01248.0005/849718.1 76
3.16.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest City park is Happy Park, located approximately one‐half mile to the east of the project site. The City’s “Park and Recreation” development impact fee program requires collection of fees for new development, and allocates fees to the acquisition and planned development of open space/park areas in the City. Given this system which is already in place, the potential impact is considered to be less than significant.
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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will generate 84 new single‐family residences from which the residents will have access to the City’s park system, thus increasing park usage. The City, however, charges a “Park and Recreation” development impact fee for each new residence, to be utilized to purchase parkland and construct the new parks. This fee is intended to offset potential impacts on parks as it provides for expansion of the City’s park system. Therefore, the impact on parks from this project is considered to be a less than significant impact.
3.17 Transportation/Traffic
Table 4‐17: Transportation Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
3.17.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal Highway Administration: FHWA is the agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the Federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway network and portions of the primary State highway network. FHWA funding is provided through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficiency Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU). SAFETEA‐ LU can be used
01248.0005/849718.1 77
to fund local transportation improvement projects, such as projects to improve the efficiency of existing roadways, traffic signal coordination, bikeways, and transit system upgrades.
Several federal regulations govern transportation issues. They include:
Title 49, CFR, Sections 171‐177 (49 CFR 171‐177), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles.
Title 49 CFR 350‐399, and Appendices A‐G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways.
3.17.2. State Regulatory Setting
The measurement of the impacts of a project’s traffic is set by the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15064.3 of the Guidelines states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. VMT is a metric which refers to the amount of distance of automobile traffic that is generated by a project. Per the Guidelines “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” “Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant environmental impact.” The CEQA Guidelines also states that the lead agency (Yuba City) may “choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled …”. As this is a new form of calculating significant traffic events, the City has not yet determined its own methodology to calculate levels of significance for VMT. Until that methodology is determined, for purposes of this initial study the information provided by the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) and the CA Office of Planning and Research is utilized. A review of these studies indicates several factors that may be utilized for determining levels of significance. One is that if the project will generate less than 110 vehicle trips per day, it is assumed that with the small size of the project, the impact is less than significant. A second criteria is that for a project, on a per capita or per employee basis, the VMT will be at least 15 percent below that of existing development is a reasonable threshold for determining significance.
As this is a new methodology, future projects may utilize different criterion as they become available.
3.17.3. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The LESP EIR described potential improvements to roadway segments and intersections necessary to minimize negative traffic impacts related to the proposed project. The proposed project will be conditioned to construct in‐tract roadways, as well as frontage improvements along Sanborn Road to City standards. The subdivision will be accessed via an internal road network of public streets, with internal streets feeding an extension of Pebble Beach Drive which intersects with Sanborn Road. Minor interior roadways are proposed to consist of either 38‐ft‐wide or 46‐foot‐wide rights‐of‐way (depending on the preference to have sidewalks that are detached or attached to the roadway), and a 54‐foot‐wide right‐of‐way for the extension of Pebble Beach Drive which is classified as a Collector road that will include two 6‐foot‐wide bike lanes. Sanborn Road is also classified as a collector street that will include two (2) 12‐ft travel lanes, two (2) 6‐ft bikeways, parking lanes and frontage improvements will be required to be made to Sanborn Road to bring it up to the current City standards for that portion of the project that adjoins the roadway. The project is estimated to generate 780 daily vehicle trips, which can be accommodated by planned roadway improvements of the project and the
01248.0005/849718.1 78
existing local streetsystem. As part of the approved West Sanborn Subdivision located immediately to the south, a condition of approval for that project requires the installation of a new public transit bus stop along Sanborn Road near Bogue Road. With the City’s required improvements for this project, the project will not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and a less than significant impact is anticipated. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. This CEQA section describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
SACOG, in “Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” provides two criteria for which if the project meets either of them, the traffic impacts are considered less than significant. One criterion is that the project generates less than 110 vehicle trips per day is considered to be less than a significant impact. The Project will exceed this criterion, so it is not considered any further in this review. The second criterion is that if a project, on a per capita or per employee basis, the VMT will be at least 15 percent below that of existing development is a reasonable threshold for determining significance. SACOG also has released a draft document (SB 743 regional screening maps) that provides mapping data indicating the average miles traveled for different areas within and around Yuba City. The range of the categories are:
Less than 50% of regional average.
