARKING 20 FEET EITHER SIDE OF CORNERON PEBBLE BEACH. THERE ALSO SHALL BE NO PARKING WESTERN 30 FEET SHALL.
THE NORTHERN 125' PLUS OR MINUS(NORTH TWO LOTS) SHALL HAVE ATTACHED SIDEWALK.
PL 20.5' 27.0' ROADWAY
PSE 0.5' 12.0'
PUE 5.0'
SIDEWALK
6.0'
ATTACHMENT 4
Environmental Assessment 22‐14
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Chima Ranch, a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) SM 22‐07 to subdivide 14.86 acres into 82 single family residential lots with two lots including accessory dwelling units (ADUs). A rezoning to add a Planned Development Combining District (PD 15) is proposed to allow reductions in proposed lot sizes, building setbacks and maximum percent lot coverage that are consistent with the General Plan density standards. All of the lots will be provided with full City services. This project also includes consideration of a development agreement to extend the approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map to 10 years.
Prepared By:
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department
Planning Division
November 24, 2022
01248.0005/849718.1 1
This page intentionally left blank.
01248.0005/849718.1 2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................4 Regulatory Information................................................................................................................. 4 Document Format......................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of Document................................................................................................................... 5 Intended Uses of this Document .................................................................................................. 6
2. Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 6 Project Title ...................................................................................................................................6 Lead Agency Name and Address................................................................................................... 6 Contact Person and Phone Number ............................................................................................. 7 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 7 Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)................................................................................................... 7 Project Applicant........................................................................................................................... 7 Property owner............................................................................................................................. 7 General Plan Designation.............................................................................................................. 7 Existing Zoning .............................................................................................................................. 7 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ........................................................................................ 10 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required..................................................... 10 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:.......................................................................... 11 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:.................................................................................... 12
3. Environmental Checklist and Impact Evaluation......................................................................... 13 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................................13 Agricultural and Forestry Resources........................................................................................... 17 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................21 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................... 29 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 34
3.6 Energy .........................................................................................................................................36
3.7 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................ 39
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................................... 45
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 49
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 55
3.11 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................ 60
3.12 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................................... 61
3.13 Noise ...........................................................................................................................................63
01248.0005/849718.1 3
3.14 Population and Housing.............................................................................................................. 70
3.15 Public Services............................................................................................................................. 72
3.16 Recreation...................................................................................................................................75
3.17 Transportation/Traffic.................................................................................................................76
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 79
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................... 85
3.20 Wildfire........................................................................................................................................88
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................................ 90
4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference .............................................................. 93
01248.0005/849718.1 4
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Development Services Department
Planning Division
1201 Civic Center Blvd. Yuba City, CA 95993 Phone (530) 822‐4700
1. Introduction
Introduction
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to identify any potential environmental impacts in the City of Yuba City, California (City) from proposed Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) SM 22‐07, Chima Ranch. The proposed project will divide 14.86‐acres into 82 single‐family residential lots with two lots being of sufficient size to provide for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit on each parcel. The single‐family residential lots are all 5,000 square feet in size or larger, with a residential density in Village No. 1 of 5.75 dwelling units per acre and 6.3 dwelling units per acre in Village No. 2. The subdivision will be provided full City servicesincluding sewer, water and storm drainage collection. The project will involve the removal of two dwellings and a walnut orchard. Finally, a development agreement is proposed to extend approval of the map beyond the City Municipal Code and State Subdivision Map Act thresholds.
This subdivision is considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the City has discretionary authority over the project. The project requires discretionary review by the City of Yuba City Planning Commission and City Council for approval of the Planned Development.
This IS/MND has been prepared in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. The purpose of the IS/MND is to determine the potential significant impacts associated with the tentative subdivision map and provide an environmental assessment for consideration by the Planning Commission. In addition, this document is intended to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public.
Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is an environmental assessment document prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, §15000 et seq.), commonly referred to as the CEQA Guidelines ‐ Section 15064(a)(1) states an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid orreduce project impactsto lessthan significant. A negative declaration may be prepared instead; if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. A negative declaration is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA pursuant to §15300 et seq. of Article 19 of the Guidelines, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
01248.0005/849718.1 5
a) The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b) The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:
a. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and
b. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If revisions are adopted by the Lead Agency into the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared.
Document Format
This IS/MND contains four chapters, and one technical appendix. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the proposed Project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a detailed description of proposed Project objectives and components. Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible measures. If the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 4, List of Preparers, provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of the IS/MND.
Purpose of Document
The proposed subdivision will undergo a public review process by the Planning Commission that, if approved, will ultimately consist of a small residential neighborhood consisting of 82 single‐family residences. The Planning Commission’s review is needed to assure that the project will be compatible with existing or expected neighboring uses and that adequate public facilities are available to serve the project.
This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res.
Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 CCR §15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects.
The initial study is a public document used by the decision‐making lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the lead agency finds substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may have a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency is required to use a previously prepared EIR and supplement that EIR, or prepare a subsequent EIR to analyze at hand. If the agency finds no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration shall be prepared. If in the course of the analysis, it is recognized that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, but
01248.0005/849718.1 6
that with specific recommended mitigation measures incorporated into the project, these impacts shall be reduced to less than significant, a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared.
In reviewing all of the available information for the above referenced project, the City of Yuba City Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this project and a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for this project.
Intended Uses of this Document
In accordance with CEQA, a good‐faith effort has been made during preparation of this IS/MND to contact affected public agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in the proposed project.
In reviewing the Draft IS/MND, affected and interested parties should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the effects of the proposed project would be avoided or mitigated.
The Draft IS/ND and associated appendices will be available for review on the City of Yuba City website at http://www.yubacity.net/environmental. The Draft IS/MND and associated appendixes also will be available for review during regular business hours at the City of Yuba City Development Services Department (1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, California 95993). The 20‐day review period will commence on November 24, 2022 and end on December 14, 2022 at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing.
Written comments on the Draft IS/MND should be sent to the following address:
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
e‐mail: [email protected]
Phone: 530.822.4700
2. Project Description
Project Title
Chima Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) SM‐22‐07, Planned Development PD15 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department, Planning Division
1201 Civic Center Blvd.
Yuba City, CA 95993
01248.0005/849718.1 7
Contact Person and Phone Number
Doug Libby, AICP
Deputy Development Services Director
(530) 822‐3231
[email protected]
Project Location
The 14.86‐acre parcel is located in the southwest portion of the City along the west side of Sanborn Road and immediately west of the intersection of Pebble Beach Drive and Sanborn Road.
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 65‐020‐009 and 65‐020‐010 Project Applicant
Interwest Homes Corporation
950 Tharp Road, Suite 1402
Yuba City CA 95993
Property owner
Chima Family Trust, et, al.
1749 Sanborn Road
Yuba City CA 95993
General Plan Designation
The project site has two General Plan designations. That portion of the project site south of the proposed extension of Pebble Beach Drive is designated Low Density Residential (Single Family) which provides for residential densities of 2‐8 units per gross acre.
That portion of the project site located north of the proposed extension of Pebble Beach Drive is designated Low‐Medium Density (Traditional Neighborhoods with a Mix of Housing Types) having residential densities of 6‐14 units per gross acre.
Existing Zoning
That portion of the project site south of the proposed extension of Pebble Beach Drive is zoned One‐ Family Residence (R‐1) Zone District.
That portion of the project site north of the proposed extension of Pebble Beach Drive is zoned Two‐ Family Residence District (R‐2).
01248.0005/849718.1 8
Figure 1: Location Map - Tentative Subdivision Map, SM 22-07, PD15 Chima Ranch Subdivision
01248.0005/849718.1 9
Figure 2: Tentative Subdivision Map TSM 22-07, PD15
Chima Ranch Subdivision
01248.0005/849718.1 10
Project description
The proposed project will subdivide 14.86 acres into 82 single‐family residential lots. The single‐family residential lots are all 5,000 square feet in size or larger, with an overall residential density of 6.3 residences per gross acre on that portion of the project located north of the extension of Pebble Beach Drive and 5.75 residences per gross acre on that portion of the project located south of the extension of Pebble Beach Drive. The subdivision will be provided full City services. A Planned Development is proposed to modify certain One‐Family Residential and Two‐Family Residential District development standards in an effort to increase project densities. These include allowing for reduced minimum lot sizes of 4,400 square feet for corner lots and 4,000 square feet for interior, cul‐de‐sac and knuckle lots where 5,000 square feet are normally required. Additionally, minimum required lot widths, yard setbacks, garage setbacks and minimum required distances between buildings on the same lot are proposed to be reduced to accommodate a more compact project design. Finally, a development agreement is proposed to extend the approval of the map beyond the timelines specified by the City Municipal Code and State Subdivision Map Act.
Project construction will involve removing the existing walnut orchard and two existing dwellings that are currently located on proposed Lot 4 of Phase 1 and on proposed Lots 1‐3 of Phase 2. Proposed residential density will be as follows:
*Gross includes the entire residential portion of the project including streets.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Setting: The 14.86‐acre property is level. Existing uses of the property includes a walnut orchard and a manufactured home and detached cover over the home, existing well and onsite septic and leach field system.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required
Feather River Air Quality Management District, Dust Control Plan, Indirect Source Review. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Proposed Use Gross* Acreage Gross Density
(residences/acre)
82 single‐family
residential lots 14.86 6.04
Village No. 1 7.30 5.75
Village No. 2 6.67 6.30
Table 1: Bordering Uses
North: Single‐family residences and orchards
South: Orchards and approved West Sanborn Subdivision, SM 19‐02 (95 lots) East: Low Density Single‐Family Residential
West: A Single‐family residence and orchards within the incorporated limit of Yuba City
01248.0005/849718.1 11
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist and subsequent discussion on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources X Cultural Resources Energy
X Geology/Soils X Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources X Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation X Transportation X Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
November 24, 2022
Signature Date
Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services
Printed Name/Position
01248.0005/849718.1 12
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesesfollowing each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as on‐site, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analysis,” as described below, may be cross referenced). A Mitigated Negative Declaration also requires preparation and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legalstandards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site‐specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
01248.0005/849718.1 13
3. Environmental Checklist and Impact Evaluation
The following section presents the initial study checklist recommended by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Appendix G) to determine potential impacts of a project. Explanations of all answers are provided following each question, as necessary.
