Yuba City City Council
February 7, 2023

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.

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.

Agenda Item 10

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: February 7, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Consideration of Rezone (RZ) 22-08: Spirit Drive Parcel Map Recommendation: Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to adopt Rezone 22-08 for the Spirit Drive Parcel Map project located at the southeast corner of State Route 20 (Colusa Highway) and El Margarita Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 63-010-141) by title only and waive the second reading Fiscal Impact: The cost for processing land use entitlements is funded by the project applicant through the payment of application fees
Purpose:

To adopt Rezone 22-08 for 8 acres of the 19.99-acre parcel in association with Spirit Drive Parcel Map (TPM 22-04) and General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06 located at the southeast corner of State Route 20 and El Margarita Road (APN: 63-010-141).

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item implements the Council’s goal of being Business Friendly.

Background:

The applicant, Yanni Limited L.L.C., filed applications for GPA 22-06, RZ 22-08, and TPM 22-04, in August 2022.

On December 14, 2022, the Yuba City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, and voted to approve this recommendation to City Council. In addition, the Planning Commission contingently approved Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04.

On January 17, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing for GPA 22-06, RZ 22-08, and Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-15. The City Council voted 5-0 in approval of GPA 22-06 and EA 22-15 and voted to advance RZ 22-08 to a second reading on February 7, 2023.

Analysis:

The RZ will rezone eight acres of the 19.99-acre parcel from an Office Commercial Zone District

combined with the X19 Zone District (C-O X19) to a General Commercial (C-3) Zone District. The remaining 11.99 acres will remain in the same O designation.

The result of this project, if approved, would be two – four-acre parcels designated for general commercial uses, and an 11.99-acre parcel designated for office and related uses (there is an approved use permit for a church). The applicant has indicated they would like to locate an auto dealership(s) on one or both four-acre parcels, but no application has yet been filed. While no actual development project is proposed as part of this application, the newly applied Regional Commercial land use designation and accompanying C-3 zoning allows almost all commercial uses.

Compatibility with Neighboring Uses
The vacant site is surrounded by four different land uses, two of which that could be sensitive to neighboring commercial uses – River Valley High School on the south and single-family residences along the west side. The other two sides – an auto dealership to the east and SR 20 to the north, are very compatible with the proposal.

Regarding the nearby single-family residences, the portion of the project across El Margarita Road from the homes (the 11.99-acre Parcel 3 on the tentative parcel map) is designated for office type uses and is not proposed to be changed. A use permit for a church was previously approved for this property.

As such there will be no change in regard to compatibility with the future development of that 11.99 acres and the existing residences.

River Valley High School is across the street from the 8-acre area included in the GPA/RZ proposal.

While not ideal to place general commercial uses across from the high school, the situation already exists for the auto dealership next door. Staff is not aware of any incompatibility issues associated with that situation. The applicant has indicated that an auto dealership(s) is being considered for the two four-acre parcels, but almost all general commercial uses could be constructed on them. A significant landscape buffer would reduce any potential compatibility issues. Per the existing commercial development standards, a landscape buffer is required (10 or 20 feet, depending on project size), and if adequately landscaped this should be an appropriate buffer.

Traffic
Elimination of the X19 Zone District: The X19 Zone District was originally applied to this property to ensure that when the property is developed it will be responsible for paying its fair share of local transportation needs. Specifically, the X19 zoning identified several intersections, including Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard and Tharp Road/Lassen Boulevard, that were identified. At that time the improvements needed for these intersections to support local growth were not in place. The X19 zoning was added to provide an interim solution to that concern.

Since that time, according to the Public Works Department (November 1, 2022, memo from Ben Moody, Public Works Director), other programs have been established, making the X19 zoning unneeded. This includes the 2007 Yuba City Update of the AB 1600 Fee Justification Study, 2020 Traffic Model Update, 2021 Road Development Impact Fee Program, 2021 City of Yuba City Cumulative Traffic Forecasts and Operations Analysis, El Margarita Master Plan studies and various site-specific traffic studies performed in the area. Since there are now programs in place requiring those intersection improvements be timely made as part of developing these properties, and also that there is a mitigation measure applied to this project that refers to improvements to other nearby intersections (discussed below), the X19 Zone District is no longer necessary.

Other Intersections of Concern: There remains various intersections that are not included in the City’s

Development Impact Fee Program that would be impacted from development of this 19.99 acres. As provided in the Traffic study prepared several years ago for the El Margarita Master Plan (Transportation Impact Study For the El Margarita Master Plan by Fehr & Peers, January 2015), there remain four nearby intersections that are currently impacted to the extent that they do not or will not in the future meet City level of service criteria. While much of this is due to traffic generated by the nearby high school, just prior to and after school hours, new development in the vicinity will exacerbate this problem. Those intersections are:
• State Route 20/El Margarita Road
• Franklin Road/El Margarita Road
• El Margarita Road/Spirit Way
• Harter Parkway/Spirit Way
As this TPM/GPA/RZ is not an actual development project, it will not directly generate additional traffic.

But because the proposal will potentially allow for more intensive uses than presently allowed it could lead to development that will exacerbate traffic impacts at these impacted intersections.

As such a mitigation measure is included in the environmental document prepared for this project that provides for new development in this vicinity to pay its fair share for improving those intersections. The mitigation measure requires that the needed improvements for each of the intersections, and the estimated costs be disaggregated per a fair share ratio to be paid by the developer. Additionally, the City Council has provided input at the January 17, 2023 Council meeting for staff to initiate discussions with Caltrans regarding intersection improvements at the intersection of El Margarita Road and SR 20 that includes an option to restrict traffic to right in – right out from El Margarita Road, thus changing future mitigation responsibilities, that will be determined at the time of development. The mitigation measure provides flexibility to establish a developer fee and responsibilities based on the actual future project impacts and needed improvements.

Noise
Noise during construction of a commercial facility may be noticeable at the high school, based on a recent noise study for a nearby similar a situation. To lessen the noise on the high school campus a list of noise reduction actions that would lower the noise during construction are part of the mitigation measures recommended for the any future development projects that could result from this action.

Operational noise from a commercial development, likely an auto dealership(s), near the high school is not expected to be an issue as the situation has existed for some time from the existing auto dealership next door.

Availability of City Services
City water and wastewater are available to the property. A stormwater drainage system is nearby that will be operated and maintained by the City, and which connects with the greater system operated by the Sutter County Water Agency that drains into the Live Oak Canal.

Environmental Determination:

An environmental assessment was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This process included the distribution of requests for comment from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations.

Based upon the attached environmental assessment and the list of identified mitigation measures, staff

has determined that there is no evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for this project. The findings of the mitigated negative declaration are that, with the proposed mitigations for Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed TPM/GPA/RZ will not create any significant environmental impacts to the neighborhood or vicinity. As a result, the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The proposed mitigations are included with the project conditions of approval.

As a result, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project together with the recommended findings in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been refined to clarify responsibilities for performance and monitoring of the same, and a noise mitigation measure clarified that it is the project that is responsible for noise mitigation.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost for processing land use entitlements is funded by the project applicant through the payment of application fees.

Alternatives:

1. Deny the application to establish Rezone 22-08.

2. Provide staff with alternate direction.

Recommendation:

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to adopt Rezone 22-08 for the Spirit Drive Parcel Map project located at the southeast corner of State Route 20 (Colusa Highway) and El Margarita Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 63-010-141) by title only and waive the second reading.

Attachments:

1. City Council Ordinance to Adopt RZ 22-08

2. Spirit Drive Planning Commission Staff Report Packet, December 14, 2022 Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ashley Potočnik
Development Liaison
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

1 ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY TO ADOPT REZONE 22-08 FOR THE SPIRIT DRIVE PARCEL MAP PROJECT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF STATE ROUTE 20 (COLUSA HIGHWAY) AND EL MARGARITA ROAD (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
63-010-141).

WHEREAS, Yanni Limited L.L.C filed applications filed applications for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06, Rezone (RZ) 22-08, and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04 for the Spirit Drive Parcel Map project, in August 2022; and
WHEREAS, as a result the following entitlements are being considered for approval by the City:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06: which proposes to amend the land use designation of 8 acres from Office and Office Park to Regional Commercial. • Rezone (RZ) 22-08: which proposes to amend the zone district of the same 8 acres from an Office-Commercial Zone District combined with the X19 Zone District (C-O X19) to a Regional Commercial (C-3) Zone District.
• Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04: which proposes to create three parcels from a

19.99-acre parcel, which consists of two four-acre parcels and an 11.99-acre parcel for which the general plan and zoning will remain the same. • Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-15.
(collectively “Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment 22-15) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time it received input from City Staff and the applicant; public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission contingently approved the Spirit Drive Parcel Map (TPM 22-04) and contingently adopted Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-15; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt Environmental Assessment 22-15 and General Plan 22-06, and adopt an Ordinance to approve Rezone 22-08; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, the Yuba the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the project, at which time it received input from City Staff, public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the City Council, after which public testimony was closed and this ordinance introduced.

2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Yuba City considered said recommendations of the Planning Commission on the matter and after review and consideration of the Environmental Assessment, the City Council desires to find that Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-15 prepared for the project is in conformance with State and local environmental guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve RZ 22-08.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Yuba City does ordain as follows:

1. Recitals. The City Council finds that the recitals are true and correct, and incorporates the same herein as if set forth in full.

2. CEQA Findings: The City Council of the City of Yuba City has concurrently approved EA 22- 15 by adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment. No further CEQA is required, as CEQA has been completed for this project.

3. Rezone Findings. The City Council finds that Rezone 22-08 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 22-06. The City Council finds that Rezone 22-08 i) is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as amended and as further described in the City Council’s Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 22-06; ii) is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to promote and protect the public’s health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare; iii) the project would provide open space, light, air, privacy, convenience, access, aesthetic values, protection of environmental values, and protection of public and private improvements; and iv) the project will allow for the creation of quality economic growth and development for the City.

4. Approval of RZ 22-08. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City adopts an Ordinance approving RZ 22-08 and reclassify the zone districts for those districts on the zoning map of the City of Yuba City from Office Commercial (C-O X19) to General Commercial (C-3), and associated refinements of existing zoned district map boundaries as depicted for approximately eight acres as shown in Exhibit A.

5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

6. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published, in accordance with Government Code, Section 36933, or as otherwise required by law.

7. Effective Date of Resolution. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced by the City Council after waiving reading, except by Title, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of January

3 2023, and adopted the Ordinance after the second reading at a regular meeting held on the ______day of _____2023, by the following roll call vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recused:

CITY OF YUBA CITY
_____________________________
Wade Kirchner, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
_________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit A: Zoning Map, Rezone 22-08
Exhibit B: X19 Zone District Description
I, ______________________________, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Yuba City, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Ordinance passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City on the date and by the vote indicated herein.