50‐85% of regional average.
85‐100% of the regional average.
115‐150% of the regional average.
More than 150% of the regional average.
Per the SACOG maps for the project area the estimated average vehicle distance traveled per residence is in the 85‐100% range of the norm. In other words, per the SACOG regional screening maps this subdivision is located in an area that does not meet the 15 percent vehicle trip reduction criteria.
The City previously contracted with transportation engineering firm Fehr and Peers to prepare an SB 743 Implementation Guideline document which was completed in September of 2020. The Guidelines provide strategies and recommendations and mitigation to complying with the requirements of SB 743. One of the project screening measures identified is if a project with within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, the project can be determined to have a less than significant impact.
The only existing transit stops in the area are non‐sheltered and signs only; one located near the intersection of Bogue and Sanborn Roads and another located at the northwest corner of Happy park to the east along Pebble Beach Drive. A condition added to the West Sanborn Estates, Subdivision Map 19‐ 02, Condition No. 32, requires the developer provide for a future bus stop on the west side of Sanborn Road as it nears Bogue Road and on the north side of Bogue Road just west of the intersection with Sanborn Road. To minimize this project’s VMT impact, a mitigation measure is proposed requiring the developer to contribute a fair for the development of a sheltered bus stop at the location specified in the West Sanborn Estates Subdivision which will be located within ½ mile of the proposed project site.
This project is within walking or biking distance to local shopping and public transportation will be available to the area, including through the provision of proposed Mitigation Measure TRA 1. The project also includes pedestrian/bikeway connecting the interior lots to Pebble Beach Drive and Sanborn Road, providing for easier pedestrian and bicycle accessfor project residents, and it is anticipated to help reduce
01248.0005/849718.1 79
some vehicle trips. With the incorporation of the mitigation measure and development of the project as designed, impactsto VMT and the project will not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelinessection 15064.3 subdivision (b).
Proposed Mitigation Measure: Transportation
TRA 1 The developer shall contribute a fair‐share to the development of a sheltered bus stop on the west side of Sanborn Road as it nears Bogue Road and on the north side of Bogue Road just west of the intersection with Sanborn Road. This bus stop was identified to be developed as part of the West Sanborn Estates Subdivision Map, SM 19‐02, as Condition No. 32 that was approved on November 10, 2021. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project fronts Sanborn Road and will extend Pebble Beach Drive westward. Both the Public Works and Yuba City Police Department have reviewed the project. There are no curved streets or busy, dangerous intersections involved in this project. Proposed internal roadways and improvements to Sanborn Road will be completed with curb, gutters and sidewalks as part of this project. These improvements will be to current City standards and the intersections are at right‐ angles and pose no undue safety threats. A less than significant impact is anticipated. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the project plans and did not express concerns about emergency access to the property. This project will be developed consistent with existing City adopted standards and a less than significant impact is anticipated.
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Table 3‐18: Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
X
01248.0005/849718.1 80
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
3.18.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
Thissection describesthe affected environment and regulatory setting for Tribal Cultural Resources(TCRs) in the Master Plan. The following analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to TCRs is derived primarily from the following sources:
California Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search, December 11, 2017 Ethnographic overview of the Nisenan culture
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Yuba City General Plan (2004) Consultation record with California Native American tribes under Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 3.18.2 State Regulatory Setting
Assembly Bill 52: Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topicsthat may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.
Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non‐federally recognized tribes.
Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also
01248.0005/849718.1 81
require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.
Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their TCRs and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies initiate consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs.
Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.
3.18.3 Cultural Setting
The Nisenan (also referred to as Southern Maidu) inhabited the General Plan area prior to large‐scale European and Euroamerican settlement of the surrounding area. Nisenan territory comprised the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American Rivers, and the lower drainages of the Feather River. The Nisenan, together with the Maidu and Konkow, their northern neighbors, form the Maiduan language family of the Penutian linguistic stock (Shipley 1978:89). Kroeber (1976:392) noted three dialects:
Northern Hill Nisenan, Southern Hill Nisenan, and Valley Nisenan. Although cultural descriptions of this group in the English language are known from as early as 1849, most of our current cultural knowledge comes from various anthropologists in the early part of the 20th century (Levy 1978:413; Wilson and Towne 1978:397).