Aesthetics
Table 3‐1: Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point. If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality.
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
X
3.1.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Background views are generally considered to be long‐range viewsin excess of 3 to 5 milesfrom a vantage point. Background views surrounding the project site are limited due to the flat nature of the site and the surrounding urban landscape. Overall, the vast majority of Sutter County is relatively flat, with the Sutter Buttes being the exception. The Sutter Buttes, located approximately 7 miles northwest of the project site, are visibly prominent throughout and can be seen from all over Yuba City and Sutter County. The Sutter Buttes comprise the long‐range views to the northwest and are visible from the much of the City, except in areas where trees or intervening structures block views of the mountain range.
The City’s General Plan, more specifically the Community Design Element “establishes policies to ensure the creation of public and private improvements that will maintain and enhance the image, livability, and aesthetics of Yuba City in the years to come.”
The following principles and policies are applicable:
Maintain the identity of Yuba City as a small‐town community, commercial hub, and residential community, surrounded by agricultural land and convey, through land uses and design amenities, Yuba City’s character and place in the Sacramento Valley.
01248.0005/849718.1 14
Recognizing the livability and beauty of peer communities with highly designed visual landscapes, commit to a focus on the visual landscape of Yuba City. Maintain, develop, and enhance connections between existing and planned neighborhoods. Create and build upon a structured open space and parks network, centered on two large urban parks and the Feather River Corridor.
Strive for lush, landscaped public areas marked by extensive tree plantings. Design commercial and industrial centers to be visually appealing, to serve both pedestrians and automobiles, and to integrate into the adjacent urban fabric.
In addition to the City’s General Plan, the City provides Design Guidelines. In this case, however, the Design Guidelines do not currently apply to single‐family residences. The City has no design guidelines for single‐ family residential development.
3.1.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal regulations relating to aesthetics include: Organic Administration Act (1897), Multiple Use – Sustained Yield Act (1960), Wilderness Act (1964), Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (1976), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The proposed Project is notsubject to these regulationssince there are no federally designated lands or rivers in the vicinity.
3.1.3. State Regulatory Setting
The California State Scenic Highway Program was created by the California Legislature in 1963 to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The state laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. These highways are identified in Section 263 of the Streets and Highways Code.
A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it must identify and define the scenic corridor of the highway. A scenic corridor is the land generally adjacent to and visible from the highway. A scenic corridor is identified using a motorist’s line of vision. A reasonable boundary is selected when the view extends to the distant horizon. The corridor protection program does not preclude development but seeks to encourage quality development that does not degrade the scenic value of the corridor. Jurisdictional boundaries of the nominating agency are also considered. The agency must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in various portions of local codes. These ordinances make up the scenic corridor protection program. County roads can also become part of the Scenic Highway System. To receive official designation, the county must follow the same process required for official designation of state scenic highways. There are no designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site.
California Building Code Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards: The requirements vary according to which “Lighting Zone” the equipment is in. The Standards contain lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment and specific alterations that are dependent on which Lighting Zone the project is located in.
Existing outdoor lighting systems are not required to meet these lighting power allowances. However, alterations that increase the connected load, or replace more than 50 percent of the existing luminaires,
01248.0005/849718.1 15
for each outdoor lighting application that is regulated by the Standards, must meet the lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment.
An important part of the Standards is to base the lighting power that is allowed on how bright the surrounding conditions are. The eyes adapt to darker surrounding conditions, and less light is needed to properly see; when the surrounding conditions get brighter, more light is needed to see. The least power is allowed in Lighting Zone 1 and increasingly more power is allowed in Lighting Zones 2, 3, and 4. By default, government designated parks, recreation areas and wildlife preserves are Lighting Zone 1; rural areas are Lighting Zone 2; and urban areas are Lighting Zone 3. Lighting Zone 4 is a special use district that may be adopted by a local government. The proposed Project is located in an urban area; thereby, it is in Lighting Zone 3.
3.1.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. This area was a part of the former Lincoln East Specific Plan (LESP) where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2006082094) was adopted by the City Council. Although the plan was vacated, the environmental analysis that was completed remains. Potential aesthetic impacts were analyzed in the LESP EIR and this proposed project site was a part of that former plan’s boundary. The proposed project hasthe same land use asthat adopted by that former LESP. It was determined regarding build‐out of the LESP, that there were no feasible mitigation measures available to ensure the project would notsubstantially change the existing visual character of the area and the impact wassignificant and unavoidable and the City adopted Findings of Overriding Consideration for potential aesthetic impacts.
There are no designated scenic vistas within the vicinity of the proposed project. Approval of the subdivision will lead to single‐family residential buildings being constructed on the property. The aesthetics associated with new development that may result from this subdivision are expected to be complementary to surrounding uses as new development must be consistent with the general design goals, policies and objectives of the City regarding aesthetics.
The Sutter Buttes are more distant and, to some extent, can be seen over existing development. When these new lots are built upon, the height of the new buildings will be limited by the site’s R‐1 zoning (to a maximum of 35 feet in height and 2 stories), similar to the existing residential development in the area, so the impact on views of the Sutter Buttes is considered to be less than significant.
City design objectives are intended to achieve a cohesive design that would complement existing development both adjacent to the project boundaries, as well as within the project area itself. These design objectives will be applied as building plans for new residences are submitted; this may include master building plans for each Village area that include multiple architectural styles and building materials. Potential impacts associated with this are anticipated to be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. There are no state scenic highways within the incorporated limits of Yuba City and Sutter County. The project site is developed with a walnut orchard, manufactured home caretaker unit and single‐family home, all of which will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. There are no rock outcroppings, large or historic trees, or historic buildings on the site. Properties in this general vicinity (including the single‐family residential neighborhoods to the east) have been previously developed. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
01248.0005/849718.1 16
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point. If the project isin an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Less than Significant Impact. This area was a part of the former LESP where an EIR (SCH#2006082094) was adopted by the City Council. Although the plan was vacated, the environmental analysis that was completed remains. Potential aesthetic impacts were analyzed in the LESP EIR and that included this proposed project site. It was determined that development of the former LESP would alter the visual character of the site by developing a variety of residential, commercial, public, quasi‐public, and park uses on formerly agricultural land. This would substantially change the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The proposed project has the same land use as that adopted by the former LESP. It was determined regarding build‐out of the LESP, that there were no mitigation measures available that could ensure the project would not substantially change the existing visual character of the area and the impact was significant and unavoidable and the City adopted Findings of Overriding Consideration for potential aesthetic impacts.
The project is not anticipated to result in degradation of the visual quality or character of the area. New single‐family residential development will be required to comply with general City design objectives, including with respect to use building architecture and materials. Distant views to the Sutter Buttes will not be adversely impacted. A less than significant impact is anticipated. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Less than Significant Impact. This area was a part of the former LESP where an EIR (SCH#2006082094) was adopted by the City Council. Although the plan was vacated, the completed environmental analysis remains. Potential aesthetic impacts were analyzed in the LESP EIR and this project site was included in that former plan area. The adopted EIR determined the change from primarily undeveloped to urban development would introduce traffic into the area and increase vehicle lights. The addition of lighting in the form of vehicle headlights and stationary lighting for new buildings, to an area where the site is primarily undeveloped would increase the amount of artificial light in the area and present a stark contrast to existing conditions. The increase in night lighting could negatively affect views of the nighttime sky on the project site and in the surrounding area. The EIR concluded that adherence with City policies would result in a less than significant impact.
The City requires new streets to have streetlights and this will result in new lighting within this project.
However, street lighting does not extend much beyond the immediate vicinity and also street lighting is not typically considered a significant impact unless there are nearby special circumstances, which there is not. Therefore, since there are no unique circumstances, the impacts from new street and home lighting are anticipated to be less than significant as concluded in the previously adopted EIR.
01248.0005/849718.1 17
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared (1997) by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Table 3‐2: Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
X
3.2.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Sutter County is located within the northern portion of California’s Central Valley in the area known as the Sacramento Valley. It contains some of the richest soils in the State. These soils, combined with abundant surface and subsurface water supplies and a long, warm growing season, make Sutter County’s agricultural resources very productive. Sutter County is one of California’s leading agricultural counties, with 83 percent of the County’s total land acreage currently being used for agricultural purposes.
However, while Sutter County provides rich agricultural opportunities, the subject site is within an urban area and has been designated for urban uses for many years.
3.2.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Farmland Protection Policy Act: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the agency primarily responsible for implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The FPPA was enacted after the 1981 Congressional report, Compact Cities: Energy‐Saving Strategies for the Eighties indicated that a great deal of urban sprawl was the result of programs funded by the federal government. The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize federal
01248.0005/849718.1 18
programs’ contribution to the conversion of farmland to non‐agricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. Federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and procures to implement the FPPA every two years (USDA‐NRCS, 2011). 2014 Farm Bill: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the Act), also known as the 2014 Farm Bill, was signed by President Obama on Feb. 7, 2014. The Act repeals certain programs, continues some programs with modifications, and authorizes several new programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
Most of these programs are authorized and funded through 2018.
The Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for the taxpayer. It allows USDA to continue record accomplishments on behalf of the American people, while providing new opportunity and creating jobs across rural America. Additionally, it enables the USDA to further expand markets for agricultural products at home and abroad, strengthen conservation efforts, create new opportunities for local and regional food systems and grow the bio‐based economy. It provides a dependable safety net for America's farmers, ranchers and growers and maintains important agricultural research, and ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Americans.
Forestry Resources: Federal regulations regarding forestry resources are not relevant to the proposed Project because no forestry resources exist on the project site or in the vicinity.
3.2.3. State Regulatory Setting
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Definition of Agricultural Lands: Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 defines “agricultural land” for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts using the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection: The California Department of Conservation (DOC) applies the NRCS soil classifications to identify agricultural lands, and these agricultural designations are used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural land resources. Pursuant to the DOC’s FMMP, these designated agricultural lands are included in the Important Farmland Maps (IFM) used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural land resources. The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. The DOC has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications.