4 EXHIBIT A

5

6 EXHIBIT B

7

ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF YUBA CITY

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 14, 2022
To: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Development Services Department
Presentation by: Ashley Potočnik, Development Liaison
Subject: Consideration of Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06, and Rezone (RZ) 22-08: Spirit Drive Parcel Map.

Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing and make the necessary findings to:

B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council of the City of Yuba City approve Environmental Assessment 22-15 and adopt an Ordinance to approve GPA 22-06 and RZ 22-08; and
C. Adopt a Resolution contingently approving TPM 22-04, Spirit Drive Parcel Map, subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, on 19.99-acres, located at the southeast corner of State Route 20 and El Margarita Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number:
63-010-141).

Applicant/Owner: Yanni Limited L.L.C / Calvary Christian Center Project Location: The 19.99 acres is located at the southeast corner of State Route 20 and El Margarita Road. APN: 63-010-141
General Plan: Existing: Office and Office Park (O)
Proposed: Eight acres are proposed to be re-designated to Regional Commercial (RC).

Zoning: Existing: Commercial-Office X19 Zone District (C-O X19) Proposed: Eight acres are proposed to be rezoned to the General Commercial (C-3) Zone District.

Project Description:

The proposal is a project that includes Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06, Rezoning (RZ) 22-08, titled Spirit Drive Parcel Map.

TPM 22-04 will divide a 19.99-acre parcel into three parcels that will consist of two – four-acre

Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
2 parcels (the same eight acres as the discussed below in the GPA and RZ) and a 11.99-acre parcel for which the general plan and rezoning is not proposed to be amended.

The GPA will redesignate eight acres of the 19.99-acre parcel from Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to a Regional Commercial (RC) designation. The remaining 11.99 acres will remain in the same O designation
The RZ will rezone the same eight acres from an Office Commercial Zone District combined with the X19 Zone District (C-O X19) to a General Commercial (C-3) Zone District. The deletion of the X Zone District would eliminate requirements for development of the property to pay its fair share of improvements to the Walton Avenue/Lassen Blvd. intersection, the Tharp Road/Lassen Blvd. intersection, and dedication of the appropriate right-of-way While no actual development project is proposed as part of this application, the newly applied Regional Commercial land use designation and accompanying C-3 zoning allows almost all commercial uses.

Background:

The subject site is part of the previously approved Calvary Christian Center Use Permit (UP) 07- 13 which permitted the development of a larger 23-acre site with an 80,000 square foot sanctuary building, a 16,380 square foot elementary school capable of accommodating over 300 students, a baseball diamond, soccer fields, and 612 parking spaces. Use Permit 07-13 was approved by Planning Commission on November 18, 2009, and has received six extensions of time with an expiration date of August 2, 2023.

In 2018, two acres of the 23-acre site were sold to the neighboring property to expand the John L. Sullivan auto dealership (GPA 18-01, RZ 18-01, DP 18-01, and EA 18-06).

Analysis
The result of this project, if approved, would be two – four-acre parcels designated for general commercial uses, and an 11.99-acre parcel designated for office and related uses (there is an approved use permit for a church). The applicant has indicated they would like to locate an auto dealership(s) on one or both four-acre parcels, but no application has yet been filed. As there is other nearby urban development, all City services are available to this property.

Compatibility with neighboring uses:

TABLE 1: BORDERING LAND USES
North: State Route 20 (Colusa Highway).

South: Spirit Way and River Valley High School across the street.

East: El Margarita Road with several single-family residences across the street.

West: Auto dealership
The vacant site is surrounded by four different land uses, two of which that could be sensitive

Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
3 to neighboring commercial uses – River Valley High School on the south and single-family residences along the west side. The other two sides – an auto dealership to the east and SR 20 to the north, are very compatible with the proposal.

Regarding the nearby single-family residences, the portion of the project across El Margarita Road from the homes (the 11.99-acre Parcel 3 on the tentative parcel map) is designated for office type uses and is not proposed to be changed. A use permit for a church was previously approved for this property. As such there will be no change in regard to compatibility with the future development of that 11.99 acres and the existing residences.

River Valley High School is across the street from the 8-acre area included in the GPA/RZ proposal. While not ideal to place general commercial uses across from the high school, the situation already exists for the auto dealership next door. Staff is not aware of any incompatibility issues associated with that situation. The applicant has indicated that an auto dealership(s) is being considered for the two four-acre parcels, but almost all general commercial uses could be constructed on them. A significant landscape buffer would reduce any potential compatibility issues. Per the existing commercial development standards, a landscape buffer is required (10 or 20 feet, depending on project size), and if adequately landscaped this should be an appropriate buffer.

Traffic
Elimination of the X19 Zone District: The X19 Zone District was originally applied to this property to ensure that when the property is developed it will be responsible for paying its fair share of local transportation needs. Specifically, the X19 zoning identified several intersections, including Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard and Tharp Road/Lassen Boulevard, that were identified. At that time the improvements needed for these intersections to support local growth were not in place. The X19 zoning was added to provide an interim solution to that concern.

Since that time, according to the Public Works Department (November 1, 2022, memo from Ben Moody, Public Works Director), other programs have been established, making the X19 zoning unneeded. This includes the 2007 Yuba City Update of the AB 1600 Fee Justification Study, 2020 Traffic Model Update, 2021 Road Development Impact Fee Program, 2021 City of Yuba City Cumulative Traffic Forecasts and Operations Analysis, El Margarita Master Plan studies and various site-specific traffic studies performed in the area. Since there are now programs in place requiring those intersection improvements be timely made as part of developing these properties, and also that there is a mitigation measure applied to this project that refers to improvements to other nearby intersections (discussed below), the X19 Zone District is no longer necessary.

Other Intersections of Concern: There remains various intersections that are not included in the City’s Development Impact Fee Program that would be impacted from development of this

19.99 acres. As provided in the Traffic study prepared several years ago for the El Margarita Master Plan (Transportation Impact Study For the El Margarita Master Plan by Fehr & Peers, January 2015), there remain four nearby intersections that are currently impacted to the extent that they do not or will not in the future meet City level of service criteria. While much of this is due to traffic generated by the nearby high school just prior to and after school hours, new development in the vicinity will exacerbate this problem. Those intersections are:

Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
4 • State Route 20/El Margarita Road
• Franklin Road/El Margarita Road
• El Margarita Road/Spirit Way
• Harter Parkway/Spirit Way
As this TPM/GPA/RZ is not an actual development project, it will not directly generate additional traffic. But because the proposal will potentially allow for more intensive uses than presently allowed it could lead to development that will further exacerbate traffic impacts on these impacted intersections.

At this time the City does not have an adopted program to improve those intersections. As such a mitigation measure is included in the environmental document prepared for this project that provides for new development in this vicinity to pay its fair share for improving those intersections. The mitigation requires that the City determine needed improvements at each of the intersections and the estimated cost be disaggregated per a fair share ratio to be paid by each new project. The mitigation stipulates that no new development occur on these properties prior to implementation of the study results.

Noise
Noise during construction of a commercial facility may be noticeable at the high school, based on a recent noise study for a nearby similar a situation. To lessen the noise on the high school campus a list of noise reduction actions that would lower the noise during construction are part of the mitigation measures recommended for the any future development projects that could result from this action.

Operational noise from a commercial development, likely an auto dealership(s), near the high school is not expected to be an issue as the situation has existed for some time from the existing auto dealership next door.

Availability of City services
City water and wastewater are available to the property. A stormwater drainage system is nearby that will be operated and maintained by the City, and which connects with the greater system operated by the Sutter County Water Agency that drains into the Live Oak Canal.

Environmental Determination:

An environmental assessment was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This process included the distribution of requests for comment from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations.

Based upon the attached environmental assessment and the list of identified mitigation measures, staff has determined that there is no evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for this project. The findings of the mitigated negative declaration are that, with the proposed mitigations for Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Tribal Cultural

Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
5 Resources, the proposed TPM/GPA/RZ will not create any significant environmental impacts to the neighborhood or vicinity. As a result, the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The proposed mitigations are included with the project conditions of approval.

Recommended Actions:

A. Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommends the following findings:

Environmental Findings:

1. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that an environmental assessment/ initial study was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The process included the distribution of requests for comments from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. Preparation of the environmental assessment necessitated a thorough review of the proposed project and relevant environmental issues and considered previously prepared environmental and technical studies. While the proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, based on its independent judgement and analysis the Planning Commission recommends the City Council find that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. The project-specific mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects are set forth in the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment.

2. Adoption of the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, including the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as the project will not result in any significant, adverse environmental impacts with the mitigations proposed. The Yuba City Development Services Department is located at 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, CA 95993, and is recommended to be designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decision is based.

The Planning Commission further recommends the City Council authorize the Director, or designee, to execute and file with the Sutter County Clerk, as appropriate, a Notice of Determination for approval of the project that complies with the CEQA Guidelines.

General Plan Amendment and Rezone Findings:

1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone are consistent with the applicable General Plan and specific plan.

Evidence: Of the proposed three parcels on the 19.99-acre property, the 11.99-acre parcel will remain designated as Office and Office Park. The two-four acre lots would be rePage 336 of 728 Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
6 designated to Regional Commercial. These designations are consistent with other policies and programs in the General Plan.

The project supports and forwards the following highlighted goals contained within the General Plan:

3.8-G-1: Maintain Yuba City’s prominence as the center of retail activity in Sutter County.

3.8-I-4: Ensure that neighborhood retail centers and commercial service buildings are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and with adjacent travel corridors

3.9-I-7: Establish setback, landscaping, and screening requirement for employment center development to provide adequate buffering adjacent to residential neighborhoods.

El Margarita Road, which borders the west side of the property, is designated in the General Plan as a minor arterial. The on-site portion of the street will be improved through conditions tied to development of the property as well as intersection improvements required by implementation of Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure 1 that will lead to establishing their fair share of the improvements needed due to the increase in traffic generated by future development, making the TPM/GPA/RZ consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element.

As determined in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this proposal, there are no significant impacts on any agricultural land, biological resources, water quality, and air quality. Thus, the land division is consistent with the Environmental Conservation Element of the General Plan.

2. That the sites are physically suited for the density of development.

Evidence: The site is flat and has all City services available to it or, in the case of stormwater drainage, the system will be designed and constructed to be part of a larger drainage system operated by the City and the Sutter County Water Agency. The environmental document prepared for the project did not find any environmental concerns that could not be mitigated to below a level of significance or where the inadequacies of the property that would provide concerns for its proposed development.

3. That the sites are physically suited for the type of development.

Evidence: The 19.99-acre commercial land division is designated by the General Plan for two types of uses. The proposed 11.99-acre lot will remain designated for office development and related uses. The two proposed four-acre lots are designated for regional commercial uses. As all City services will be brought to the property and one end of the property is bordered by a City designated collector street, the access to the properties is designed to accommodate commercial levels of traffic. The three parcels are each large enough to accommodate office and commercial type uses.