The basic subsistence strategy of the Nisenan was seasonally mobile hunting and gathering. Acorns, the primary staple of the Nisenan diet, were gathered in the valley along with seeds, buckeye,salmon, insects, and a wide variety of other plants and animals. During the warmer months, people moved to mountainous areas to hunt and collect food resources, such as pine nuts. Bedrock and portable mortars and pestles were used to process acorns. Nisenan settlement patterns were oriented to major river drainages and tributaries. In the foothills and lower Sierra Nevada, Nisenan located their villages in large flats or ridges near major streams. These villages tended to be smaller than the villages in the valley. (Wilson and Towne 1978:389–390.)
Trade provided other valuable resources that were not normally available in the Nisenan environment.
The Valley Nisenan received black acorns, pine nuts, manzanita berries, skins, bows, and bow wood from the Hill Nisenan to their east, in exchange for fish, roots, grasses, shells, beads, salt, and feathers (Wilson and Towne 1978). To obtain, process, and utilize these material resources, the Nisenan had an array of toolsto assist them. Wooden digging sticks, polesforshaking acornsloose, and baskets of primarily willow and redbud were used to gather vegetal resources. Stone mortars and pestles were used to process many of the vegetal foods; baskets, heated stones, and wooden stirring sticks were used for cooking. Basalt and obsidian were primary stone materials used for making knives, arrow and spear points, clubs, arrow straighteners, and scrapers. (Wilson and Towne 1978.)
Nisenan settlement locations depended primarily on elevation, exposure, and proximity to water and other resources. Permanent villages were usually located on low rises along major watercourses. Village size ranged from three houses to 40 or 50 houses. Larger villages often had semi‐subterranean dance houses that were covered in earth and tule or brush, and had a central smoke hole at the top and an entrance that faced east (Wilson and Towne 1978:388).Early Nisenan contact with Europeans appears to have been limited to the southern reaches of their territory. Spanish expeditions intruded into Nisenan territory in the early 1800s. In the two or three years following the gold discovery, Nisenan territory was overrun by immigrants from all over the world. Gold seekers and the settlements that sprang up to
01248.0005/849718.1 82
support them were nearly fatal to the native inhabitants. Survivors worked as wage laborers and domestic help and lived on the edges of foothill towns. Despite severe depredations, descendants of the Nisenan still live in their original land area and maintain and pass on their cultural identity.
3.18.4 Summary of 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, the City provided the following two Native American tribes with project descriptions and maps of proposed project areas:
United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria Ione Band of Miwok Indians
3.18.5 Tribal Cultural Resources within Project Area
In the absence ofspecific information from California Native American Tribes, information about potential impacts to TCRs or Native American Cultural Places was drawn from the ethnographic context (summarized above) and the results of a search of the Sacred Lands File of the NAHC. The ethnographic information reviewed for the project, including ethnographic maps, does not identify any villages, occupational areas, or resource procurement locations in or around the current project area. Further, the areas of highest sensitivity are closer to the Feather River. In addition, the Sacred Lands File failed to identify any sacred lands or tribal resources in or near the project area.
3.18.6 Thresholds of Significance
AB 52 established that a substantial adverse change to a TCR has a significant effect on the environment.
The thresholds of significance for impacts to TCRs are as follows:
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR, defined in Section 21074 assites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a Native American tribe that are:
Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision k of Section 5010.1; and/or
Determined by the City to be significant, as supported by substantial evidence, including:
o A cultural landscape with a geographically defined boundary; o A historical resource as described in Section 21084.1 (either eligible for or listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or listed on a local registry); o A unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2; and/or o A non‐unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2.
01248.0005/849718.1 83
In assessing substantial adverse change, the City must determine whether or not the project will adversely affect the qualities of the resource that convey its significance. The qualities are expressed through integrity. Integrity of a resource is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association [CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)]. Impacts are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired [CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)]. Accordingly, impacts to a TCR would likely be significant if the project negatively affects the qualities of integrity that made it significant in the first place. In making this determination, the City need only address the aspects of integrity that are important to the TCR’s significance.