The list below provides a comprehensive description of all the categories mapped by the DOC. Collectively, lands classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland is referred to as Farmland.
Prime Farmland. Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long‐term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been
01248.0005/849718.1 19
used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non‐irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.
The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
Urban and Built‐up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to
1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10‐acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act): The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is promulgated in California Government Code Section 51200‐51297.4, and therefore is applicable only to specific land parcels within the State of California. The Williamson Act enableslocal governmentsto enter into contracts with private landownersfor the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Private land within locally designated agricultural preserve areas is eligible for enrollment under Williamson Act contracts. However, an agricultural preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. In order to meet this requirement two or more parcels may be combined if they are contiguous, or if they are in common ownership.
The Williamson Act program is administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC), in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10‐year period, or a 20‐year period for property restricted by a Farmland Security Zone Contract, wherein no conversion out of agricultural use is permitted. Each year the contract automatically renews unless a notice of non‐renewal or cancellation is filed. In return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted market value. An application for immediate cancellation can also be requested by the landowner, provided that the proposed immediate cancellation application is consistent with the cancellation criteria stated in the California Land Conservation Act and those adopted by the affected county or city. Non‐renewal or immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property.
Participation in the Williamson Act program is dependent on county adoption and implementation of the program and is voluntary for landowners.
01248.0005/849718.1 20
Farmland Security Zone Act: The Farmland Security Zone Act is similar to the Williamson Act and was passed by the California State Legislature in 1999 to ensure that long‐term farmland preservation is part of public policy. Farmland Security Zone Act contracts are sometimes referred to as “Super Williamson Act Contracts.” Under the provisions of this act, a landowner already under a Williamson Act contract can apply for Farmland Security Zone status by entering into a contract with the county. Farmland Security Zone classification automatically renews each year for an additional 20 years. In return for a further 35% reduction in the taxable value of land and growing improvements (in addition to Williamson Act tax benefits), the owner of the property promises not to develop the property into nonagricultural uses.
Forestry Resources: State regulations regarding forestry resources are not relevant to the proposed Project because no forestry resources exist on the project site or in the vicinity.
3.2.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?
Less than Significant Impact. This area was a part of the former LESP where an EIR (SCH#2006082094) was adopted and certified by the Yuba City Council. Although the plan was vacated, the completed environmental analysis remains. The LESP area was identified as containing Farmland of Statewide Importance, an Important Farmland type as well as other lesser quality designated soils. The loss of agricultural land associated with the LESP was determined in the EIR to be a significant and unavoidable impact and Findings of Overriding Consideration were adopted as part of that project’s approval.
Additionally, the City evaluated the loss of farmland within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) or Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as part of the 2004 General Plan process and have included policies designed to reduce the impact of converting agricultural lands to non‐agricultural uses. As part of adopting the 2004 General Plan update, the City also adopted an Environmental Impact Report that also made Findings of Overriding Consideration for the loss of agricultural land within the SOI. The proposed project site was recently annexed to the City and had previously been a part of the City’s long established SOI.
The proposed project site is located within the general Yuba City urbanized area, adjoining residential development to the east and the approved West Sanborn Subdivision to the south. The property has been planned for and designated by the City for urban uses, as provided in the 2004 General Plan and former LESP area where Findings of Overriding Consideration regarding the loss of agricultural land were previously made in the City’s certification of the EIR for both of those projects. This proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land uses as adopted in 2004. Therefore, an additional impact to the loss of agriculture land is not anticipated and the impact is viewed as less than significant for this analysis. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed Project is currently zoned for urban uses and the subject property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. There will therefore be no impacts related to a Williamson Act contract. See discussion above under item 3.2.4.a.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4256), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
01248.0005/849718.1 21
No Impact. The proposed Project is located in the Sacramento Valley in a relatively level area that has historically been used agriculturally as orchards and developed with two dwelling units. This area has been designated years ago for urban use by the City where the loss of agricultural and was analyzed in two environmental impact reports. There is no timberland located on the project site or within the vicinity of the project. There will be no impact on existing zoning of forestland and the proposed Project will not cause the rezoning of any forestlands. No impacts are anticipated. d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? No Impact. There is no forested land on the project site or vicinity. As a result, there will be no impact on forest land.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? Less than Significant Impact. While the underlying soils have agriculture qualities, the area has been planned for and designated by the City for urban development as part of the 2004 City General Plan and the former LESP. Both of those plans analyzed impacts related to the conversion of farmland to non‐ agricultural uses and each plan was approved by the City Council where EIRs were certified and Findings of Overriding Consideration were made for the loss and conversion of agricultural land. There are no nearby agricultural uses that are anticipated to be adversely impacted by this project. There are no forestlands on the project site or in the vicinity. No properties within the area are within the Williamson Act. For these reasons, the proposed project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact.
Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Table 3‐3: Air Quality
Would the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions(such asthose leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X
01248.0005/849718.1 22
3.3.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Yuba City is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), which consists of the northern half of the Central Valley and approximates the drainage basin for the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The SVAB is bounded on the west by the Coast Range, on the north by the Cascade Range, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the south by the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The intervening terrain is flat, and approximately 70 feet above sea level. The SVAB consists of the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba and portions of Placer and Solano Counties.
Hot dry summers and mild rainy winters characterize the Mediterranean climate of the Sacramento Valley. The climate of the SVAB is dominated by the strength and position of the semi‐permanent high‐ pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii. In summer, when the high‐pressure cell is strongest and farthest north, temperatures are high and humidity is low, although the incursion of the sea breeze into the Central Valley helps moderate the summer heat. In winter, when the high‐pressure cell is weakest and farthest south, conditions are characterized by occasional rainstorms interspersed with stagnant and sometimes foggy weather. Throughout the year, daily temperatures may range from summer highs often exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit and winter lows occasionally below freezing. Average annual rainfall is about 20 inches with snowfall being very rare. The prevailing winds are moderate in strength and vary from moist clean breezes from the south to dry land flows from the north.
In addition to prevailing wind patterns that control the rate of dispersion of local pollutant emissions, the region experiencestwo types of inversionsthat affect the vertical depth of the atmosphere through which pollutants can be mixed. In the warmer months in the SVAB (May through October), sinking air forms a "lid" over the region. These subsidence inversions contribute to summer photochemical smog problems by confining pollution to a shallow layer near the ground. These warmer months are characterized by stagnant morning air or light winds with the delta sea breeze arriving in the afternoon out of the southwest. Usually, the evening breeze transports the airborne pollutants to the north and out of the SVAB. During about half of the day from July to September, however, a phenomenon called the “Schultz Eddy” prevents this from occurring. Instead of allowing the prevailing wind patterns to move north carrying the pollutants out of the valley, the Schultz Eddy causes the wind pattern to circle back south.
This phenomenon exacerbates the pollution levels in the area and increases the likelihood of violating federal or State standards. The Schultz Eddy normally dissipates around noon when the Delta sea breeze begins. In the second type of inversion, the mountains surrounding the SVAB create a barrier to airflow, which can trap air pollutants in the valley. The highest frequency of air stagnation occurs in the autumn and early winter when large high‐pressure cells lie over the valley. The air near the ground cools by radiative processes, while the air aloft remains warm. The lack of surface wind during these periods and the reduced vertical flow caused by less surface heating reduces the influx of outside air and allows air pollutantsto become concentrated in a stable volume of air. These inversionstypically occur during winter nights and can cause localized air pollution "hot spots" near emission sources because of poor dispersion.
The surface concentrations of pollutants are highest when these conditions are combined with smoke from agricultural burning or when temperature inversions trap cool air and pollutants near the ground.
Although these subsidence and radiative inversions are present throughout much of the year, they are much less dominant during spring and fall, and the air quality during these seasons is generally good.” Local Climate: The climate of Sutter County is subject to hot dry summers and mild rainy winters, which characterize the Mediterranean climate of the SVAB. Summer temperatures average approximately 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and 50 degrees Fahrenheit at night. Winter daytime temperatures average in the low 50s and nighttime temperatures are mainly in the upper 30s. During summer, prevailing
01248.0005/849718.1 23
winds are from the south. This is primarily because of the north‐ south orientation of the valley and the location of the Carquinez Straits, a sea‐level gap in the coast range that is southwest of Sutter County.
Criteria Air Pollutants: Criteria air pollutants are a group of pollutantsfor which federal or State regulatory agencies have adopted ambient air quality standards. Criteria air pollutants are classified in each air basin, county, or in some cases, within a specific urbanized area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with State and federal standards. If a pollutant concentration is lower than the standard, the area is classified as “attainment” for that pollutant. If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classified as “non‐attainment” for that pollutant. If there is not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated “unclassified.” Ambient Air Quality Standards: Both the federal and State government have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health. The federal and State ambient air quality standards have been set at levels whose concentrations could be generally harmful to human health and welfare and to protect the most sensitive persons from experiencing health impacts with a margin of safety. Applicable ambient air quality standards are identified later in this section. The air pollutants for which federal and State standards have been promulgated and which are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the air basins include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants are of concern in Sutter County. Each of these pollutants is briefly described below.
Ozone (O3): is a gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust and other processes undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when directsunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant.
Carbon Monoxide (CO): is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, with little to no wind, when surface‐ based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SVAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX): is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless.
However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) along with particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish‐brown layer over many urban areas. Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOX are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuels.
Nitrogen oxides can also be formed naturally.
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter. Some sources of suspended particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, occur naturally. However, in populated areas, most fine suspended particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, and combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities.
01248.0005/849718.1 24
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of the burning of high sulfur‐content fuel oils and coal, and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries.
Lead: occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combustion of leaded gasoline is the primary source of airborne lead. Since the use of leaded gasoline is no longer permitted for on‐road motor vehicles, lead is not a pollutant of concern in the SVAB.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs): are known to be highly hazardous to health, even in small quantities. TACs are airborne substances capable of causing short‐term (acute) and/or long‐term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs can be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations.