4. That the General Plan Amendment and Rezone is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
7 Evidence: Based on the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project, with the proposed mitigation measures, the land division will not create any significant environmental impacts, including adverse impacts on fish and wildlife.

5. That the General Plan Amendment and Rezone is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

Evidence: Every new lot will be connected to City water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage systems, all of which will avoid public health problems.

Tentative Parcel Map Findings:

Yuba City Municipal Code Section 8-2.609, and the California Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 require that the City deny the subdivision map if it makes any of the following findings (the required findings are in italics).

1. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plan.

Evidence: Of the proposed three parcels on the 19.99-acre property, the 11.99-acre parcel will remain designated as Office and Office Park. The two-four acre lots would be redesignated to Regional Commercial. These designations are consistent with other policies and programs in the General Plan.

El Margarita Road, which borders the west side of the property, is designated in the General Plan as a minor arterial. The on-site portion of the street will be improved through conditions tied to development of the property as well as intersection improvements required by implementation of Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure 1 that will lead to establishing their fair share of the improvements needed due to the increase in traffic generated by future development, making the TPM/GPA/RZ consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element.

As determined in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this proposal, there are no significant impacts on any agricultural land, biological resources, water quality, and air quality. Thus, the land division is consistent with the Environmental Conservation Element of the General Plan.

There is no specific plan for this area.

2. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans or adopted City standards.

Evidence: As discussed above, the land division meets all General Plan consistency requirements. Further, the project is conditioned to meet all City development and improvement standards including water, wastewater and the stormwater drainage systems, street cross-sections, and streetscape landscaping. Each new lot exceeds the minimum lot size requirements of the respective C-O and C-3 Zone Districts.

3. That the site is not physically suited for the density of development:

Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
8 Evidence: The site is flat and has all City services available to it or, in the case of stormwater drainage, the system will be designed and constructed to be part of a larger drainage system operated by the City and the Sutter County Water Agency. The environmental document prepared for the project did not find any environmental concerns that could not be mitigated to below a level of significance or where the inadequacies of the property that would provide concerns for its proposed development.

4. That the site is not physically suited for the type of development.

Evidence: The 19.99-acre commercial land division is designated by the General Plan for two types of uses. The proposed 11.99-acre lot will remain designated for office development and related uses. The two proposed four-acre lots are designated for regional commercial uses. As all City services will be brought to the property and one end of the property is bordered by a City designated collector street, the access to the properties is designed to accommodate commercial levels of traffic. The three parcels are each large enough to accommodate office and commercial type uses.

5. That the design of the subdivision or likely improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Evidence: Based on the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project, with the proposed mitigation measures, the land division will not create any significant environmental impacts, including adverse impacts on fish and wildlife.

6. That the design of the subdivision map or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

Evidence: Every new lot will be connected to City water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage systems, all of which will avoid public health problems.

7. None of the findings in Section 6-.601 of the Municipal Code is satisfied.

Evidence: This project complies with this finding as the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) is the “Local Flood Management Agency” for the Sutter-Butte Basin and as such, has the responsibility to prepare an annual report demonstrating adequate progress as defined in California Government Code Section 645007 (a). SBFCA has prepared Adequate Progress Report Updates for ULOP and transmitted them to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. As such this site has adequate flood protection. Additionally, the City has imposed conditions on the Development Plan that will protect property within the area to the urban level in urban areas and urbanizing areas.

8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision:

Evidence: There are no known existing easements that will be adversely affected by this land division.

Based on the discussions provided, none of the required findings that would require denial of the

Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
9 parcel map can be made. Therefore, the tentative parcel map may be approved.

B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council of the City of Yuba City approve Environmental Assessment 22-15 and adopt an Ordinance to approve GPA 22-06 and RZ 22-08; and
C. Adopt a Resolution contingently approving TPM 22-04, Spirit Drive Parcel Map, subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, on 19.99-acres, located at the southeast corner of State Route 20 and El Margarita Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 63- 10-141).

Attachments:

1. PC 22-17: Resolution Recommending Approval of GPA 22-06 and RZ 22-08 Exhibit A: General Plan Map, GPA 22-06
Exhibit B: Zoning Map, RZ 22-08

2. PC 22-18: Resolution to Contingently Approve TPM 22-04 Exhibit A: Tentative Parcel Map 22-04
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval

3. Location Map

4. X19 Zone District Description

5. Environmental Assessment 22-15 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program

6. Memo from Public Works, dated November 1, 2022

7. Public Comment Received

ATTACHMENT 1

PC 22-17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 22-17

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY (PLANNING COMMISSION) RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

YUBA CITY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 22-15, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22-06 AND REZONE 22-08 AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF STATE ROUTE 20 (COLUSA HIGHWAY) AND EL MARGARITA ROAD (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 63-010-141).

WHEREAS, the City received an application for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06, Rezoning (RZ) 22-08 for a 19.9-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of State Route 20 and El Margarita Road (APN: 63-010-141); and WHEREAS, as a result the following entitlements are being considered for approval:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06: which proposes to amend the land use designation of 8 acres from Office and Office Park to Regional Commercial. • Rezone (RZ) 22-08: which proposes to amend the zone district of the same 8 acres from an Office-Commercial Zone District combined with the X19 Zone District (C-O X19) to a Regional Commercial (C-3) Zone District.
• Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04: which proposes to create three parcels from a

19.99-acre parcel, which consists of two four-acre parcels and an 11.99-acre parcel for which the general plan and zoning will remain the same. • Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-15
(collectively “Project”); and
WHEREAS, this property is within Yuba City’s city limits and the property owner wished to enhance development opportunities for the property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2022110294) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Environmental Assessment 22-15, General Plan Amendment 22- 06, Rezone 22-08, and Tentative Parcel Map 22-04, at which time it received input from City Staff, public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission now desires to recommend the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Environmental Assessment 22-15, General Plan Amendment 22-06 and Rezone 22-08.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City resolves and orders as follows:

1. Recitals. The Planning Commission finds that the recitals are true and correct, and incorporates the same herein as set forth in full.

PC 22-17

2. CEQA Findings. The Planning Commission finds and determines, and recommends that the City Council find and determine, that there is no substantial evidence in the record that General Plan Amendment 22-06 or Rezone 22-08 may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the MND prepared in Environmental Assessment 22-15.

Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and determine as follows:
a. The Environmental Assessment / Initial Study was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis. This process included the distribution of requests for comment from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. Preparation of Environmental Assessment 22-15 necessitated a thorough review of the proposed project and relevant environmental issues and considered previously prepared environmental and technical studies. While the proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, based on its independent judgment and analysis, the Commission recommends the City Council find that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effect on the environment will occur, and there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are potentially significant and adverse.

The proposed project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the “Mandatory Findings of Significance” contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project-specific mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects are set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment. As such, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council also find and determine that in light of the entire administrative record and the substantial evidence before it, the project has been adequately environmentally assessed as required by CEQA per Environmental Assessment 22-15.

3. Adoption of MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, including the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as the project will not result in any significant, adverse, environmental impacts with the mitigation imposed. The Yuba City Development Services Department located at 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA 95993, is designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision is based. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council authorize the Director, or designee, to execute and file with the Sutter County Clerk, as appropriate, a Notice of Determination for approval of the project.

4. General Plan Findings. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find, that the public necessity, general welfare, good planning practices, public interest, and convenience warrant approval of General Plan Amendment 22-06, including the following:
a. Of the proposed three parcels on the 19.99-acre property, the 11.99-acre parcel will

PC 22-17
remain designated as Office and Office Park. The two-four acre lots would be redesignated to Regional Commercial. These designations are consistent with other policies and programs in the General Plan.

The project supports and forwards the following highlighted goals contained within the General Plan:

3.8-G-1: Maintain Yuba City’s prominence as the center of retail activity in Sutter County.

3.8-I-4: Ensure that neighborhood retail centers and commercial service buildings are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and with adjacent travel corridors

3.9-I-7: Establish setback, landscaping, and screening requirement for employment center development to provide adequate buffering adjacent to residential neighborhoods.

El Margarita Road, which borders the west side of the property, is designated in the General Plan as a minor arterial. The on-site portion of the street will be improved through conditions tied to development of the property as well as intersection improvements required by implementation of Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure 1 that will lead to establishing their fair share of the improvements needed due to the increase in traffic generated by future development, making the TPM/GPA/RZ consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element.

As determined in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this proposal, there are no significant impacts on any agricultural land, biological resources, water quality, and air quality. Thus, the land division is consistent with the Environmental Conservation Element of the General Plan.

The site is flat and has all City services available to it or, in the case of stormwater drainage, the system will be designed and constructed to be part of a larger drainage system operated by the City and the Sutter County Water Agency. The environmental document prepared for the project did not find any environmental concerns that could not be mitigated to below a level of significance or where the inadequacies of the property that would provide concerns for its proposed development.

The 19.99-acre commercial land division is designated by the General Plan for two types of uses. The proposed 11.99-acre lot will remain designated for office development and related uses. The two proposed four-acre lots are designated for regional commercial uses. As all City services will be brought to the property and one end of the property is bordered by a City designated collector street, the access to the properties is designed to accommodate commercial levels of traffic. The three parcels are each large enough to accommodate office and commercial type uses.

Based on the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project, with the proposed mitigation measures, the land division will not create any significant environmental impacts, including adverse impacts on fish and wildlife.

Every new lot will be connected to City water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage systems, all of which will avoid public health problems.

PC 22-17

5. Recommendation of Approval of GPA 22-06. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopts General Plan Amendment No. 22-06, per the attached Exhibit “A” made a part hereof by this reference, be designated to the General Plan land use designations, as depicted in Exhibit “A”.

6. Rezone Findings. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find and determine, that Rezone 22-08 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 22-06. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that Rezone 22-08 i) is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as amended and as further described above; ii) is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to promote and protect the public’s health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare; iii) the project would provide open space, light, air, privacy, convenience, access, aesthetic values, protection of environmental values, and protection of public and private improvements; and iv) the project will allow for the creation of quality balanced neighborhoods that provide housing options for the City.

7. Recommendation of Approval of RZ 22-08. Based on the information provided above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of Yuba City that it adopt an ordinance approving RZ 22-08 and reclassify the zone districts for those districts as depicted in Exhibit “B” shown on the zoning map of the City of Yuba City.

8. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 14, 2022, by Commissioner _______ who moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Commissioner _______ and carried by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recused:

By order of the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City.