3.18.7 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is developed with an existing walnut orchard, two dwellings,septic systems and private onsite wells. There are no known tribal and culturalresources known to exist on or proximate to the project site and none have been identified (as defined in Section 21074) within the project area. Therefore, no resources listed for or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register are present. See discussion above in Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, and use of mitigation measures to address potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. With this mitigation, this impact is considered less than significant. ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City solicited consultation with culturally affiliated California Native American tribes (regarding the proposed project in accordance with AB 52. A comment was received by the United Auburn Indian Community together with recommended mitigation.
No known tribal or cultural resources have been identified (as defined in Section 21074) within the proposed project area. No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the project site. No evidence of human remains at the project site have been documented, and it is unlikely that buried human remains are present. Given the level of previous disturbance within the project area, it is not expected that any tribal or cultural resources would remain. However, during grading and excavation activities, there is a potential to encounter native soils, which may contain undiscovered cultural resources. In the unlikely event resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities that are associated with Native American culture, compliance with the Mitigation Measures provided below will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. The same mitigation was incorporated into the West Sanborn Subdivision project immediately south of this proposed project site.
3.18.8 Tribal Cultural Mitigation Measures
01248.0005/849718.1 84
Proposed Mitigation Measure: Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR 1 Worker Awareness Training. The developer shall ensure that a Worker Education Program is developed and delivered to train equipment operators about cultural resources and training shall be documented. The program shall be designed to inform workers about: federal and state regulations pertaining to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; the subsurface indicators of resources that shall require a work stoppage; procedures for notifying the City of any occurrences; and enforcement of penalties and repercussions for non‐compliance with the program. Worker education training may be provided either in person or as a DVD with a training binder, prepared by a qualified professional archaeologist and reviewed by the City. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) shall be afforded the option of attending the initial training in person or providing a video segment or information for incorporation into the training that appeals to the contractor's need to be respectful of tribal cultural resources and tribal participation in implementing unanticipated discovery protocols. All ground‐ disturbing equipment operators shall be required to receive the training and sign a form that acknowledges receipt of the training. A copy of the form shall be provided to the City as proof of compliance.
TCR 2 Avoid and minimize impacts to previously unknown Tribal Cultural Resources. If any cultural resources, such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains are encountered during the initial inspection or during any subsequent construction activities, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the construction supervisor shall immediately notify the City representative. If the find includes human remains, then the City shall immediately notify the Sutter County Coroner and the procedures in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and, if applicable, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code,shall be followed.
For resources reasonably associated with Native American cultural and for human remains, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the discovery with a UAIC tribal representative and a qualified archaeologist approved by the City. As part of the site investigation and resource assessment, the City shall consult with UAIC to develop, document, and implement appropriate management recommendations, should potential impacts to the resources be found by the City to be significant.
Nothing in this measure prohibits the City from considering any comments from other culturally‐affiliated Native American tribes that volunteer information to the City during its investigation. Possible management recommendations could include documentation, data recovery, or (if deemed feasible by the City) preservation in place. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by City staff to be necessary and feasible to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant effects to the cultural resources, such as the use of a Native American Monitor whenever work is occurring within 100 feet of the discovery of Native American resources, if deemed appropriate by the City.
The types of treatment preferred by UAIC that protects, preserves or restores the integrity of tribal cultural resources may include Tribal Monitoring, or recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil that is done in a culturally appropriate manner. Recommendations of the treatment of tribal cultural resources will be documented in the project record. For any recommendations made by traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that are not implemented, a justification for why the recommendation was not followed will be provided in the project record.
01248.0005/849718.1 85
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Table 3‐19: Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require orresult in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment
or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient watersupplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projected demand in addition to the existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
3.19.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wastewater: Yuba City owns, operates, and maintainsthe wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that provides sewer service to approximately 60,000 residents and numerous businesses. The remainder of the residents and businessesin the Yuba City Sphere of Influence (SOI) are currently serviced by private septic systems. In the early 1970s, the City’s original sewage treatment plant was abandoned, and the current Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) was constructed.