TAC impacts are assessed using a maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) that estimates the probability of a potential maximally exposed individual (MEI) contracting cancer as a result of sustained exposure to toxic air contaminants over a constant period of 24 hours per day for 70 years for residential receptor locations. The CARB and local air districts have determined that any stationary source posing an incremental cancer risk to the general population (above background risk levels) equal to or greater than 10 people out of 1 million to be excessive. For stationary sources, if the incremental risk of exposure to project‐related TAC emissions meets or exceeds the threshold of 10 excess cancer cases per 1 million people, the CARB and local air district require the installation of best available control technology (BACT) or maximum available control technology (MACT) to reduce the risk threshold. To assessrisk from ambient air concentrations, the CARB has conducted studies to determine the total cancer inhalation risk to individuals due to outdoor toxic pollutant levels. The CARB has conducted studies to determine the total cancer inhalation risk to individuals due to outdoor toxic pollutant levels. According to the map prepared by the CARB showing the estimated inhalation cancer risk for TACsin the State of California, Sutter County has an existing estimated risk that is between 50 and 500 cancer cases per 1 million people. A significant portion of Sutter County is within the 100 to 250 cancer cases per 1 million people range. There is a higher risk around Yuba City where the cancer risk is as high as 500 cases per 1 million people. There are only very small portions of the County where the cancer risk is between 50 and 100 cases. This represents the lifetime risk that between 50 and 500 people in 1 million may contract cancer from inhalation of toxic compounds at current ambient concentrations under an MEI scenario.
3.3.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Clean Air Act: The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended in 1990) required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health or the environment. Two types of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established. Primary standards protect public health, while secondary standards protect public welfare, by including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, landscaping and vegetation, or buildings.
NAAQS have been established for six “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb).
3.3.3. State Regulatory Setting
California Air Resources Board: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state agency responsible for implementing the federal and state Clean Air Acts. CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which include all criteria pollutants established by the NAAQS, but with additional regulations for Visibility Reducing Particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The proposed Project is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, which includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn,
01248.0005/849718.1 25
Tehama, Shasta, Yolo, Sacramento, Yuba Sutter and portions of Placer, El Dorado and Solano counties. Air basins are classified as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified. The FRAQMD is comprised Sutter and Yuba Counties. Attainment is achieved when monitored ambient air quality data is in compliance with the standards for a specified pollutant. Non‐compliance with an established standard will result in a nonattainment designation and an unclassified designation indicates insufficient data is available to determine compliance for that pollutant.
California Clean Air Act: The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for Ozone, CO, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area‐wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a five percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3‐year periods, in district‐wide emissions of each non‐attainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements.
CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program: This program was designed to allow owners and operators of portable engines and other common construction or farming equipment to register their equipment under a statewide program so they may operate it statewide without the need to obtain a permit from the local air district.
U.S. EPA/CARB Off‐Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program: The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires CARB to achieve a maximum degree of emissions reductions from off‐road mobile sources to attain State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS); off‐ road mobile sources include most construction equipment. Tier 1 standards for large compression‐ignition engines used in off‐road mobile sources went into effect in California in 1996. These standards, along with ongoing rulemaking, address emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and toxic particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB is currently developing a control measure to reduce diesel PM and NOX emissions from existing off‐road diesel equipment throughout the state.
California Global Warming Solutions Act: Established in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) requires that California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This will be implemented through a statewide cap on GHG emissions, which will be phased in beginning in 2012. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to monitor global warming emissions level.
3.3.4. Regional Regulatory Setting
Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD): The FRAQMD is a bi‐county district formed in 1991 to administer local, state, and federal air quality management programs for Yuba and Sutter Counties within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The goal of the FRAQMD is to improve air quality in the region through monitoring, evaluation, education and implementing control measures to reduce emissions from stationary sources, permitting and inspection of pollution sources, enforcement of air quality regulations and by supporting and implementing measures to reduce emissions from motor vehicles.
The FRAQMD adopted its Indirect Source Review guidelines document for assessment and mitigation of air quality impacts under CEQA in 1998. The guide contains criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality, and methods available to mitigate impacts on air quality. FRAQMD updated its Indirect Source Review Guidelines to reflect the most recent methodsrecommended to evaluate air quality impacts and mitigation measuresforland use development
01248.0005/849718.1 26
projects in June 2010. This analysis uses guidance and thresholds of significance from the 2010 FRAQMD Indirect Source Review Guidelines to evaluate the proposed project’s air quality impacts.
According to FRAQMD’s 2010 Indirect Source Review Guidelines, a project would be considered to have a significant impact on air quality if it would:
Generate daily construction or operational emissions that would exceed 25 pounds per day for reactive organic gases (ROG), 25 pounds per day for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), or 80 pounds per day for PM10; or generate annual construction or operational emissions of ROG or NOX that exceed 4.5 tons per year.
Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2015 Air Quality Attainment Plan: Asspecified in the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA), Chapters 1568‐1588, it is the responsibility of each air district in California to attain and maintain the state’s ambient air quality standards. The CCAA requires that an Attainment Plan be developed by all nonattainment districts for O3, CO, SOx, and NOx that are either receptors or contributors of transported air pollutants. The purpose of the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2015 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan (TAQAP) is to comply with the requirements of the CCAA as implemented through the California Health and Safety Code. Districtsin the NSVPA are required to update the Plan every three years. The TAQAP is formatted to reflect the 1990 baseline emissions year with a planning horizon of 2020. The Health and Safety Code, sections 40910 and 40913, require the Districts to achieve state standards by the earliest practicable date to protect the public health, particularly that of children, the elderly, and people with respiratory illness.
Health and Safety Code Section 41503(b): Requires that control measures for the same emission sources are uniform throughout the planning area to the extent that is feasible. To meet this requirement, the NSVPA has coordinated the development of an Attainment Plan and has set up a specific rule adoption protocol. The protocol was established by the Technical Advisory Committee of the Sacramento Valley Basin‐wide Air Pollution Control Council and the Sacramento Valley Air Quality Engineering and Enforcement Professionals, which allow the Districts in the Basin to act and work as a united group with the CARB as well as with industry in the rule adoption process. Section 40912 of the Health and Safety Code states that each District responsible for, or affected by, air pollutant transport shall provide for attainment and maintenance of the state and federal standards in both upwind and downwind Districts.
This section also states that each downwind District’s Plan shall contain sufficient measures to reduce emissions originating in each District to below levels which violate state ambient air quality standards, assuming the absence of transport contribution
Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: The District recommends the following best management practices:
Implement the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed FRAQMD Regulation III, Rule 3.0, Visible Emissions limitations (40 percent opacity or Ringelmann 2.0). The contractor shall be responsible to ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained prior to and for the duration of onsite operation. Limiting idling time to 5 minutes – saves fuel and reduces emissions. Utilize existing power sources or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking
01248.0005/849718.1 27
areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off‐peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through‐traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites.
Portable engines and portable engine‐driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on‐road and off‐road motor vehicles, may require California Air Resources Board (ARB) Portable Equipment Registration with the State or a local district permit. The owner/operator shall be responsible for arranging appropriate consultations with the ARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
3.3.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. Standards set by FRQAMD, CARB, and Federal agencies apply to this project.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, such as grading, a Fugitive Dust Control Plan will need to be submitted to FRAQMD as a part of standard measures required by the District. An Indirect Source Review (ISR) application will be filed with the Air District by the developer to address emissionsfrom construction.
FRAQMD’s 2010 Screening Criteria for Air Quality Operational Impacts indicates the threshold for significant daily emissionsforsingle‐family residential projectsis 130 dwelling units. The proposed project will allow for the development of 82 new residential lots with two proposed lots being of sufficient size to include an accessory dwelling unit on each lot. The proposed project will not exceed FRAQMD’s established threshold for potential significant impacts. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in limited generation of criteria pollutants during construction and as part of residential daily operations (primarily from vehicle use). However, project contributions to area cumulative air quality impacts are expected to be less than significant because the project will not exceed FRAQMD emissions thresholds, and as the project is subject to use of Best Management Practices (see item c, below). Accordingly, net increases of non‐attainment criteria pollutants are anticipated to result in a less than significant impact. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The FRAQMD defines sensitive receptors as: facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. FRAQMD states that if a project is located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor location, the impact of diesel particulate matter shall be evaluated. According to the FRAQMD’s Indirect Source Review Guidelines, “Construction activity can result in emissions of particulate matter from the diesel exhaust (diesel PM) of construction equipment.
The proposed project will result in the generation of criteria pollutants during the limited period of site grading and construction. Assuch FRAQMD adopted criteria must be satisfied, and a project condition will be included to ensure that occurs before the tentative map is recorded.
01248.0005/849718.1 28
The Best Management Practices (BMPs) that can be used to reduce the impact to sensitive receptorsfrom off‐road diesel equipment include:
Install diesel particulate filters or implement other ARB‐verifies diesel emission control strategies on all construction equipment to further reduce diesel PM emissions beyond the 45% reduction required by the Districts Best Available Mitigation Measure for Construction Phase; Use equipment during times when receptors are not present (e.g., when school is not in session or during non‐school hours; or when office buildings are unoccupied); Establish staging areasfor the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from off‐site receptors;
Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric powered equipment instead of diesel‐powered equipment or generators, where feasible; Use haul trucks with on‐road engines instead of off‐road engines even for on‐site hauling; Equip nearby buildings with High Efficiency Particle Arresting (HEPA) filter systems at all mechanical air intake points to the building to reduce the levels of diesel PM that enter the buildings; and/or,
Temporarily relocate receptors during construction.
The FRAQMD has not established a threshold of significance to evaluate the health risk resulting from projects that would locate sensitive receptors near existing non‐permitted sources of TACs. In this case, the proposed project will result in the limited generation of criteria pollutants during construction and maintenance. Due to the relatively temporary nature of construction, sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project (potentially single‐family residences adjacent to the east side of the project) will not be subjected to long‐term exposure to diesel particulate matter. Any exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations are expected to be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the of the proposed subdivision and the ongoing residential uses typically do not generate objectionable odors or other emissions. As such, the impact of the project creating odors affecting a substantial number of people is anticipated to be less than significant impact.