Michele Blake, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

Benjamin Moody, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Attachments:

Exhibit A: General Plan Map, GPA 22-06
Exhibit B: Zoning Map, RZ 22-08

EXHIBIT A

1 4.00 ACRES 3 11.99 ACRES

SPIRIT DRIVE
STATE ROUTE 20 EB

EL MARGARITA ROAD
696.1'
728.2'
634.3'

21.6' 141.6'
602.8'

SULLIVAN
63-010-142

YUBA CITY UNIFIED
63-010-089
MILNER
063-010-015
MILNER
063-010-082
HILL
063-010-016
MANN
63-010-017
DUTTON
63-010-024
DEAN
63-010-018
2 4.00 ACRES
698.8'
700.3'
249.8' 248.9'
249.8' 157.1' 91.7'
SCALE 1' = 60' 0 30' 60' 120' 240'

LOCATION MAP
TEL: 530.742.6485
FAX: 530.742.5639
1204 E STREET, P.O. BOX B
MARYSVILLE, CA 95901
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS SINCE 1892

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
PM 22-04(SPIRIT DRIVE PARCEL MAP)

YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 16, 2022
SCALE 1' = 1500'

HARTER PARKWAY
N. GEORGE WASH BLVD.

EL MARGARITA ROAD

SPIRIT WAY

LASSEN BLVD
STATE ROUTE 20
UPRR (ABANDONED) MONROE ROAD LEGEND: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

FROM OFFICE-OFFICE PARK TO REGIONAL
COMMERCIALCURRENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONOFFICE-OFFICE PARK TO REMAIN AS IS.

PROPOSED LOT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PARCEL 1 AND 2 OF PM 22-04
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:OFFICE-OFFICE PARK TO REGIONALCOMMERCIAL PARCEL 3 OF PM 22-04 TO REMAIN: OFFICE-OFFICE PARK

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

EXHIBIT B

1 4.00 ACRES 3 11.99 ACRES

SPIRIT DRIVE
STATE ROUTE 20 EB

EL MARGARITA ROAD
696.1'
728.2'
634.3'

21.6' 141.6'
602.8'

SULLIVAN
63-010-142

YUBA CITY UNIFIED
63-010-089
MILNER
063-010-015
MILNER
063-010-082
HILL
063-010-016
MANN
63-010-017
DUTTON
63-010-024
DEAN
63-010-018
2 4.00 ACRES
698.8'
700.3'
249.8' 248.9'
249.8' 157.1' 91.7'
SCALE 1' = 60' 0 30' 60' 120' 240'

LOCATION MAP
TEL: 530.742.6485
FAX: 530.742.5639
1204 E STREET, P.O. BOX B
MARYSVILLE, CA 95901
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS SINCE 1892

PROPOSED REZONE FOR
PM 22-04 (SPIRIT DRIVE PARCEL MAP)

YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 15, 2022
SCALE 1' = 1500'

HARTER PARKWAY
N. GEORGE WASH BLVD.

EL MARGARITA ROAD

SPIRIT WAY

LASSEN BLVD
STATE ROUTE 20
UPRR (ABANDONED) MONROE ROAD LEGEND:

PROPOSED REZONE FROM C-OX19 TO C-3X24/25CURRENTLY ZONED C-OX19 TO REMAIN AS IS.

PARCEL 1 AND 2 OF PM 22-04REZONE: C-OX19 TO C-3

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PARCEL 3 OF PM 22-04
TO REMAIN: C-OX19

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

ATTACHMENT 2

PC 22-18
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 22-18

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY (PLANNING COMMISSION) CONTINGENTLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) 22-04, SPIRIT DRIVE PARCEL MAP, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES, CREATING THREE PARCELS ON 19.99 ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF STATE ROUTE 20 (COLUSA HIGHWAY) AND EL MARGARITA ROAD (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 63-010-141).

WHEREAS, the City received an application for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04 for the property at the southeast corner of State Route 20 and El Margarita Road (APN: 63-010-141) in 2022 to subdivide the 19.99 acres into 3 parcels; and
WHEREAS, all lots created will be provided a full range of City services with stormwater being collected into the City’s drainage system and drains into the Live Oak Canal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed related Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-15 considering a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project, which provides mitigation measures that reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant level; and
WHEREAS, a review of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations determined that the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations with the approval of General Plan Amendment 22-06 and Rezone 22-08; and WHEREAS, the City on November 12, 2022, published a legal notice and a public hearing notice was mailed to each property owner within at least 350 feet of the project site in compliance with State law concerning the Planning Commission’s consideration on December 14, 2022; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Environmental Assessment 22-15, General Plan Amendment 22- 06, Rezone 22-08, and Tentative Parcel Map 22-04, at which time it received input from City Staff, public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission now desires to contingently approve TPM 22-04 such that no decision of approval of TPM 22-04 becomes final and effective until immediately after the City Council adopts the MND (EA 22-15) and adopts GPA 22-06 and Rezone 22-08; and if no such approval occurs within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution, then the Planning Commission intends that TPM 22-04 be set for further consideration and a final decisions by the Planning Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City resolves and orders as follows:

1. Recitals. The Planning Commission finds that the recitals are true and correct, and incorporates the same herein as set forth in full.

2. CEQA Findings. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to evaluate the

PC 22-18
environmental effects of the Project, including the development of the Spirit Drive Parcel Map area. The Planning Commission has fully considered the MND and has concurrently recommended it to the City Council for adoption. The Planning Commission finds that TPM 22-04 is consistent with, and have been fully assessed by, the MND, and that TPM 22-04 is an entitlement specifically anticipated for the proposed Project in the MND, and is consistent with the purposes and intent of the MND.

3. Parcel Map Findings. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find, that none of the findings required by Yuba City Municipal Code Section 8-2.609, and the California Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 that require the City to deny approval of a tentative parcel map apply to this project:
i. The proposed tentative subdivision map is not consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plan.

Evidence: Of the three proposed commercial lots on approximately 19.99 acres one will be designated in the General Plan as Office and Office Park (11.99-acre parcel) and two – four-acre parcels will be designated Regional Commercial. As no development of the properties is proposed, an intensity criterion can be established.

However, the parcels are large and can each accommodate a sizable building(s) along with required parking and landscaping.

El Margarita Road is designated in the General Plan as a collector street. The onsite portions of El Margarita Road will be improved to a collector standard as part of the development of the properties. There is also a mitigation measure requiring the development of the properties to also pay its fair share of improvements too nearby intersections, mitigating any impacts that the increased traffic that development of the properties may create.

As determined in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the land division, there are no significant impacts on any agricultural land, biological resources, water quality, and air quality.
ii. The design and improvement of the tentative subdivision map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans or adopted City standards.

Evidence: As discussed above, this commercial land division meets all General Plan consistency requirements. Although no specific development is proposed, any project will be required to meet all City development standards and improvement standards including water, wastewater and the stormwater drainage system, street cross-sections, streetscape landscaping, and any new buildings will have to meet all design standards provided in the Yuba City Design Guidelines. iii. That the site is not physically suited for the density of development.

Evidence: The site is flat and has all City services available to it or, in the case of stormwater drainage, the system will be designed and constructed to connect to a larger drainage system operated by the Sutter County Water Agency. The environmental document prepared for the project did not find any environmental concerns that could not be mitigated to below a level of significance. iv. That the site is not physically suited for the type of development.

PC 22-18
Evidence: The proposed land division is designated by the General Plan for commercial and office development. As previously discussed, the proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot size requirements of the Zoning Regulations, and all City services are available to the site.
v. That the design of the subdivision map or likely improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Evidence: Based on the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project, the project will not create any significant environmental impacts, including adverse impacts on fish and wildlife.
vi. That the design of the subdivision maps or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

Evidence: Each new parcel will be connected to City water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems, which will avoid public health problems. vii. None of the findings in Section 6-.601 of the Municipal Code is satisfied.

Evidence: This project complies with this finding as the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) is the “Local Flood Management Agency” for the Sutter-Butte Basin and as such, has the responsibility to prepare an annual report demonstrating adequate progress as defined in California Government Code Section 645007 (a).

SBFCA has prepared Adequate Progress Report Updates for ULOP and transmitted them to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. As such this site has adequate flood protection. Additionally, the City has imposed conditions on the Development Plan that will protect property within the area to the urban level in urban areas and urbanizing areas.
viii. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Evidence: The new parcels will be served by public streets that are dedicated to the City for public use. There is no use of private streets or other types of easements that the project would conflict with. There are no known existing easements that will be adversely affected by this parcel map.

4. Recommendation of Approval of TPM 22-04. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves TPM 22-04, Spirit Drive Parcel Map, as shown in Exhibit A, subject to the conditions and mitigation measures as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, which approvals are contingent upon the following:
a. The approval of TPM 22-04 shall become final and effective immediately only after the City Council of the City of Yuba City i) adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 22-15), ii) adopts General Plan Amendment 22-06 and iii) adopts Rezone 22-08 (collectively “Council Approvals”). If all of the Council Approvals are not made within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution, then TPM 22-04 shall be returned to the Planning Commission for further

PC 22-18
consideration and a final decision. If Council Approvals are made within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution, but any change is made by the Council to any of the Council Approvals in a manner that could reasonably affect the findings of the Planning Commission hearing, or require a modification or addition of a condition of approval to be consistent with a Council Approval, then TPM 22-04 shall be returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration and a final decision.

5. Final Action and Appeals. This action shall become final and effective 10 days after, and only upon, the Council Approvals including the MND and adoption of GPA 22-06 and RZ 22-08, unless within such 10 days an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of the Yuba City Zoning Ordinance.

The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 14, 2022, by Commissioner _______ who moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Commissioner _______ and carried by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recused:

By order of the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City.