Water: The water supply source for the City is surface water from the Feather River with use of a backup groundwater well. The City of Yuba City is a public water agency with approximately 18,045 connections.
City policy only allows areas within the City limits to be served by the surface water system.
Reuse and Recycling: Solid waste generated in Yuba City is collected by Recology Yuba‐Sutter. Recology offersresidential, commercial, industrial, electronic, and hazardous waste collection, processing, recycling and disposal, as well as construction and demolition waste processing, diversion, and transfer to a disposal facility. The City’s municipal solid waste is delivered to the Ostrom Road Landfill; a State‐permitted solid
01248.0005/849718.1 86
waste facility that provides a full range of transfer and diversion services. This landfill has a remaining capacity of 39,223,000 cubic yards (90 percent remaining capacity reported in 2007).4
3.19.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Discharge of treated wastewater to surface water(s) of the U.S., including wetlands, requires an NPDES permit. In California, the RWQCB administersthe issuance of these federal permits. Obtaining a NPDES permit requires preparation of detailed information, including characterization of wastewater sources, treatment processes, and effluent quality. Any future development that exceeds one acre in size would be required to comply with NPDES criteria, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the inclusion of BMPs to control erosion and offsite transport of soils.
3.19.3 State Regulatory Setting
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): Waste Discharge Requirements Program. State regulations pertaining to the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, CCR, Section 20005 et seq. (hereafter Title 27). In general, the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Program (sometimes also referred to as the “Non‐Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program”) regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 20230 of Title 27. Several programs are administered under the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs.
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle): The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track the 76 million tons of waste generated each year in California. CalRecycle develops laws and regulations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority istypically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40050 et seq. or Assembly Bill (AB 939, codified in PRC 40000), administered by CalRecycle, requires all local and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount ofsolid waste sent to landfills.
This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.
Regional Water Quality Control Boards: The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The State Board sets statewide policy for the implementation of state and federal laws and regulations. The Regional Boards adopt and implement Water Quality Control Plans(Basin Plans), which recognize regional differences in natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities.
4 CalRecycle, 2017. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/58-AA-0011/Detail/. Accessed August 15, 2017.
01248.0005/849718.1 87
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into water of the United States. In California, it is the responsibility of Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve and enhance the quality of the state’s waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge requirements (WDRs). WDRs for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits.
California Department of Water Resources: The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is a department within the California Resources Agency. The DWR is responsible for the State of California's management and regulation of water usage.
3.19.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The response to this item is found in subsection b) below. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will connect to both the City’s water and wastewater treatment systems. The Yuba City Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) has available capacity to accommodate new growth. The WWTF current permitted capacity is 10.5 mgd (annual average dry weather flow). The existing average influent flow to the WWTF is approximately 6 mgd. The remaining treatment capacity at the WWTF can be used to accommodate additional flow from the future developments, including this proposed project.
The City’s Water Treatment plant (WTP), for which its primary source of water is from the Feather River, also has adequate capacity to accommodate this project. The WTP uses two types of treatment systems, conventional and membrane treatment. The permitted capacity of the conventional WTP is 24 million gallons per day (mgd). The membrane treatment system has a permitted capacity of 12 mgd. Water produced from the conventional and the membrane treatment plants are blended for chlorine disinfection. Operating the conventional and membrane treatmentfacilities provides a total WTP capacity of 36 mgd. The City is permitted to draw 30 mgd from the Feather River. The current maximum day use is 26 mgd. The City also has an existing on‐site water well at the water plant thatsupplementsthe surface water when needed.
For both facilities there are City adopted master plans to expand those plants to the extent that they will accommodate the overall growth of the City. Additionally, construction impacts from the installation of utility line extensions to serve the site were analyzed in the LESP EIR.
The ongoing expansions of those plants to accommodate growth beyond this project are funded by the connection fees paid by each new connection. Therefore, the impact on the water and wastewater treatment facilities will be less than significant.