01248.0005/849718.1 29
Biological Resources
Table 3.4: Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on states or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
3.4.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The 14.86 acres is level and within the city limits after being annexed to Yuba City in 2022. This area is a part of the former LESP area. The project site is developed with two dwelling units and a walnut orchard.
All surrounding property has also annexed and is within the city limits. There is an approved subdivision map to the south (Project #SM 19‐02, West Sanborn Estates) that was approved November 10, 2021.
Existing residential subdivisions are located on the east side of Sanborn Road. There are no riparian areas or known critical habitat areas on‐site or in the vicinity.
3.4.2. Federal & State Regulatory Setting
Threatened and Endangered Species: State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or
01248.0005/849718.1 30
declining populations. Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal endangered species acts, candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society are collectively referred to as “species of special status.” Permits may be required from both the CDFW and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the “take” of a listed species. “Take” is defined by the state of California as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Furthermore, the CDFW and the USFWS are responding agencies under CEQA. Both agencies review CEQA documents in order to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species issues and to make project‐ specific recommendations for their conservation.
Migratory Birds: State and federal laws also protect most birds. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
Birds of Prey: Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW.
Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters: Natural drainage channels and adjacent wetlands may be considered “Waters of the United States” subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE. The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations but has also been subject to interpretation of the federal courts.
Waters of the U.S. generally include:
All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters, which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
All interstate waters including interstate wetlands.
All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition.
Tributaries of waters identified in the bulleted items above.
As determined by the United States Supreme Court in its 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision, channels and wetlands isolated from other jurisdictional waters cannot be considered jurisdictional on the basis of their use, hypothetical or observed, by migratory birds. Similarly, in its 2006 consolidated Carabell/Rapanos decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that a significant nexus between a wetland and other navigable waters must exist for the wetland itself to be considered a navigable, and therefore, jurisdictional water.
01248.0005/849718.1 31
The USACE regulates the filling or grading of Waters of the U.S. under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by “ordinary high‐water marks” on opposing channel banks. All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into Waters of the U.S. are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that result in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or waiver of such certification) verifying that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380: Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal orstate list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specific criteria that define “endangered” and “rare” as specified in CEQA Guidelines section 15380(b).
3.4.3. Local Regulatory Setting
The General Plan provides the following policies for the protection of biological resources within the project area:
8.4‐G‐1 Protect special status species, in accordance with State regulatory requirements.
8.4‐G‐2 Protect and enhance the natural habitat features of the Feather River and new open space corridors within and around the urban growth area.
8.4‐G‐3 Preserve and enhance heritage oaks in the Planning Area.
8.4‐G‐4 Where appropriate, incorporate natural wildlife habitat features into public landscapes, parks, and other public facilities
8.4‐I‐1 Require protection of sensitive habitat area and special status species in new development site designs in the following order: 1) avoidance; 2) onsite mitigation; 3) offsite mitigation. Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any development within 300 feet of any creeks, sensitive habitat areas, or areas of potential sensitive status species.
8.4‐I‐2 Require preservation of oak trees and other native trees that are of a significant size, by requiring site designs to incorporate these trees to the maximum extent feasible.
8.4‐I‐3 Require to the extent feasible, use of drought tolerant plants in landscaping for new development, including private and public projects.
3.4.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. Raptor species, including the red‐tailed hawk and barn owl, forage within the ruderal non‐native grasslands which were identified to be on the adjacent property to the south (West Sanborn Subdivision, Project TSM 19‐02, EA19‐03). As part of that adjacent subdivision project, the applicant’s biologist, Bole and Associates, conducted a biological review of the project site in January 2021. The report found no potential biological constraints for this site, also finding that development of the site would result in the removal of the existing orchard, noting that “grading effectively removes foraging opportunities for owl and hawk prey, particularly microtine rodents.”
01248.0005/849718.1 32
A biological assessment was prepared for this project site by Marcus H. Bole and Associates and a report was prepared dated August 29, 2022. The assessment determined there are no wetlands or riparian habitats on or near the subject property. The site is developed with walnut trees with ruderal non‐native grasses between the rows of walnut trees with non‐native grasses consisting of wild oats, bromegrass, thistles and non‐native forbs. The developed portions of the property include a primary residence, manufactured home, paved and graveled areas and domestic landscaping (cultivars and lawns). During the migratory bird and raptor survey conducted during August 2022, there were no observed nests within the subject property. Other avian species that have nesting habitat within or near the subject property are the American crow, western scrub jay, house finch and sparrow. Due to unsuitable habitat elements and historical records within a five miles radius of the subject property there is limited potential nesting habitat for migratory bird species on or near the subject property and no mitigation measures were recommended for these species.
According to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, a project is normally considered to have a significant impact on wildlife if it will interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; or substantially diminishes habitat quantity or quality for dependent wildlife and plant species. Impacts to special status species and their associated habitats are also considered significant if the impact would reduce or adversely modify a habitat of recognized value to a sensitive wildlife species or to an individual of such species. This guideline applies even to those species not formally listed as threatened, rare or endangered by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The biological assessment concluded that project implementation will not result in impacts to resident or migratory wildlife, special status plant or wildlife species, or any associated protected habitat and it was their recommendation that no further biological or botanical studies are required at this time. The full biological assessment is included as an attachment to this initial study and a less than significant impact is anticipated. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact. A review of the site identified no native trees, although the site is currently developed with a walnut orchard and two dwelling units. All existing improvements will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. There are no wetland areas or creek corridors or areas that appear to be sensitive habitat areas within or proximate to the project’s boundaries. The project site is several miles from the Feather River. There were no known special status species identified by the General Plan or former LESP EIRs to be onsite or in the vicinity. Typically, orchards are not considered to be an appropriate habitat for threatened bird and other species. Therefore, the impacts on biological resources is considered to be less than significant.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on states or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. No wetlands or federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present within the proposed project area or general vicinity. As a result, there are no impacts on any wetland areas or waterways anticipated.
01248.0005/849718.1 33
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not disturb any waterways, as the nearest waterway is the Feather River, being several miles to the east. Therefore, migratory fish will not be affected by this project. Additionally, there are not any significant native trees proposed to be removed that could be potential nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds that may choose to nest in the vicinity of the Project which is bordered by existing suburban development. As a result, the proposed project will not have significant impacts on migratory fish, wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridors and a less than significant impact is anticipated.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. No trees or other biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances occur on or near the project site. The existing orchard occupying a majority of the project site will be removed to facilitate planned urban (residential) development of the site that has been planned for in both the City’s 2004 General Plan and the former LESP. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans in the vicinity of this project.
01248.0005/849718.1 34
Cultural Resources
Table 3.5: Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5.
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5.
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
3.5.1. Federal Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), Section 106: The significance of cultural resources is evaluated under the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 are as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP are considered to be historic properties. Sites younger than 50 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
3.5.2. State Regulatory Setting
CEQA requires consideration of project impacts on archaeological or historical sites deemed to be "historical resources." Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource is considered a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, a "historical resource" is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources(Title 14 CCR §15064.5[a][1]‐[3]). Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or issignificant in the architectural, engineering,scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).
01248.0005/849718.1 35
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])
In addition, the resource must retain integrity. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, § 4852(c)).
Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5: Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendationsfor the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
3.5.3. Native American Consultation
In September of 2014, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which added provisions to the PRC regarding the evaluation of impacts on tribal cultural resources under CEQA, and consultation requirements with California Native American tribes. In particular, AB 52 now requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on “tribal cultural resources” separately from archaeological resources (PRC § 21074; 21083.09). AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (PRC § 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).
In response to AB 52, in July 2022, the City supplied the following two Native American tribes with a project description and map of the proposed project area and a request for comments:
United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria Ione Band of Miwok Indians
01248.0005/849718.1 36
3.5.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.
No Impact. The projectsite is developed with a walnut orchard and two existing an existing manufactured home, onsite well and septic system. These will be removed as part of the development of the property into a residential subdivision. These facilities are not old enough to have significant historical significance.
Additionally, neither the General Plan nor the LESP EIRs identify any historical significance to the project site. As a result, there will be no impacts to any historical resources directly or indirectly. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
Lessthan Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The LESP EIR documented a field investigation which did not discover any prehistoric archaeological sites or features and, presently, there are no cemeteries within the project area. In the course of project development, there is the possibility of encountering previously unidentified stone or bone tools or fragments; cultural features such as house floors or hearths; concentrations of dietary debris; and/or human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries both within the plan area as well as off‐site. A standard accidental discovery mitigation measure, GEO 1, has been incorporated (see Section 3.7, Geology, below), which will reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is primarily been developed historically as orchard together with a small onsite manufactured home, well and septic system. No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the proposed project site.
The tribes did not respond to the City’s original request for comments, so it assumed that there are no known cultural resources in this area. However, there still remains the potential for previously unknown sub‐surface resources to be present. To avoid potential impacts to unknown remains, mitigation measures provided in Section 3.18 are provided to ensure impacts are less than significant.
3.6 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
01248.0005/849718.1 37
3.6.1 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.
3.6.2. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Build‐out of the proposed project will 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 workersto and from a construction site. However, construction‐related fuel consumption is a finite,short‐ term activity and is consistent with construction activities of a similar character. This energy use is not considered wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary.
Electricity may be used for equipment operation during construction activities. It is expected that more electrical construction equipment will be used in the future, as it will generates fewer air pollutants and GHG emissions. This electrical consumption is consistent with construction activities of a similar character; therefore, the use of electricity in construction activities is not considered wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption will be reduced. Moreover, under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard, a greater share of electricity will be provided from renewable energy sources over time, so less fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity will occur.
This project is 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 the project is built‐out. Compliance with these standards will reduce energy consumption associated with project operations, although reductions from compliance cannot be readily quantified. Overall, project construction will not typically consume energy resources in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Following construction of the subdivision and its residences, the main sources of energy consumption will be household operations and vehicle usage. However, the operations of the 82 new dwellings and two accessory dwelling units and their associated vehicles is not a large enough impact on air quality to be considered significant. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
01248.0005/849718.1 38
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. In addition to reducing energy consumption, the proposed sustainability components are consistent with state and local energy efficiency plans. All components will be consistent with the energy efficiency goals of CALGreen and Title 24, and similar measures (see Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). This project is consistent with applicable state and local plans to increase energy efficiency. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
01248.0005/849718.1 39
3.7 Geology and Soils
Table 3.7: Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly 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 on‐ or 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 direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resources or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
3.7.1 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.