Michele Blake, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

Benjamin Moody, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Tentative Parcel Map 22-04
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval

EXHIBIT A

711100

56.854LANE LINE
71110156.785LANE LINE
71110256.502FOG71110356.414LIP71110456.292FL
71110556.633TBC
711106

56.651
TBW
71110756.501TBW 711108

56.425TBC
71110956.062
FL
711110

56.246
LIP71111156.314FOG
71111255.992DI711113

55.808
DI
711114

55.879
DI
71111556.009DI
71111657.014
SDMH
71111758.547
FEN
71111857.748GRD
71111956.654LANE LINE
71112056.670LANE LINE
71112156.764
SSMH
71112256.752LANE LINE
71112356.826LANE LINE71112456.538FOG
71112556.408LIP71112656.325
FL
711127

56.648
TBC
711128

56.886
GRD
71112956.724GRD
71113056.530TBC71113156.226
FL
71113256.369LIP
71113356.462
FOG
71113456.736LANE LINE
71113556.802LANE LINE
71113656.341LANE LINE
71113756.330LANE LINE71113856.020
FOG
71113955.888LIP71114055.798
FL
71114156.086TBC
71114256.712GRD
71114356.331FH
71114456.272WV
71114556.273WV
71114656.268WV
71114756.006

LANE LINE
71114855.962LANE LINE71114955.668FOG
71115055.539
LIP71115155.458FL
711152

55.763
TBC
71115355.866GRD
71115455.922LITE POLE
711155

55.818
EVLT
71115655.842
EVLT711157

55.797
EVLT
711158

55.844
EVLT
71115955.426
GRD711160

55.349TBC71116155.023
FL
71116255.110
LIP
71116355.257
FOG
71116455.582

LANE LINE
711165

55.602

LANE LINE
71116655.229LANE LINE
711167

55.256

LANE LINE
71116854.800FOG
71116954.651LIP
71117054.481
FL
711171

54.958
TBC
71117254.430DI
71117354.528DI
71117454.498
DI
71117554.394
DI
71117655.207GRD
71117756.017GRD
71117855.378GRD
71117955.262TBC71118054.915FL71118154.994LIP711182

55.143
FOG
71118355.466

LANE LINE
71118455.445LANE LINE
71118555.720LANE LINE
71118655.783LANE LINE
71118755.466FOG
71118855.339
LIP71118955.215FL
71119055.525TBC
71119155.628GRD
71119256.539
711193 GRD55.585

LITE POLE
71119455.624EVLT
71119555.602
EVLT
71119655.617EVLT
71119755.617
EVLT
71119855.956FH
71119956.021GRD
711200

55.869
TBC71120155.540
FL
71120255.642
LIP
71120355.728FOG
711204

55.886
WV
711205

55.891
WV
71120655.900
WV 711207

56.149
WV
711208

56.034

LANE LINE
71120955.971LANE LINE
71121056.364

LANE LINE
71121156.305LANE LINE
71121256.063FOG
71121355.984LIP
71121455.834
FL
71121556.178TBC
71121655.843GRD
71121756.157GRD
71121855.885TBC
71121955.561
FL
71122055.629LIP
71122155.765
FOG
71122256.044LANE LINE
71122356.120LANE LINE
71122455.983

LANE LINE
71122556.011LANE LINE
71122656.662
SIGN
71122755.050
DI
71122855.210DI
71122955.187
DI71123055.082
71123155.633TBC
71123255.139
FL71123355.366
LIP
71123455.905WV
71123555.443LIP
71123655.414
FL
71123755.738TBC
711238

55.616
LIP
71123955.555FL
71124055.912TBC
71124155.676TBC
71124255.654FL
71124355.763
LIP
711244

55.798
LIP
711245

55.693
FL
711246

55.732
TBC
71124756.091TBC
71124855.763FL
71124955.857LIP
71125055.980LIP
71125155.914FL
711252

56.256
TBC
71125356.260GRD
71125455.963GRD
71125556.590GRD
71125657.201GRD
71125756.679GRD
71125856.748TBC
71125956.394FL
71126056.463
LIP
711261

56.660
FOG
71126256.838LANE LINE
71126356.989LANE LINE
71126456.952LANE LINE
71126557.102LANE LINE
71126657.083LANE LINE
711267

56.880
CL
71126856.593FOG
71126956.280LIP
711270

56.204
FL
71127156.543TBC
71127256.873
GRD
71127357.706GRD
71127455.722DI
71127555.836 711276

55.840DI
71127755.755
71127856.426
FH 711279

57.861GRD
711280

56.497
GRD
71128156.237TBC
71128255.815
FL
71128355.964LIP
711284

56.429
FOG
71128556.389WV
71128656.384WV
711287

56.420
WV
71128856.663CL
71128957.060CL
71129056.836FOG
711291

56.374
LIP
71129256.313
FL
71129356.649
TBC
71129456.470GRD
71129557.527GRD
71129656.898SIGN
71129757.255LITE POLE71129857.156
EVLT
711299

57.077 711300

57.036EVLT
711301

57.072
71130257.728GRD
711303

56.874
GRD
71130457.002TBC
71130556.631FL
71130656.709
LIP
71130757.295
FOG
71130857.404CL
711309

57.689SSMH
711310

57.652
WV
71131157.660
WV
71131257.626WV
71131357.610EVLT
71131457.668EVLT
71131557.761
71131657.635
EVLT
71131757.783PP
71131857.940FEN
71131957.557GUY
71132057.729GUY
71132158.201GUY
71132258.110GUY 711323

57.636
FH
71132457.619EP
71132557.761EP
71132657.502
EP
71132757.341
EP
71132858.677TOE
71132958.665TOE
71133058.142
TOE 711331

59.349GB
71133259.293GB
71133358.432TOE
71133457.958TOE
711335

59.368
GB
71133659.382GB
71133758.947GB
71133857.672TOE
71133960.485TOP
71134062.905TOP
71134162.630TOP
71134261.753TOP
71134362.135TOP
71134462.653GRD
71134563.058GRD
71150056.632CL
71150156.348
FOG
71150256.090FL
71150356.419TBC
71150456.368GRD
71150557.476GRD 711506

56.641
LP
71150757.322GRD
71150856.727TBC71150956.398FL
711510

56.522
LIP
71151156.633FOG
71151256.922CL
71151356.850CL
71151456.514CL
71151556.508CL
71151656.176FOG
71151756.029LIP
71151855.966FL
71151956.246
TBC71152056.832GRD
711521

56.562
GRD
71152255.869GRD711523

55.882
TBC711524

55.604
FL
71152555.690LIP
711526

55.808
FOG
711527

56.108
CL
711528

56.158
CL
71152955.804SSMH
71153055.739CL
71153155.728CL
71153255.425
FOG
71153355.264LIP
71153455.182FL
71153555.503
TBC
71153655.615GRD
711537

55.567
GRD
71153855.102GRD711539

55.087TBC71154054.708FL
71154154.800LIP
71154254.961FOG
71154355.330CL
711544

55.325
WV
71154555.317WV
71154655.302WV
711547

55.291
CL
711548

55.252
CL
71154955.274CL
71155054.936FOG
71155154.761LIP
71155254.664FL
71155354.960TBC
71155455.131GRD
71155555.631GRD
71155655.402GRD
71155755.328
TBC
71155854.995
FL
71155955.136LIP
71156055.246
FOG
711561

55.537
CL
71156255.522CL
71156355.715SSMH
71156455.753CL
71156555.823CL
71156655.504
FOG
711567

55.348
LIP
71156855.254FL
71156955.594TBC
711570

55.536
GRD
711571

56.110
GRD
71157255.911TBC
71157355.566
FL
71157455.684LIP
711575

55.797
FOG
711576

56.156
CL
71157756.194CL
711578

56.217
CL71157956.180CL
71158055.930FOG
71158155.879LIP
711582

55.765
FL
71158356.051TBC
71158456.033GRD
71158556.208GRD
71158655.735TBC71158755.397
FL
71158855.485LIP
71158955.580FOG
71159055.867LL
71159155.972CL
711592

56.413
WV 71159356.412
WV
71159456.506
WV
71159556.531WV
71159656.684LL
71159756.407CL
71159856.117FOG
71159955.991LIP
71160055.902
FL
711601

56.248
TBC
71160256.533LP
71160356.624GRD
71160456.719GRD
711605

56.267
GRD
71160656.440
TBC
711607

56.115
FL
71160856.222LIP
71160956.385FOG
711610

56.643
CL
71161156.881LL
71161256.941CL
71161356.620
FOG
71161456.368
LIP
71161556.280FL
711616

56.655
TBC
711617

56.652
GRD
711618

57.063
GRD
71161956.503LP
71162057.492GRD
71162156.585GRD
71162256.316TBC
71162356.006
FL
71162456.095
LIP
71162556.443FOG
71162656.791
SSMH
71162756.742CL
71162856.700CL
71162956.481FOG
71163055.985LIP
711631

55.882
FL
711632

56.230
TBC
71163356.834GRD
71163456.396
FH
71163555.629
DI
711636

55.701 711637

55.646
DI
71163856.310WV
71163956.336WV
71164056.335WV
711641

57.415
GRD
711642

56.577
GRD
71164356.586EVLT
711644

56.647
EVLT
71164556.570EVLT
71164656.700TBC
71164756.323FL
71164856.370LIP
71164956.776
FOG
71165057.028CL
71165157.488CL
71165257.336FOG
71165356.844
LIP
71165456.718FL
711655

57.050
TBC
711656

57.232
TBC
71165756.955
FL
71165857.004EP
711659

57.904
EP
71166057.792EP
71166157.665EP
71166259.519GRD
71166359.856GRD
71166459.262GRD
71166558.702GRD
71166657.779GRD
71166758.196
GRD
71166857.880GRD
71166957.438GRD
71167059.480GRD
71167161.518GRD
71167262.878GRD
71167362.532GRD
71167458.631
FEN
71167558.562FEN
71167658.706FEN
71167758.440
FEN
711678

58.626
FEN
71167958.489
FEN
71168058.787FEN
71168159.214FEN
71168258.742
FEN
71168359.038FEN
71168458.407FEN
71168557.648FEN
71168657.478FEN
71168757.831FEN
71168856.891
FEN
71168957.421
711690 FEN58.687GRD
71169159.212GRD
711692

59.276
GRD
71169358.402GRD
71169458.134GRD
71169558.374GRD
71169658.436GRD
71169758.378GRD
71169857.579GRD
71169957.121GRD
71170056.732GRD
711701

57.392
GRD
71170257.634GRD
71170358.935GRD
71170458.020GRD
71170558.452
GRD
711706

59.817
GRD
71170757.629GRD
71170858.493GRD
71170957.550GRD
71171057.605GRD
711711

57.614
GRD
71171257.507
GRD
71171356.911GRD
711714

56.410
GRD
71171557.463GRD
71171657.642GRD
71171757.337GRD
71171857.461GRD
71171958.081GRD
711720

57.566
GRD
71172157.537GRD
71172256.419GRD
71172357.695GRD
71172457.658GRD
71172557.295GRD
71172657.511GRD
711727

56.719
GRD
71172856.182GRD
71172957.275GRD
711730

57.425
GRD
71173157.755GRD
71173257.671GRD
71173356.420GRD
71173456.691GRD
71173556.311GRD
71173656.330GRD
71173757.791GRD
71173857.927GRD
71173957.471GRD
71174057.217GRD
71174156.674GRD
71174256.526GRD
71174357.213GRD
71174456.728GRD
71174557.311GRD
71174657.465GRD
71174756.284GRD
71174856.418GRD
71174958.213GRD
71175057.922GRD
71175157.843GRD
71175257.640GRD
71175357.557GRD
71175457.460GRD
71175557.159GRD
71175657.031GRD
71175757.609GRD
71175857.700GRD
71175957.538GRD
71176057.647GRD
711761