In 2022, the project site was annexed to the Gilsizer County Drainage District. Stormwater drainage in this area is provided by a combination of existing Yuba City storm drain lines (that this project will connect
01248.0005/849718.1 88
into) that will convey stormwater flows to the Gilsizer Slough. It has been determined that adequate capacity exists in the City’s existing stormwater drainage system to accommodate the project.
Although the Gilsizer District did not comment on the proposed project, as part of project build‐out, Gilsizer District development impact fees will be collected for each dwelling unit constructed to mitigate potential impacts to the District. As a result, the impacts on the stormwater drainage system are considered to be less than significant.
The extension of electric power facilities, natural gas facilities and telecommunication facilities are provided by private companies, none of which have voiced concerns over the extensions of their services to this project site. With these considerations, the impact on these types of facilities is anticipated to be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact. See Parts a) and b), above. d). Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
The response to this item is found in subsection e) below. e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. Recology Yuba‐Sutter provides solid waste disposal for this region including all of Sutter and Yuba Counties. There is adequate collection and landfill capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Transportation and disposal of all waste due to the proposed project’s construction and build‐out would be facilitated in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.
3.20 Wildfire
Table 3‐20: Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
01248.0005/849718.1 89
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
3.20.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wildland fires are an annual hazard in Sutter County, particularly in the vicinity of the Sutter Buttes, and, to a lesser degree due to urbanized development, Yuba City. Wildland fires burn natural vegetation on undeveloped lands and include rangeland, brush, and grass fires. Long, hot, and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100°F add to the County’s fire hazard. Human activities are the major causes of wildland fires, while lightning causes the remaining wildland fires. Irrigated agricultural areas, which tend to surround Yuba City, are considered a low hazard for wildland fires.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program identifies fire threat based on a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). These two factors are combined in determining the following Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. These zones apply to areas designated as State Responsibility Areas – areas in which the State has primary firefighting responsibility.
The projectsite is not within a State Responsibility Area and therefore has not been placed in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
3.20.2 Impact Assessment/ Environmental Consequences
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Lessthan Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.17 of this Initial Study, project construction will not obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area. Project operations likewise would not obstruct any roadways. The project site will be built‐out consistent with existing adopted City standards and as may be modified by the proposed Planned Development overlay. As a result, the impacts of the proposed project related to emergency response or evacuations are considered to be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less than Significant Impact. As noted in Section 3.11 of this Initial Study, the project site has been planned to be urbanized by both the City’s 2004 General Plan and the LESP and this land has been within the City’s adopted sphere of influence since the mid‐1980s. Environmental impact reports were adopted as part of the planning effort for each of these plans. The proposed project will develop consistent with those existing plans and will involve construction of new homes, accessory uses, roadways, driveways and landscaping. The projectsite is not within a State Responsibility Area for fire protection and is not located within a designated wildfire hazard area or other Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The bordering area to the
01248.0005/849718.1 90
north, west and south are currently developed with irrigated orchards but will transition to urbanization as the City continues to grow in this area. The only identified wildfire hazard areas in the area are the Sutter Buttes and the water side of levees that adjoin local rivers. This project is not close to either of these locations. As a result, impacts of the proposed project related to wildland fire hazards are considered less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency watersources, powerlines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the projectsite is not located proximate to any wildland areas and the project itself will not create any improvements that potentially could generate wildfire conditions. As such the project will not be constructing or maintaining wildfire related infrastructure such as fire breaks, emergency water sources, etc. As a result, the project will not create any potential significant impacts that could result from these types of improvements. A less than significant impact is anticipated.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is in a topographically flat area. There are no streams or other channels that cross the site. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Impacts of the project related to these issues would be less than significant.
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Table 3.21: Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
example of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
X
01248.0005/849718.1 91
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" meansthat the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
X
c) Have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
3.21.1 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located on a previously disturbed area that has historically been farmed with orchard crops as well as being developed with two dwelling units. The site has been within the Yuba City sphere of influence since the mid‐1980s and has been planned for future growth in both the 2004 Yuba City General Plan and former LESP. Both plans had EIRs prepared for them with Findings of Overriding Consideration being made for certain impactsin each document. There islittle plant or animal habitat value due to the site’s historic use agriculturally. As a precaution, mitigation has been included requiring nesting surveys depending upon time of year of site clearing. There are no wetlands or similar habitat on the project site. Therefore, the development of this 14.86‐acre parcel will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
Mitigation is also included addressing potential accidental discovery of archaeological, cultural or Tribal resources. With these mitigations, impacts are expected to be less than significant.