01248.0005/849718.1 40
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, 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
01248.0005/849718.1 41
due to the flat topography. The Sutter Buttes are considered to be in a low landslide hazard zone asshown in Bulletin 198 by the California Division of Mines and Geology.
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
01248.0005/849718.1 42
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 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. Geotechnicalstudies 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.
3.7.2 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 assupporting 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.
3.7.3 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 mot 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.
Paleontological Resources: Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals and associated deposits. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has identified vertebrate fossils, their taphonomic and associated environmental indicators, and fossiliferous deposits as significant
01248.0005/849718.1 43
nonrenewable paleontological resources. Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be considered significant resources. CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature (CEQA Appendix G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) Section 15126.4 (a)(1)). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 (see above) also applies to paleontological resources.
3.7.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a. Directly or indirectly 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 forthe area, or based on othersubstantial evidence of a known fault?
Less than Significant Impact. 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. Additionally, the State Building Code incorporates construction standards for minimizing earthquake damage to buildings and all homes to be constructed will need to comply with State Building and Fire Code requirements at the time construction occurs. Considering the low potential for significant earthquake activity on site and in the vicinity, the potential for adverse impacts from an earthquake is considered a less than significant impact.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. 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 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.
General Plan Implementing Policies 9.2‐I‐1 through 9.2‐I‐8 and the State Building Code reduces potential impacts to a less than significant level.
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. 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 considered a less than significant impact.
01248.0005/849718.1 44
iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the 2004 General Plan and former LESP, due to the level 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 so a less than significant impact is anticipated.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The entirety of this 14.86‐acre site will be disturbed during site grading.
Even though the area is largely level with no topographical relief, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the City drainage system that conveys urban runoff to the Gilsizer Slough.
However, as part of the construction of the subdivision, 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 standard City conditions of 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?
Less than Significant Impact. Neither the City’s 2004 General Plan EIR nor the LESP EIR identified geological soil units onsite or in the project vicinity that are considered unstable, or would become unstable as a result of the project proposed. Staff’s review of the proposed project has not identified any impacts and as a result, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No Impact. Expansive soils are identified as being located at the very southwest corner of the Yuba City Sphere of Influence (proximate to the intersection of Bogue and Township Roads). The proposed project site 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because all newly constructed homes will be connected to the City’s wastewater collection system per the City’s existing established permitting system in place. Septic systems are not proposed to be utilized with this project. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature?
01248.0005/849718.1 45
Lessthan SignificantImpact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no known paleontological resources located on the project site, which has been previously disturbed and fully developed with an agricultural use (orchards). As a precaution, as the proposed project could result in inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, the following mitigation is recommended in order to reduce this potential impact to a less then significant level.
Proposed Mitigation Measure: Paleontological Discoveries GEO 1: Should paleontological resources be identified at a particular site during project excavation activities both on‐ and off‐site, the construction manager shall cease operation until a qualified professional can provide an evaluation. Mitigation shall be conducted as follows:
a. Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by intense field survey where impacts are considered high;
b. Assess effects on identified sites;
c. Consult with the institutional/academic paleontologists conducting research investigations within the geological formations that are slated to be impacted; d. Obtain comments from the researchers;
e. Comply with researchers’ recommendations to address any significant adverse effects where determined by the County to be feasible.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City’s Development Services Department Staff shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, Specific Plan policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out.
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 3.8: 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
3.8.1 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,
01248.0005/849718.1 46
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.
3.8.2 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 Yuba City 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 a General Plan to demonstrate that the City is aligned with State goals for reducing GHG emissions to a level considered less than cumulatively considerable.
3.8.3 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?
Lessthan SignificantImpact. The proposed project will emit greenhouse gases during project construction due to the operation of construction equipment, and from worker and building supply vehicles.
Additionally, the development of homes will increase the potential for additional greenhouse emissions.
However, the size of the project is below the FRAQMDs threshold criteria in determining potential significance of emissions that could impact greenhouse gas generation. The City also encourages the use
01248.0005/849718.1 47
of the following in addressing energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, to be addressed as a condition of the project:
Use of green‐building materials on buildings and other outdoor structures, such as low‐emission concrete, recycled aggregate, recycled reinforcing, or waffle pods to be used in foundations; recycled plastics to be used in community structures such as fencing or playground equipment; wood flooring materials to be treated with low emissions varnishes and floor board substrates to be made from low emission particleboard; and other recycled building materials like recycled aluminum for window frames or post‐consumer plastic for piping; Installation of photovoltaic rooftop energy systems where feasible; Establishment of tree‐planting guidelines that encourage residents to plant trees to shade buildings primarily on the west and south sides of the buildings. Use of deciduous trees (to allow solar gain during the winter) and direct shading of air conditioning systems shall be included in the guidelines;
Include energy‐conserving features as options for home buyers, such as:
1. Increased wall and ceiling insulation (beyond building code requirements);
2. Energy efficient windows (double‐paned or low‐E);
3. Radiant heat barriers;
4. Solar water‐heating systems; and
5. Low NOx‐emitting or high‐efficiency, energy efficient water heaters. Awnings or other shading mechanisms for windows;
Porch, patio, and walkway overhangs;
Ceiling fans or whole‐house fans;
Daylighting (natural lighting) systems such as skylights, light shelves, and interior transom windows;
Electrical outlets around the exterior of units shall be installed to encourage the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment;
Use of low and no‐VOC coatings and paint;
Natural gas lines (if available to the project area) shall be provided in backyard or patio areas to encourage the use of gas barbecues; and
Pre‐wire units with fiber and other high‐speed internet connections. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected
01248.0005/849718.1 48
back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving force for Global Climate Change. Definitions of climate change vary between and acrossregulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. Global Climate Change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased emission of GHGs and long‐term global temperature. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years.
Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changesin habitat and biodiversity. GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non‐cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA).
The proposed construction of this subdivision will create GHG emissions due to the use of motorized construction equipment. The emissions will be from construction equipment during the construction of the subdivision. Once completed, vehicle traffic generated by auto use from the new residences will contribute GHG gases. Due to the small size of the project it is not expected to create significant greenhouse gas emissions. However, on a cumulative scale, possible reasonable reductions could be applied to the 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. A mitigation measure is included that requires the project incorporate the relevant greenhouse gas reduction measures. With this mitigation the impacts from greenhouse gases will be less than significant.
Proposed Mitigation Measure: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pertaining to potential cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions, site grading process shall comply with the GHG Reduction Measures provided in the adopted Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan.
Given compliance with the City’s established rules, and proposed mitigation as recommended, impacts associated with this item are considered to be less than significant.
01248.0005/849718.1 49
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Table 3.9: 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 or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
X
3.9.1 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 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
01248.0005/849718.1 50
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. Thislaw (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:
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.
01248.0005/849718.1 51
3.9.2 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 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.
01248.0005/849718.1 52
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.
3.9.3 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.
3.9.4 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials because build‐out of the proposed project will involve the use of standard hazardous materials such as gasoline and diesel fuels; however, regulations are in place on several levels (Federal, State, and local) which directly address potential threats associated with this item. The homes to be built will include typical household cleaners, solvents and fuels typically associated with a suburban development. Therefore, this potential impact is considered to be less than significant.
01248.0005/849718.1 53
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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not 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 because the only hazardous materials associated with the construction of this subdivision will be those materials associated with grading and construction equipment, which typically includes solvents, oil and fuel. Provided that these materials are legally and properly used and stored, the proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. On an ongoing basis, the only anticipated hazardous waste generated by the Project would be small home‐based business generated hazardous waste and household hazardous waste. Assuming proper and legal disposal of those wastes occurs, there should not be a significant impact from hazardous materials.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. There are no existing schools located within one‐quarter mile of this project site. Further to the north is a private school, Adventist Christian School, and private day care center, Yuba Sutter Montessori School, both located on Harding Road. The proposed project is residential. It is anticipated that residences will use household items that may 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 is limited and will not be expected to present a health risk when used according to manufacturers’ instructions. As a result, a less than significant 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?
No Impact. The project site is not on any listing of sites that are contaminated by hazardous wastes, including any wastes that may relate to historic agricultural use. No impacts are 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project is not located within the boundaries of the Sutter County Airport Land Use Plan area. No impacts are anticipated.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Yuba City Fire Department and Sutter County Sheriff Department serve this area. Neither agency has expressed concern over impacts the project may have on any emergency response plans. The project will be constructed to current City standards regarding road widths, installation of required fire hydrants and all homes to be established will be established under the State Building and Fire Codes in effect at that time. As a result, no impactsto the implementation of an emergency response or emergency evacuation plans are anticipated.
01248.0005/849718.1 54
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a planned urban area that is surrounded by a variety of land uses, including residential and agricultural lands. The projectsite and surrounding area are not identified as potential wildfire hazard areas. The only potential wildfire hazard areas in Sutter County are the Sutter Buttes and land located on the water side of river levees. There is no wildland area onsite or in the immediate vicinity that would result in a potential risk of wildfire. A less than significant impact is anticipated.
01248.0005/849718.1 55
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 3.10: 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 decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impeded sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
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, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
X
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐ site? X
ii)substantially increase the rate or amount ofsurface
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?
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
3.10.1 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.
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
01248.0005/849718.1 56
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‐annual‐ chance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded).
3.10.2 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 Porter‐ Cologne 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 responsibilitiesis delegated to its nine Regional Boards. The Projectsite islocated within the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control board.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB): administers the NPDES storm water‐ permitting 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.
Depth‐to‐groundwater contours were developed for the unconfined aquifersystem 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.
01248.0005/849718.1 57
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.
3.10.3 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Most of Yuba 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 groundwater well in addition to surface water supplies due to recent drought conditions. Since this subdivision will only receive water through the City system, it is unlikely that the project could impact the water quality in the City system.