58.154
GRD
711762

58.099
GRD
71176358.068GRD
71176457.675GRD
71176557.681GRD
71176658.098GRD
71176758.070GRD
71176858.241GRD
71176957.634GRD
1 4.00 ACRES 3 11.99 ACRES

SPIRIT DRIVE
STATE ROUTE 20 EB
STATE ROUTE 20 WB

EL MARGARITA ROAD
696.1'
728.2'
634.3'

21.6'
141.6'
602.8'

ABUUTTER'S RIGHTS RELINQUISHED
PER 618 DEEDS 276

SOUTH LINE OF STATE
ROUTE 20 PER 618 / 276
O.R.S.C.
62 FEET OF FEE ROW DEDICATED AS
PART OF PARCEL MAP 1228
10 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY

EASEMENT (PUE) DEDICATED AS
PART OF PARCEL MAP 1228
30 FEET OF FEE ROW DEDICATED AS
PART OF PARCEL MAP 1228
10 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY

EASEMENT (PUE) DEDICATED
AS PART OF PARCEL MAP 1228

SULLIVAN
63-010-142

SULLIVAN
63-010-101

SULLIVAN
63-010-103

YUBA CITY UNIFIED
63-010-089
MILNER
063-010-015
MILNER
063-010-082
HILL
063-010-016
MANN
63-010-017
DUTTON
63-010-024
DEAN
63-010-018
2 4.00 ACRES
698.8'
700.3'
249.8' 248.9'
249.8' 157.1' 91.7'
13 12
11 101817
16151413
12 23 24 25 26 27
34 35
46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
22 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38
8 7
21 171819
20 56
78 9
10 11
432
19 MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

2.43 AC NET

MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

1.11 AC NET
3637 6
54312 33
32 30 31
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
18 19
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9
8 7
6 58 7
43 21

NGHBRHD PARK

0.68 AC NET

1.06 AC GROSS
28 29
2 MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

3.37 AC NET
1 PARK/DETENTION POND

4.05 AC NET

MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

2.57 AC NET
15 DETENTION POND

3.15 AC NET
1 MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

2.30 AC NET
15 1

4.00 ACRES 3 11.99 ACRES 2 4.00 ACRES
SCALE 1' = 50'
0 25' 50' 100' 200'
PARCEL SUMMARY*
PARCEL 1 = 04.00 ACRESPARCEL 2 = 04.00 ACRESPARCEL 3 = 11.99 ACRES SUBTOTAL = 3 PARCELS 19.99 ACRES

EL MARGARITA ROAD PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED

SPIRIT DRIVE PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED
SUBTOTAL = 0.00 ACRES
(ROADWAYS)
TOTAL = 11.99 ACRES
*EL MARGARITA ROAD AND SPIRIT DRIVE WERE PREVIOUSLY
DEDICATED IN FEE TITLE TO CITY OF YUBA CITY AS PART OF PARCELMAP 1228 RECORDED ON DECEMBER 20, 2018.

LAND USE SUMMARY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SUTTER, CITY OF YUBA CITY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 1: (APN 63-010-141)PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 1228, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTYRECORDER OF SUTTER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ON DECEMBER 20, 2018, IN BOOK 8 OFPARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 98.

Exp. 12-31-22
No. C52593
N
A
S
R
EGIS
T
M
E
R
NAES
STAT
ERED
P
CI V I. MI

OF COFES IA L RD A

LI FORN
IONAL
EN
GINEE
R

LOCATION MAP

FIRE PROTECTION

CITY OF YUBA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT

LAW ENFORCEMENT

CITY OF 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 SUTTER WATER AGENCY

ELECTRICITYPACIFIC 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.

2. A 10.0 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT SHALL BE LOCATED PROVIDED ON ALL STREETS. THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE) WAS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED AS PART OF PARCEL MAP 1228. NO ADDITIONAL DEDICATION REQUIRED.

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 PARCEL MAP, REZONE, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY IF REQUIRED.

5. PARCEL 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.

6. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, SEPTIC TANKS, AND WELLS TO BE REMOVED OR DESTROYED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.7. OWNERS, APPLICANT, ATTORNEY, ENGINEER, AND SURVEYOR SHALL RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR NOTICES RELATED TO THIS PROJECT.

EXISTING USEVACANTEXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION

OFFICE & OFFICE PARKPROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
PARCEL 1 AND 2 - REGIONAL COMMERICALPARCEL 3 - OFFICE & OFFICE PARKEXISTING ZONING C-0X19

PROPOSED ZONING
PARCEL 1 AND 2 - C-3X24/25PARCEL 3 - C-0X19LEVEE PROTECTIONLEVEE DISTRICT NO. 9 OF SUTTER COUNTYELEMENTARTY SCHOOL DISTRICTYUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTHIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTYUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTIRRIGATION DISTRICT

NONE - INDIVIDUAL WATER WELLS

OWNERCALVARY CHRISTIAN CENTER ASSEMBLY OFGOD OF YUBA CITY 2620 COLUSA HIGHWAY
YUBA CITY, CA 95993
CONTACT: PASTOR CIOCIOLA
PHONE: (530) 673-6035

APPLICANTYANNI LIMITED LLC
350 ORANGE DRIVE
VACAVILLE, CA 95687
CONTACT: RAMI YANNI
PHONE: (707) 474-4842

ENGINEER/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 63-010-141 (19.99 AC)AREA OF TENTATIVE MAP

19.99 GROSS ACRE
SURVEYORS STATEMENT:

I HEREBY STATE THAT ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD ARE SHOWN ANDLABELED PER CLTA PRELIMINARY REPORT BY PLACER TITLE COMPANY ORDER NUMBER P-558445 DATED APRIL 25, 2022. THE UNDERWRITER IS WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY.

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
AUGUST 16, 2022

YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
PM 22-04 (SPIRIT DRIVE PARCEL MAP)
2INDICATES PROPOSED PHASE
CITY OF YUBA CITY PLANNING COMMISION APPROVAL:THE CITY OF YUBA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED AND APPROVED RESOLUTION 22-0XX APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. XXXX DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON ______________, 2022. ______________________________________________ CITY OF YUBA CITY DATE:

SCALE 1' = 1000'

HARTER PARKWAY

10.0'
PUE

2.5' 5.0'

18.0' ROADWAY

BARRIER CURB
& GUTTER
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

30.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.

CL
PL

12.0'

TURN LANE

OR MEDIAN

SIDEWALK
2 LANE COLLECTOR - 84.0' R/W B NOT TO SCALE EL MARGARITA ROAD (LOOKING SOUTH)

NO IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED AT FINAL MAP

ALL IMPROVEMENT ARE PROPOSED AT BUILDING PERMIT FOR

EACH PARCEL

2.5'
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

30.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.

5.0'

12.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

8.0'

PARKING

42.0' ROADWAY

ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER
NO GEO WASH BLVD.

SPIRIT WAY

EL MARGARITA ROAD

NORTH HARDING ROAD

LASSEN BLVD

EL MARGARITA ROAD PROPOSED PERKINS RANCH SUBDIVISION (PENDING) STATE ROUTE 20

6.0'
BIKE
LANE

12.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

8.0'

PARKING

6.0'
BIKE
LANE
CITY OF YUBA CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL:THE CITY OF YUBA CITY COUNCIL HAS CONSIDERED AND APPROVED RESOLUTION 22-0XX APPROVING REZONE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON ______________, 2022. ______________________________________________ CITY OF YUBA CITY DATE:

PUE SHALL BE A TOTAL OF 10 FEET

BEHIND PROPERTY LINE
MINOR COLLECTOR - 60.0' R/W (ATTACHED) A NOT TO SCALE NO IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED AT FINAL MAP

ALL IMPROVEMENT ARE PROPOSED AT BUILDING

PERMIT FOR EACH PARCEL
PL CL

5.0'
BIKE
LANE

11.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

0.5' 2.5'

30.0' ROADWAY

ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER

SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

22.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.

5.0'

12.0'

CONTINUOUS
TURN
POCKET

5.0'
BIKE
LANE

11.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

10.0'
PUE
PL

0.5' 2.5'

ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER

SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

22.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.

5.0'

10.0'
PUE

30.0' ROADWAY

UPRR (ABANDONED) MONROE ROAD

0.5'
ROW CL

10.0' 24.0' ROADWAY
PUE
PL

SIDEWALK

0.5'

EXHIBIT B

1 CITY OF YUBA CITY

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PARCEL MAP 22-04
December 14, 2022

SPIRIT DRIVE PARCEL MAP
APN: 63-010-141

NOTICE TO PROJECT APPLICANT
In accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the imposition of fees, dedication, reservations or exactions for this project are subject to protest by the project applicant at the time of approval or conditional approval of the development or within ninety (90) calendar days after the date of imposition of fees, dedications, reservation, or exactions imposed on the development project. This notice does not apply to those fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions which were previously imposed and duly noticed; or, where no notice was previously required under the provisions of Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) in effect before January 1, 1997.

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
Please note that this project is subject to a variety of discretionary conditions of approval. These include conditions based on adopted City plans and policies, those determined through tentative subdivision map review and environmental assessment essential to mitigate adverse effects on the environment including the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and recommended conditions for development that are not essential to health, safety, and welfare, but would on the whole enhance the project and its relationship to the neighborhood and environment.

Discretionary conditions of approval may be appealed. All code requirements, however, are mandatory and may only be modified by variance, provided the findings can be made.

All discretionary conditions of approval will ultimately be deemed mandatory unless appealed by the applicant to the City Council within 10 days after the decision by the Planning Commission. In the event you wish to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision or discretionary conditions of approval, you may do so by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. The appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal and wherein the Commission failed to conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. This should include identification of the decision or action appealed and specific reasons why you believe the decision or action appealed should not be upheld.

These conditions are applicable to any person or entity making use of this tentative subdivision map, and references to “developer” or “applicant” herein also include any applicant, property owner, owner, leasee, operator, or any other person or entity making use of this tentative subdivision map.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. To the furthest extent allowed by law, applicant/property owner shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures,

2 damages and costs (including attorney's fees, litigation expenses and administrative record preparation costs) arising from, resulting from, or in connection with any ThirdParty 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, that: (a) challenges or contests any or all of these Conditions of Approval or any approval associated with entitlements associated with the project (collectively “Approvals”); or (b) claims or alleges a violation of CEQA or another law in connection with the Approvals by the City, or the grant, issuance or approval by the City of any or all Approvals. Applicant’s/property owner’s obligations under this paragraph shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its officers, officials, employees, consultants, 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 any termination, revocation, overturn, or expiration of an approval.