The analysis conducted in this Initial Study results in a determination that the proposed Project, with its mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the environment. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.
This project is consistent with the residential densities and policies of the General Plan. As such the traffic generated by the project is within what was anticipated in the General Plan which considered anticipated
01248.0005/849718.1 92
future growth of the area. The City has adequate water and wastewater capacity and the project will be extending those services to the site. Stormwater drainage will also meet all City and Gilsizer County Drainage District standards. The loss of agricultural land is cumulative but based on City and County agricultural protection program, the loss is limited to within the urban areas of the cities which is a minor portion of the entire County. The school district has not indicated that they lack capacity to provide proper educational facilities to the new students. The FRAQMD also did not comment that the project would create any significant cumulative impacts on air quality. Therefore, there are no impacts that will be individually limited but that will create significant cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project in and of itself will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction‐related air quality, noise, and hazardous materials exposure impacts would occur for a very short period and only be a minor impact during that time period.
Therefore, the proposed project would not have any direct or indirect significant adverse impacts on humans.
01248.0005/849718.1 93
4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference
According to Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, an ND may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public record. The incorporated language will be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the ND. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at, or can be obtained through, the City of Yuba City Development Services Department located at the address provided above. The following documents are incorporated by reference:
Fehr & Peers, Inc. September 2020. SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for City of Yuba City.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, November 2017. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Hex Maps. Work VMT‐2020 MTP/SCS (Adopted).
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland 2012. August 2014.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2013. Sutter County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014.
Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.
Yuba City, City of. 2016. City of Yuba City Municipal Code. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/yuba_city/codes/code_of_ordinances Dyett & Bhatia. 2004. City of Yuba City General Plan. Adopted April 8, 2004.
Yuba City General Plan, 2004 Environmental Impact Report. (SCH #2001072105).
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1995. Yuba‐Sutter Bikeway Master Plan. December 1995. “Determination of 1‐in‐200 Year Floodplain for Yuba City Urban Level of Flood Protection Determination,” prepared for Yuba City by MBK Engineers, November 2015.
Sutter County General Plan.
Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) CEQA Significance Thresholds.
Yuba Sutter Transit Route Map.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. “Fault Zone Activity Map.” Alquist‐ Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor. Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
01248.0005/849718.1 94
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland Map.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.
City of Yuba City Wastewater Master Plan.
Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, April, 1994.
Yuba County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Sept., 2010.
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1995. Yuba‐Sutter Bikeway Master Plan. December 1995.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System website. Updated September 7, 2011. Available at
http://dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm
01248.0005/849718.1 95
Appendix A
MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING PLAN
Chima Ranch Subdivision:
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 22‐14 For 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)
01248.0005/849718.1 96
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
3.7 Geology
and Soils
Geology and Soils Mitigation 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 Community Development
Department Staff shall
determine whether avoidance is
necessary and feasible in light of
Applicant/
Developer
Development
Services
Dept.
During
construction
phase.
01248.0005/849718.1 97
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
Gases
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation 1:
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.
Applicant/
Developer
Development
Services
Dept.
During
construction
phase
3.10 Hydrology
and Water
Quality
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation 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.
Applicant/
Developer
Public Works
Dept.
Prior to final
map, grading,
building or
encroachment
permit
issuance
01248.0005/849718.1 98
3.13 Noise Noise Mitigation 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 existing residential
neighborhoods, 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 project
stages, temporary barriers shall
be constructed around the
construction sites to shield the
ground floor and lowerstories 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 upper stories of
nearby noise‐sensitive uses,
then it must be built to the
tallest feasible height.
Applicant/
Developer
Development
Services
Dept.
During
construction
phase
01248.0005/849718.1 99
(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 equipment
shall 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.
(g) The construction contractor
shall designatea “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
01248.0005/849718.1 100
(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.
3.13 Noise Noise Mitigation 2: The project
applicant shall require that all
construction contracts include
specifications that construction
equipment remain a minimum
of 20 feet from residential
buildings or other buildings
where people normally sleep.