All of the wastewater generated by the new subdivision will flow into the City wastewater treatment facility which complies with State water discharge standards. The wastewater from the subdivision is not expected to generate any unique type of waste that would cause the system to become out of compliance with state standards.
All storm water runoff associated with the project will drain into the City’s stormwater collection system and convey stormwater to the Gilsizer Slough. The water quality of stormwater runoff is addressed through General Plan Implementing Policies 8.5‐I‐1 through 8.5‐I‐10 which require a wide range of
01248.0005/849718.1 58
developer and City actions involving coordination with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, protecting waterways, and following Yuba City’s adopted Best Management Practices for new construction.
Additionally, even though the project site is relatively level, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the City stormwater drainage system. As part of the construction of the subdivision, the development of the site issubject 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 decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. All of the new residences to be established by this subdivision will be connected to the City’s water system that utilizes water meters to monitor water consumption as well as all homes will be constructed to comply with State water efficiency standards for both plumbing fixtures and landscaping. While consumer consumption of City water will increase as a result of this project, very little, if any, groundwater will be utilized as the City primarily utilizes surface water supplies in its system.
A less than significant impact is anticipated.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervioussurfaces, 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is within the planning area for the West Yuba City Area Master Drainage Study (Master Drainage Study), which was completed in 2006. The Master Drainage Study was developed to identify the required drainage infrastructure that will be necessary to serve existing and future development within the City’s boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI). The SOI is consistent with the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, and assumes the potential for annexation of lands within the SOI/UGB over time, including the proposed project.
The Master Drainage Study established drainage design criteria for planned development. These criteria, along with growth and land use assumptions, were used in computer models to identify approaches to managing drainage in the planning area, and to ensure future projects include design features consistent with the recommendations for storm drainage infrastructure improvements identified in the Master Drainage Study. It identifies numerical standards for evaluating runoff rates, sizing and design of stormwater conveyance pipelines, how streets should be designed to convey runoff, freeboard requirements for open channels, and considerations for detention basins.
01248.0005/849718.1 59
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this portion of the City is 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, development of the project would not result in placement of structures in a floodway.
The project site was annexed to the City of Yuba City and the Gilsizer County Drainage District in 2022.
Stormwater runoff will be collected into the City stormwater system and conveyed to the Gilsizer Slough.
A mitigation measure is proposed to reduce potential impacts, associated with the Gilsizer District, to a less than significant level:
Proposed Mitigation Measure: Hydrology
HYD 1 Prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of a building, grading or encroachment permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Gilsizer County Drainage District Engineer of a drainage study that reflects final design conditions for the project per County Standards. The drainage study shall show how the existing pipe system that conveys drainage flows to the Gilsizer County Drainage Facilities and how they will handle increased flows. The Drainage Study shall be completed and stamped by a professional engineer and determined by the Gilsizer District Engineer to be comprehensive, accurate, and adequate.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this portion of the City is outside of the 100‐year flood plain. This area of the City is provided 200‐year flood protection by the levee improvements completed by the Sutter Buttes Flood Control Agency (SBFCA). The City is not close to the ocean or any big lakes so a seiche is unlikely to happen in or near the City. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean, so people or structures in the City would not be exposed to inundation by tsunami. Mudflows and landslides are unlikely to happen due to the relatively flat topography within the project area. Thus, it is unlikely the project site will be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow or landslide. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. 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 only receives water through the City system, it is unlikely the project will conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan orsustainable groundwater management plan. A lessthan significant impact is anticipated.
01248.0005/849718.1 60
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Table 3:11: 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 orregulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
X
3.11.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The 14.86 acres is within the city limits after being annexed to Yuba City in 2022. This area is a part of the former LESP area, a long‐planned development and this property has been within the sphere of influence since the mid‐1980s. The project site is currently developed with two dwelling units and a walnut orchard and these will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. Additionally, all surrounding property has also annexed and is now within the city limits. There is an approved subdivision map to the south (Project #SM 19‐02, West Sanborn Estates) that was approved November 10, 2021. Existing developed residential neighborhoods are located on the east side of Sanborn Road. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning for this area.
3.11.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal or state regulations pertaining to land use and planning relevant to the proposed Project.
3.11.3 Local Regulatory Setting
Yuba City General Plan, Land Use Element: 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.
3.11.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. This residential project will not physically divide an established community and is proposed consistent with General Plan density. Through the proposed PD designation, proposed lot sizes will be allowed to be less than 5,000 sq. ft. minimum specified by the One‐Family Residence District (R‐1) and the Two‐Family Residence District (R‐2) in order to accommodate moderately increased densities over what is typically seen in Yuba City (4‐4.5 dwelling units per acre). The site is surrounded by a variety of uses,
01248.0005/849718.1 61
including single‐family residential and agricultural uses. The project is designed to be compatible with existing neighboring uses within an area planned for this growth. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project has General Plan designations of Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium‐Low Density Residential (MDR), providing for development of residential units at a density range of 2‐8 dwelling units/acre for land identified as LDR and up to 14 units per acre for land identified as MDR. The proposed project complies with the General Plan land use designation because the project proposes an overall density of 5.84 dwelling units/acre. Village No. 1 is proposed to have a density of 5.75 dwelling units/acre and Village No. 2 will have 6.30 dwelling units/acre.
Development of the lots will be subject to compliance with the proposed PD and other pertinent R‐1 and R‐2 Zone District development standards.
As a result, the proposed project will 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.
3.12 Mineral Resources
Table 3‐12: 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 locally‐
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
X
3.12.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the proposed Project.
3.12.2 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:
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;
01248.0005/849718.1 62
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 thislaw. SMARA contains provisionsfor the inventory of mineral landsin 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.
3.12.3 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?
No Impact. The property contains no known mineral resources and there is little opportunity for mineral resource extraction. The Yuba City General Plan and former LESP does not identify/catalog any mineral resource zones within the city limits, sphere of influence or this project site. There are no mineral extraction facilities currently operating within the City. Additionally, the projectsite is surrounded by uses that are generally considered incompatible with mineral extraction facilities such as agriculture and residential neighborhoods. There are no impacts 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? No Impact. The property contains no known mineral resources and there is little opportunity for mineral resource extraction. The Yuba City General Plan and no specific or area plans identify/catalog any locally important mineral resource recovery sites within the city limits or sphere of influence or vicinity. As a result, there are no impacts anticipated.
01248.0005/849718.1 63
3.13 Noise
Table 3.13: 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
3.13.1 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 mid‐ range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A‐weighting and is expressed in units of A‐ weighted 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
01248.0005/849718.1 64
day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise 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.
3.13.2 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 outdoorsources 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.
3.13.3 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.
3.13.4 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
01248.0005/849718.1 65
acoustical report that demonstrates the achievements of the required 45 dBA CNEL. Dwellings are designed so that interior noise levels will meet thisstandard for at least ten yearsfrom the time of building permit application.
3.13.5 Local Regulatory Setting
The City of Yuba City General Plan presents the vision for the future of Yuba City, and outlines several guiding policies and policies relevant to noise.
The following goals and policies from the City of Yuba City General Plan1 are relevant to noise.
Guiding Policies
9.1‐G‐1 Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the present and future residences of Yuba City.
9.1‐G‐2 Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses. Implementing Policies
9.1‐I‐1 Require a noise study and mitigation for all projectsthat have noise exposure greaterthan “normally acceptable” levels. Noise mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment,
Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings, Retain fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers, Use soundproofing materials and double‐glazed windows, and Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. 9.1‐I‐3 In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consider an increase of four or more dBA to be "significant" if the resulting noise level would exceed that described as normally acceptable for the affected land use in Figure 5. 9.1‐I‐4 Protect especially sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise, by enforcing “normally acceptable” noise level standards for these uses. 9.1‐I‐5 Discourage the use of sound walls. As a last resort, construct sound walls along highways and arterials when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility.
9.1‐I‐6 Require new noise sources to use best available control technology (BACT) to minimize noise from all sources.
9.1‐I‐7 Minimize vehicular and stationary noise sources and noise emanating from temporary activities, such as construction.
1 City of Yuba, 2004. City of Yuba General Plan. April 8, 2004.
01248.0005/849718.1 66
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.
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.
01248.0005/849718.1 67
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.
3.13.6 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 ofstandards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will result in the establishment of 82 single family residential lots with two lots including accessory dwelling units or ADUs.
The project site is within the boundaries of the former Lincoln East Specific Plan (LESP) where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously adopted (SCH# 2006082094). The project site is adjacent to existing developed homes and agricultural uses.
During construction of the proposed project, noise levels would be produced by the operation of heavy‐ duty equipment and various other grading and construction activities. During each construction stage, there will be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and location of the construction activity. A summary of potential noise to be generated by various construction equipment is listed in Table 2 below.
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 includesthe use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds operating in accordance with manufacturers specifications
The City’s Municipal Code requires that project construction activities be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays and state and federal holidays. Noise produced from construction‐related activities is exempt from the exterior noise limits set by the City’s Municipal Code. The LESP EIR explained that compliance with the noise ordinance is adequate mitigation to reduce the impact to a lessthan significant level. However, because construction activities could expose occupants of adjacent uses to high levels of noise during the day, the LESP recommended the following mitigation measures to further reduce potential noise associated with construction.
01248.0005/849718.1 68
Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce exposure of occupants on and off the project site to noise associated with project construction to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measures NOI 1, which is also Mitigation Measure 4.9‐1 of the LESP EIR, will ensure maximum reduction of noise impacts on receptors near the construction areas by shielding construction activities and staging construction equipment away from residential, and school uses, limiting construction hours to daytime hours, and use of exhaust and intake silencers on construction equipment. Staff has updated subsection (a) of this mitigation measure to clarify it appliesto development on parcelslessthan 50‐feet from existing noise sensitive uses because the original measure was unclear on its applicability. Additionally, it is recommended in subsection (f) that the notification requirement be reduced from 500‐feet to 300‐feet to coincide with existing public noticing requirements for projects. These measures will assist to reduce the exposure of occupants both on and off the project site to the maximum extent feasible; thus, this impact would remain less than significant.