Nothing in this section shall obligate the City to defend any claim and the City shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement arising from any such claim not defended by the City, unless the City approves the settlement in writing. Nor shall the City be prohibited from independently defending any claim, and if the City does decide to independently defend a claim, the applicant/property owner shall be responsible for City’s attorneys’ fees, expenses of litigation, and costs for that independent defense, including the costs of preparing any required administrative record. Applicant/property owner shall submit all documents filed in the Third-Party Action for review and approval of the City Attorney prior to filing of said documents on behalf of the City.

The City may, at any time, require the applicant to reimburse the City for costs that have been, or which the City reasonably anticipates will be, incurred by the City during the course of processing or defending any Third-Party Actions. The City shall provide applicant/property owner with an invoice detailing all reasonable costs incurred. Applicant/property owner shall tender to the City payment-in-full of all reasonable and necessary costs within thirty (30) days from the date upon the invoice. Applicant/property owner shall contact the City within a reasonable time to arrange any extension of the thirty (30) day time period for payment-in-full of the invoiced amount. Applicant/property owner further acknowledges and agrees, failure to timely tender payment-in-full to the City shall be considered a breach and noncompliance with the conditions of approval for the project. Applicant/property owner shall also be required, upon request of the City, to deposit two month’s estimated costs anticipated by the City to be incurred, which may be used by the City as a draw down account to maintain a positive balance pending tender of payment by Applicant/property owner as noted herein.

2. The project must comply with all required Development Standards as outlined in the Municipal Code.

3. The lot design on the parcel map shall be designed in conformance with the TPM 22- 04, as appropriate, and as approved by the Planning Commission.

3 PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION

4. With development of Parcels 1, 2 and 3, the Developer shall construct sidewalk, commercial driveways, and landscaping along the frontage of Spirit Way and/or El Margarita Road associated with parcel frontage improvements, as approved by the Public Works Director.

5. With any future development of Parcel 3, Developer shall relocate the existing power pole at the southeast corner of the intersection of State Route 20 and El Margarita Road to a City approved location, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.

6. Any future development of Parcel 3 shall comply with the City’s undergrounding policy.

7. The property shall petition for formation of a Zone of Benefit of the Yuba City Lighting and Maintenance District for the purpose of maintaining the street lights and landscaping. The Engineering Division shall be reimbursed actual costs associated with the formation of the district.

8. The Developer shall comply with all City requirements related to drainage, including submittal of a drainage plan for any drainage improvements for the proposed development. A drainage analysis, along with calculations, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to:
a. Grading and drainage plan showing the proposed drainage conveyance and storage system.
b. Supporting calculations demonstrating adequacy of conveyance capacity and storage volume. The calculation analysis shall meet the requirements of the Yuba City Basin Drainage Area.
c. Storm Drain Collection Systems - For the design of all pipeline conveyance facilities, the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) shall be maintained a minimum of one foot below the gutter flow line of all drain inlets and at least one foot below all maintenance hole rims during a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. The storm drain minimum pipe size shall be 12 inches. The minimum velocity shall be 2 fps.
d. Street Flow -The street system shall be designed to convey the 100-year, 24- hour runoff while maintaining a water surface at least 1 foot below the adjacent building pad elevations (or alternatively, the building pad elevations shall be at least 1 foot above the 100-year water level). The grading plan shall ensure that the 100-year, 24-hour runoff can be conveyed through the development and to the receiving drainage facility.
e. Water Quality – Water quality basin(s) shall meet State Water Resource Board requirements for water quality. The water quality basin can be incorporated into a detention pond, designed as an individual pond, included in a water quality manhole system, or as approved by the Public Works Director.

The Drainage Study shall be completed and stamped by a Professional Engineer and determined by the City Engineer and the Sutter County Water Agency Engineer to be comprehensive, accurate, and adequate.

4 9. The applicant shall be required to pay all applicable fees, including, but not limited to, Sutter County, and/or Yuba City determined fees.

10. The Development shall comply with all traffic mitigation measures outlined in the traffic memo dated November 1, 2022.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible
Party Timing

3.7 Geology and
Soils
Paleontological Mitigation
Measure 1: This Mitigation
Measure shall be placed as a note
on the Demolition and Grading
Plans. If paleontological
resources are found, the
construction manager shall halt all
activity and immediately contact
the Development Services
Department at 530-822-4700.

Mitigation shall be conducted as
follows:

1. Identify and evaluate
paleontological resources
by intense field survey
where impacts are
considered high;

2. Assess effects on identified
sites;

3. Consult with the
institutional/academic
paleontologists conducting
research investigations
within the geological
formations that are slated
to be impacted;

4. Obtain comments from the
researchers;

5. Comply with researchers’
recommendations to
address any significant
adverse effects were
determined by the City to
be feasible.

In considering any suggested
mitigation proposed by the
consulting paleontologist, the
City’s Community Development
Department Staff shall determine
Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services
Dept.

During
construction
phase

5 whether avoidance is necessary
and feasible in light of factors
such as the nature of the find,
project design, costs, Specific or
General 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:

The site grading and
construction of the self-storage
facility shall comply with the
GHG Reduction Measures
provided in the adopted Yuba
City Resource Efficiency Plan.

Development
Services
Dept. Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.

3.13 Noise Noise Mitigation Measure 1:

The City shall establish the
following criteria for the use of
construction equipment:

Construction shall 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.

Quiet construction equipment,
particularly air compressors, are
to be selected whenever possible.

Unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines is prohibited.

All stationary noise-generating
construction equipment such as
generators and compressors are
to be located as far as practical
from existing residences. In
addition, the project contractor
shall place such stationary
construction equipment so that
emitted noise is directed away
from sensitive receptors nearest
the project site.

Whenever stationary noise
sources – such as generators and
compressors – are used within the
Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services
Dept.

During
Construction
phase

6 line of sight to occupied
residences (on-site or off-site),
temporary barriers shall be
constructed around the source to
shield the ground floor on the
noise-sensitive uses. These
barriers shall be of ¾-inch
Medium Density Overlay (MDO)
plywood sheeting, or other
material equivalent utility and
appearance to achieve a Sound
Transmission Class of STC-30, or
greater, based on certified sound
transmission loss data taken
according to ASTM Test method
E90 or as approved by the
Building Official.

Construction equipment staging
areas shall be located as far as
feasible from residential area
while still serving the needs of
construction contractors.

Equipment and trucks used for
construction will use the industry
standard noise control techniques
(e.g., improved mufflers,
equipment redesign, use of intake
silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures, and acoustically-
attenuating shields or shrouds,
whenever feasible).

Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers,
pavement breakers, and rock
drills) used for construction shall
be hydraulically- or electrically
powered where feasible to avoid
noise associated with
compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically-powered tools.

Where use of pneumatic tools is
unavoidable, an exhaust muffler
on the compressed air exhaust
shall be used; this muffler can
lower noise levels from exhaust
by up to about 10 dB. External
jackets on the tools themselves
shall be used where feasible; this
could achieve a reduction of 5 dB.

Quieter procedures, such as use
of drills rather than impact tools,
shall be used whenever feasible.

7 3.17
Transportation/Traffic
Transportation/Traffic
Mitigation 1: Prior to issuing a
building permit for any building on
this 19.99 acres, developers shall
pay to the City a fair share
contribution for needed
improvements to the intersections
listed below, to bring them into
conformance with all City policies,
programs and standards, as well
as other street sections and
intersections improvements that
are included in the fee program.

The intersections are:
• State Route 20/El
Margarita Road
• Franklin Road/El
Margarita Road
• El Margarita Road/Spirit
Way
• Harter Parkway/Spirit Way
Should these identified
intersections be subsequently
included into an adopted
development impact fee program,
this mitigation measure shall
become null and void.

Public Works
Department
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits

3.18. Tribal Cultural
Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation 1: Post Ground
Disturbance A minimum of seven
days prior to beginning earthwork,
clearing, and grubbing, or other
soil disturbing activities, the
applicant shall notify lead agency
of the proposed earthwork startdate. The lead agency shall contact the United Auburn Indian
Community (UAIC) with the
proposed earthwork start-date
and a UAIC Tribal Representative
or Tribal Monitor shall be invited to
inspect the project site, including
any soil piles, trenches, or other
disturbed areas, within the first
five days of groundbreaking
activity, or as appropriate for the
type and size of the project.

During this inspection, a UAIC
Tribal Representative or Tribal
Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services
Dept.

During
construction
phase

8 Monitor may provide an on-site
meeting for construction
personnel information on TCRs
and workers awareness brochure.

If any TCRs are encountered
during this initial inspection, or
during any subsequent
construction activities, work shall
be suspended within 100 feet of
the find and measures included in
the Unanticipated Discoveries
Mitigation Measure 2 shall be
implemented. Preservation in
place is the preferred alternative
under CEQA and UAIC protocols,
and every effort must be made to
preserve the resources in place,
including through project
redesign.

The contractor shall implement
any measures deemed by CEQA
lead agency to be necessary and
feasible to preserve in place,
avoid, or minimize significant
effects to the resources, including
the use of paid Native American
Monitor during ground disturbing
activities.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation 2: Unanticipated
Discoveries: If any suspected
TCRs are discovered during
ground disturbing construction
activities, all work shall cease
within 100 feet of the find, or an
agreed upon distance based on
the project area and nature of the
find. A Tribal Representative from
a California Native American
Tribe that is traditionally and
culturally affiliated with a
geographic area shall be
immediately notified and shall
determine if the find is a TCR
(PRC 21074). The Tribal
Representative will make
recommendations for further
evaluation and treatment as
necessary.

9 Preservation in place is the
preferred alternative under CEQA
and UAIC protocols, and every
effort must be made to preserve
the resources in place, including
through project redesign.

Culturally appropriate treatment
may be, but is not limited to,
processing materials for reburial,
minimizing handling of cultural
objects, leaving objects in place
within the landscape, returning
objects to a location within the
project area where they will not be
subject to future impacts. The
Tribe does not consider curation
of TCR’s to be appropriate or
respectful and request that
materials not be permanently
curated, unless approved by the
Tribe.

The contractor shall implement
any measures deemed by the
CEQA lead agency to be
necessary and feasible to
preserve in place, avoid, or
minimize impacts to the resource,
including but limited to, facilitating
the appropriate tribal treatment of
the find, as necessary. Treatment
that preserves or restores the
cultural character and integrity of
a Tribal Cultural Resource may
include Tribal monitoring,
culturally appropriate recovery of
cultural objects, and reburial of
cultural objects or cultural soil.

Work at the discovery location
cannot resume until all necessary
investigation and evaluation of the
discovery under the requirements
of CEQA, including AB 523 has
been satisfied.

ATTACHMENT 3

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the
GIS User Community
Spirit Drive Parcel Map | Location Map
GPA 22-06, RZ 22-08, PM 22-04, EA 22-15
I!
Project Location

ATTACHMENT 4

X19 Area: Southeast corner of Colusa Ave. & El Margarita Rd.