Applicant/
Developer
Development
Services
Dept.
During
construction
phase
3.17 Transportation
/ Traffic
Transportation/Traffic
Mitigation 1: The developer
shall contribute a fair‐share to
the development of a sheltered
bus stop on the west side of
Sanborn Road as it nears Bogue
Road and on the north side of
Bogue Road just west of the
intersection with Sanborn Road.
This bus stop was identified to
be developed as part of the
West Sanborn Estates
Subdivision Map, SM 19‐02, as
Condition No. 32 that was
approved on November 10,
2021.
Applicant/
Developer
Development
Services
Dept.
Prior to Final
Map
3.18. Tribal
Cultural
Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation 1: Worker Awareness
Training. The developer shall
ensure that a Worker Education
Program is developed and
delivered to train equipment
operators about cultural
resources and training shall be
documented. The program shall
Applicant or
Developer
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services
Dept.
During
construction
phase
01248.0005/849718.1 101
be designed to inform workers
about: federal and state
regulations pertaining to
cultural resources and tribal
cultural resources; the
subsurface indicators of
resources that shall requirea
work stoppage; procedures for
notifying the City of any
occurrences; and enforcement
of penalties and repercussions
for non‐compliance with the
program. Worker education
training may be provided either
in person or asa DVD witha
training binder, prepared bya
qualified professional
archaeologist and reviewed by
the City. The United Auburn
Indian Community (UAIC) shall
be afforded the option of
attending the initial training in
person or providinga video
segment or information for
incorporation into the training
that appeals to the contractor's
need to be respectful of tribal
cultural resources and tribal
participation in implementing
unanticipated discovery
protocols. All ground‐disturbing
equipment operators shall be
required to receive the training
and signa form that
acknowledges receipt of the
training.A copy of the form shall
be provided to the City as proof
of compliance.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation 2: Avoid and
minimize impacts to previously
unknown Tribal Cultural
Resources. If any cultural
resources, such as structural
features, unusual amounts of
bone or shell, artifacts, human
remains, or architectural
01248.0005/849718.1 102
remains are encountered during
the initial inspection or during
any subsequent construction
activities, work shall be
suspended within 100 feet of
the find, and the construction
supervisor shall immediately
notify the City representative. If
the find includes human
remains, then the City shall
immediately notify the Sutter
County Coroner and the
procedures in Section 7050.5 of
the California Health and Safety
Code and, if applicable, Section
5097.98 of the Public Resources
Code, shall be followed. For
resources reasonably associated
with Native American cultural
and for human remains, the City
shall coordinate any necessary
investigation of the discovery
witha UAIC tribal representative
anda qualified archaeologist
approved by the City. As part of
the site investigation and
resource assessment, the City
shall consult with UAIC to
develop, document, and
implement appropriate
management
recommendations, should
potential impacts to the
resources be found by the City to
be significant. Nothing in this
measure prohibits the City from
considering any comments from
other culturally‐affiliated Native
American tribes that volunteer
information to the City during its
investigation. Possible
management recommendations
could include documentation,
data recovery, or (if deemed
feasible by the City)
preservation in place. The
contractor shall implement any
measures deemed by City staff
01248.0005/849718.1 103
to be necessary and feasible to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate
significant effects to the cultural
resources, such as the use of a
Native American Monitor
whenever work is occurring
within 100 feet of the discovery
of Native American resources, if
deemed appropriate by the City.
The types of treatment
preferred by UAIC that protects,
preserves or restores the
integrity of tribal cultural
resources may include Tribal
Monitoring, or recovery of
cultural objects, and reburial of
cultural objects or cultural soil
that is done in a culturally
appropriate manner.
Recommendations of the
treatment of tribal cultural
resources will be documented in
the project record. For any
recommendations made by
traditionally and culturally
affiliated Native American Tribes
that are not implemented, a
justification for why the
recommendation was not
followed will be provided in the
project record.
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Future Agenda Items
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice Mayor Harris
- Mayor Kirchner
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Manager’s Report
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Council Reports
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice Mayor Harris
- Mayor Kirchner
Adjournment