Proposed Mitigation Measure: Noise
NOI 1 The project contractor(s) shall ensure that the following measures are implemented during all phases of project construction:
(a) Whenever construction occurs on parcels less than 50‐feet from residential buildings where people normally sleep, schools or other sensitive uses, when it occurs during later project stages on parcels near residential and other noise‐sensitive uses built on‐site during earlier projectstages, temporary barriers shall be constructed around the construction sites to shield the ground floor and lower stories of the noise‐sensitive uses. These barriers shall be of ¾‐inch Medium Density Overlay (MDO) plywood sheeting, or other material of equivalent utility and appearance, and shall achieve a Sound Transmission Class of STC‐30, or greater, based on certified sound transmission loss data taken according to ASTM Test Method E90. The barrier shall not contain any gaps at its base or face, except for site access and surveying openings. The barrier height shall be designed to break the line‐of‐sight and provide at least a 5‐dBA insertion loss between the noise producing equipment and the upper‐most story of the adjacent noise‐sensitive uses. If, for practical reasons, which are subject to the review and approval of the City, a barrier cannot be built to provide noise relief to the upperstories of nearby noise‐sensitive uses, then it must be built to the tallest feasible height.
(b) Construction equipment staging areas shall be located as far as possible from residential areas while still serving the needs of construction contractor(s). (c) High noise activities, such as jackhammers, drills, impact wrenches and other generators of sporadic high noise peaks, shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, unless it can be proved to the satisfaction of the City that the allowance of work outside these hours and dates would not adversely affect nearby noise‐sensitive receptors. (d) Construction equipmentshall be properly muffled and maintained with noise reduction devices to minimize construction‐generated noise.
(e) The unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. (f) Residents and businesses within 300 feet of the construction site shall be notified of the construction scheduling in writing.
01248.0005/849718.1 69
(g) The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (i.e., starting too early, bad muffler, no shielding), and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the construction coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and be included in the notice sent to neighbors and businesses regarding the construction schedule.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction activities have the potential to generate vibration associated with impact equipmentsuch asjackhammers and the operation of heavy‐duty construction equipment such as trucks and bulldozers, jackhammers. Table 3 below shows typical vibration levels for construction equipment.
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.
Vibration can damage buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber; however, vibration significance is oriented toward avoiding sleep disturbance in residential areas; Based on the information presented the LESP EIR and specifically Table 4.9‐7 and Table 4.9‐10, vibration levels at residences nearest construction equipment would be expected to exceed the 80 VdB impact criterion for “infrequent” vibration events7 associated with Land Use Category 2 (residences and buildings where people normally sleep).
Based on the estimated vibration levels of construction equipment, only equipment such as a large bulldozer and loaded truck would produce a vibration level above 80 VdB at 25 feet from the source. At 50 feet from the source, the vibration levels from typical construction equipment are not above the FTA’s 80 VdB ground borne vibration impact criteria. Construction activities would be limited to the daytime hours between 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM in accordance with the Yuba City Municipal Code; thus, construction activities would not occur during normal sleep hours. However, vibration levels still have the potential to interfere with sleep within the residences or othersensitive buildings during construction hours and could be above the acceptable vibration levels for infrequent events at residential land uses (80 VdB) if within 25 feet of the receptor.
Because construction of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to excessive ground borne vibration levels above the Federal Transportation Administration’s (FTA) vibration impact criteria, this would be a potentially significant impact.
To address this potential impact, the LESP EIR recommended a mitigation measure that if construction equipment is located at least 50 feet from sensitive receptors, such as residential uses or other land uses
01248.0005/849718.1 70
where people normally sleep, ground borne vibration levels would be kept below the FTA’s vibration impact criteria of 80 VdB for infrequent events. Although this mitigation is well intentioned, build‐out of subsequent adjacent projects, where there is no intervening road, make this mitigation measure infeasible because equipment used for compacting and grading would be prohibited from working in adjoining project back yard area or near common property lines. As a result,staff proposesto amend this mitigation measure to reduce this distance to 20‐feet so that subsequent adjoining subdivisions can build out.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will assist to limit the amount of sleep disturbance to occur during construction hours by excessive ground borne vibration levels reducing the impact to a less‐ thansignificant level.
Proposed Mitigation Measure: Noise
NOI 2 The project applicant shall require that all construction contracts include specifications that construction equipmentremain a minimum of 20 feet from residential buildings or other buildings where people normally sleep.
The incorporation of the above mitigation measure will ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project 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, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
3.14 Population and Housing
Table 4‐14: 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
3.14.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The 14.86 acres is within the city limits after being annexed to Yuba City in 2022. This area is a part of the former LESP area, a long‐planned development and this property has been within the sphere of influence
01248.0005/849718.1 71
since the mid‐1980s. The project site is currently developed with two dwelling units and a walnut orchard and these will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. Additionally, all surrounding property has also annexed and is now within the city limits. There is an approved subdivision map to the south (Project #SM 19‐02, West Sanborn Estates) that was approved November 10, 2021. Existing developed residential neighborhoods are located on the east side of Sanborn Road. There have been two environmental impact reports prepared analyzing development in this area (the 2004 General Plan and the former LESP). Findings of Overriding Consideration were made for certain impacts associated with growth in this area.
3.14.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs or guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the proposed Project.
3.14.3 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 2022.
3.14.4 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 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.2 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.3
2 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2012. Regional Needs Housing Plan 2013-2021. Adopted September 20, 2012.
Accessed July 25, 2017.
01248.0005/849718.1 72
3.14.5 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)?
Lessthan Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the establishment of 82 new single‐family residential lots with two lots being sized large enough to include ADUs for a total of 84 new residences.
Land to the east is developed similarly with single‐family residential uses. The project site is within what was previously the LESP where an EIR was adopted by the City. Proposed project densities are consistent with what was analyzed in the LESP EIR. As part of the previous Planning effort, City services and streets were analyzed to serve this area. Population growth and the extension of City services were examined in the LESP EIR and as part of the adopted City General Plan. At the time of adoption of the LESP EIR, it was determined the population growth to result from the plan and build‐out, there was no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. As a result, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable and Findings of Overriding Consideration were adopted with the LESP EIR.
As the proposed project is consistent with the densities previously analyzed for development where an EIR was adopted that included Findings of Overriding Consideration, there are no new impacts anticipated by this proposed project so impacts have been determined to be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the removal of two dwelling units that exist on the property today and 84 residences will replace them. As a result, the proposed project will not displace a substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing elsewhere. A less than significant impact will result.
3.15 Public Services
Table 3.15: 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
01248.0005/849718.1 73
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
3.15.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Law enforcement for the proposed new housing will be provided by the Yuba City Police Department. Fire protection is provided by the Yuba City Fire Department. Nearby parks and other urban services that may be utilized by new residents, including streets, water, sewer stormwater drainage will also be provided by Yuba City. The nearby Tierra Buena School and River Valley High School are part of the Yuba City Unified School District.
3.15.2 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.
3.15.3 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 systemssuch as alarm and sprinklersystems, fire service featuressuch asfire apparatus access roads, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland urban interface areas.
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 devicessuch 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 facilitiesto cope with the problems of emergency rescue, relief, evacuation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
3.15.4 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,
01248.0005/849718.1 74
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectivesfor any of the public services:
Fire Protection: Less than Significant Impact. The Yuba City Fire Department provides fire protection services to the property. This proposal will result in additional residential uses. To date, the Fire Department has not expressed any concern with respect to providing services to this project area in the future. Potential impactsto fire services will be mitigated through the collection of the City’s development impact fee for “Fire Protection” per dwelling unit which is $891.86 per dwelling unit or a total of $73,132.52 that will be collected (Note: Accessory Dwelling Units are excluded from development impact fees). As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
Police Protection: Less than Significant Impact. The Sutter County Sheriff Department will continue to provide law enforcement services to the site initially; however, it is anticipated this service will transfer to the City Police Department once the appropriate threshold isreached pursuant to the City and County’s Master Tax Exchange Agreement. In anticipation of law enforcementservices ultimately switching over to the City, potential impacts to Police Protection will be mitigated through the collection of the City’s development impact fee for the “Police Protection” category per dwelling unit which is currently set at $783.74 per dwelling unit or a total of $64,266.68 that will be collected (Note: Accessory Dwelling Units are excluded from development impact fees). Since all new housing will pay development impact fees that are intended to offset the cost of additional police facilities and equipment resulting from the impacts of growth on police services, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
Schools: Less than Significant Impact. The Yuba City Unified School District did not voice any concerns over the proposed project. New residences will be required to pay the Yuba City Unified School District adopted school impact fees that are intended to offset a new resident’s fair share for expanded or new educational facilities needed to accommodate this new growth. Therefore, the impact on schools is anticipated to be less than significant.
Parks: Less than Significant Impact. The City charges a “Park and Recreation” development impact fee for each new residence constructed and these funds are utilized to purchase and develop parkland and other recreational facilities within the City limits. The Park and Recreation development impact fee is currently set at $4,036.65 per dwelling unit and this will result in a total of $331,005.30 being collected from this project that will offset potential impacts (Note: Accessory Dwelling Units are excluded from development impact fees). A less than significant impact is anticipated.
Other Public Facilities: Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be connected to City water and wastewater systems as well as drainage facilities that will convey runoff to the Gilsizer slough. Each new residential connection to those systems must pay connection fees (City water and wastewater) that are utilized for expansion of the respective treatment plants. New residences will also be required to pay development impact feesto the Gilsizer County Drainage District for impactsto the Gilsizerslough. Finally, the City also collects development impact fees on behalf of Sutter County for countywide services that are provided to the new residences, such as the Health and Human Services, General Government, and the criminal justice system to offset the potential impacts of City development. With the collection of these adopted development impact fees, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
01248.0005/849718.1 75
3.16 Recreation
Table 3‐16: 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
3.16.1 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 four community parks, 15 neighborhood parks, and three passive or mini parks.
3.16.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations regarding parks and open space that are applicable to the proposed Project.
3.16.3 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.
3.16.4 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.