Reason: To ensure the future provision for transportation needs: 1) a fair share of fees will be paid for traffic signal improvements at Walton Avenue/Lassen Blvd./Tharp Road intersection are made, 2) a fair share will be paid for the improvements cost of highway road improvements based on an AB 1600 study in effect at the time of issuance of building permits and 3) that Harter Road and Lassen Blvd. are improved to city standards and extended across this property along with El Margarita Road.

Criteria of Development
1) To mitigate the impacts from the project on the intersection of Walton Avenue and Lassen Blvd., the developer shall contribute 45 percent of the total cost for the installation a traffic signal prior to the issuance of building permits. 2) To mitigate the impacts from the project on the intersection of Tharp Road and Lassen Blvd., the developer shall contribute 70 percent of the total cost for the installation a traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits.
3) Sufficient right-of-way shall be set aside through this property from the current terminus of Lassen Blvd to El Margarita Road for a road connection between these points and for the southerly extension of Harter Road from the highway to the south end of this property. Improvements along these right-of-ways shall be completed as development occurs along these streets to city standards by the property developers. 4) Should artifacts or unusual amounts of some bone or shell be uncovered during the demolition or construction activity, work shall be stopped and a qualified archeologist shall be contacted for on-site consultation. If the bone appears to be human, California law mandates that the Sutter county Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission be contacted.

X19 Zone District Description

ATTACHMENT 5

Environmental Assessment 22-15
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 22- 06, Rezone 22-08, and Tentative Parcel Map 22-04, Spirit Drive Parcel Map. The proposal will redesignate in the General Plan and rezone 8 acres from Office to Regional Commercial. A parcel map proposes to divide 19.99 acres (the 8 acres discussed above plus 11.99 acres) from a single parcel into three parcels of 4, 4, and

11.99 acres.

Prepared for:

City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
Prepared By:

Denis Cook
Land Use Planning Consultant
and
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department
Planning Division
November 14, 2022

1 This page intentionally left blank.

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...................................................................................................7 Contact Person and Phone Number .............................................................................................7 Project Location ............................................................................................................................7 Project Applicant...........................................................................................................................7 Property owner.............................................................................................................................7 General Plan Designation..............................................................................................................7 Zoning............................................................................................................................................7 Project description..........................................................................................................................7 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting............................................................................................12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required ........................................................12

2.12. Native American Tribe Consultation………………………………………………………………………………………10 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:..............................................................................13 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: .......................................................................................13

3. Environmental Checklist and Impact Evaluation........................................................................15 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................................15 Agricultural and Forestry Resources...........................................................................................18 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................23 Biological Resources....................................................................................................................30 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................34

3.6. Energy .........................................................................................................................................37

3.7. Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................38

3.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................................45

3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............................................................................................47

3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................................52

3 3.11. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................56

3.12. Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................57

3.13. Noise ...........................................................................................................................................59

3.14. Population and Housing..............................................................................................................66

3.15. Public Services.............................................................................................................................67

3.16. Recreation...................................................................................................................................70

3.17. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................71

3.18. Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................................74

3.19. Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................80

3.20. Wildfire........................................................................................................................................84

3.21. Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................................86

4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference..............................................................88

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 General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06, Rezone (RZ) 22-08, and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04 on a 19.99-acre parcel, titled Spirit Drive Parcel Map. The property is located at the southeast corner of State Route 20 and El Margarita Road.

The GPA will redesignate 8.0 acres from Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to a Regional Commercial (RC) designation. The remaining 11.99 acres will remain in the O land use designation.

The RZ will rezone the same properties from an Office Commercial Zone District combined with the X19 Zone District (C-O X19) to a General Commercial (C-3) Zone District. The deletion of the X19 Zone District would eliminate requirements for development of this property from paying its fair share of improvements to the Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard intersection, the Tharp Road/Lassen Boulevard intersection, as new standards have superseded that need. The remaining 11.99 acres will remain in the C-O X-19 Zone District.

TPM 22-04 will divide the 19.99-acre parcel into two – 4-acre parcels (the same 8 acres as the GPA & RZ) and a 11.99-acre parcel for which the general plan and rezoning is not proposed to be amended. While no actual development project is proposed as part of this application, the Regional Commercial land use designation and accompanying C-3 zoning allows for an entire range of commercial uses.

The 19.99-acre vacant property has full City services available to it. The applicant has indicated that they will propose to construct a car dealership(s) on either or both of the two 4-acre parcels. There is a previously approved use permit to construct a church on the 11.99-acre parcel.

The GPA/RZ/PM 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.

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 proposed GPA/RZ/TPM and provide an environmental assessment for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. 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

5 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 or reduce project impacts to less than 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:
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. 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 GPA/RZ/TPM will undergo a public review process by the Planning Commission that will result in a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council followed by a public review by the City Council which will decide on the project. If approved as proposed, the 19.99-acre Project will consist of two – 4- acre parcels designated as Regional Commercial, and an 11.99-acre parcel designated for Office uses. This public review process 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.

6 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 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. 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 30-day review period will commence on November 14, 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
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06, Rezone (RZ) 22-08 and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04 titled Spirit Drive Parcel Map.

7 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department, Planning Division
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
Contact Person and Phone Number
Doug Libby, AICP
Deputy Director of Development Services
(530) 822-3231
[email protected]
Project Location
The 19.99 acres are located on the southeast corner of State Route 20 (Colusa Highway) and El Margarita Road. The Assessor’s Parcel Number is 63-010-141.

Project Applicant
Yanni Limited L.L.C.
641 Orange Drive
Vacaville, CA 95688
Property owner
Calvary Christian Center
2620 Colusa Highway
Yuba City, CA 95993
General Plan Designation
Existing: The Project is within the Office and Office Park (O) land use designation.

Proposed: Regional Commercial (RC) designation for only the two proposed four-acre parcels. No change is requested for the proposed 11.99-acre parcel.

Zoning
Existing: The 19.99-acre Project is within the Office Commercial Zone District combined with the X19 Zone District (C-O X19).

Proposed: General Commercial (C-3) Zone District for the two proposed four-acre parcels. No change is requested for the proposed 11.99-acre parcel, as it will remain zoned C-O X19.

8 Figure 1: Location Map – aerial photo.

9 Figure 2: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-06

10 Figure 3: Rezone (RZ) 22-08

11 Figure 4: Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-04

12 Project description
GPA 22-06, RZ 22-08 and TPM 22-04, is requested for a 19.99 parcel, titled Spirit Drive Parcel Map. The GPA will redesignate 8.0 acres from Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to a Regional Commercial (RC) designation. The remaining 11.99 acres will remain in the O land use designation.

The RZ will rezone the same properties from an Office Commercial Zone District combined with the X19 Zone District (C-O X19) to a General Commercial (C-3) Zone District. The deletion of the X19 Zone District would eliminate requirements for development of this property from paying its fair share of improvements to the Walton Avenue/Lassen Boulevard intersection, the Tharp Road/Lassen Boulevard intersection, as new standards have superseded that need. The remaining 11.99 acres will remain in the C-O X-19 zone District.

TPM 22-04 will divide a 19.99-acre parcel into two – 4-acre parcels (the same 8 acres as the GPA & RZ) and a 11.99-acre parcel for which the general plan and rezoning is not proposed to be amended. While no actual development project is proposed as part of this application, the RC land use designation and accompanying C-3 zoning allows for the entire range of commercial uses.

The 19.99-acre vacant property has full City services available to it. The applicant has indicated that they will propose to construct a car dealership(s) on either or both of the two 4-acre parcels. There is a previously approved use permit to construct a church on the 11.99-acre parcel.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Setting: The 19.99-acre flat property is vacant. There is an approved use permit for a church on the 11.99- acre parcel.

2.11. 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.
▪ Sutter County Water Agency (Live Oak Canal).

2.12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
All geographically relevant Native American tribes were timely notified of the project, and consultation was not requested.

TABLE 1: BORDERING USES
North: State Route 20 (Colusa Highway).

South: Across Spirit Way is River Valley High School.

East: Auto Dealership.

West: Single-family residences across El Margarita Road.

13 2.13 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 XCultural Resources Energy
X
Geology/Soils XGreenhouse Gas Emissions Hazard & 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.

Signature Date
Ben Moody
Director of Public Works and Development Services

14 2.14 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 parentheses following 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 legal standards, 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.

15 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 views in excess of 3 to 5 miles from 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 Yuba City and Sutter County. The Sutter Buttes comprise the longrange 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.

16 ▪ 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. The goal of the City’s design guidelines is to ensure the highest quality of building design: designs that are aesthetically pleasing; designs that are compatible with the surroundings in terms of scale, mass, detailing, and building patterns; designs that accommodate the pedestrian, automobile, bicycle, and transit circulation; and designs that consider public safety, public interaction, and historic resources. The design guidelines apply to all commercial development. However, this proposal does not include an actual development project, so no design review is involved with this process. Design Review will be utilized when a development is proposed.

3.1.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal regulations relating to aesthetics include the 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 not subject to these regulations since 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

17 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, 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? There are no designated scenic areas within the vicinity, so there would not be impacts on a designated scenic area.

The primary background view of the property from the SR 20 passersby looking south is across the vacant Project area towards River Valley High School. Views to the Sutter Buttes from SR 20 will not be impacted as the Buttes are northwest of the project. With the development of this project, the view of the high school from the highway will be reduced, but this has not been considered a scenic vista. Development of this property that could result from this action will have to be reviewed for its aesthetic values at that time. As such, the aesthetic impact on the background views from this project is considered 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?
The site is unremarkable in that it is flat with no topographic features, rock outcroppings, large heritage type trees, or buildings. As there is no actual development proposed as part of this application, design review and potential conflicts with zoning standards will be considered when a development proposal is submitted. As such, this GPA/RZ/TPM will have less than significant impacts on aesthetics. 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 is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

18 The project is within the Yuba City urbanized area. While there is not a development project proposed, the approval of this GPA/RZ/TPM could lead to development of the property. The effect a future project will have on the local aesthetics will occur when a development project is proposed. A review of impacts on the visual character of the site and its surroundings will be made when a development project is being considered; however, the City will implement its adopted design guidelines and development standards and this will reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

The project is within the urban area where outdoor lighting is already prevalent. To the east is an auto dealership with extensive outdoor lighting, and to the south is River Valley High School which has night lighting, including night lit athletic fields, and the north in which SR 20 has significant nighttime headlight traffic. While there is not a development project proposed, the approval of this GPA/RZ/TPM could lead to development of the property. The impact a future project will have on the local outdoor lighting will be addressed by the City implementing its adopted design and development standards for lighting at the time a specific project is proposed. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

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 X

19 conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

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 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.

20 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 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 enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose