21 of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Private land within locally designated agricultural preserve areas is eligible for enrollment under Williamson Act contracts. However, an agricultural preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. In order to meet this requirement two or more parcels may be combined if they are contiguous, or if they are in common ownership.
The Williamson Act program is administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC), in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10‐year period, or a 20-year period for property restricted by a Farmland Security Zone Contract, wherein no conversion out of agricultural use is permitted. Each year the contract automatically renews unless a notice of non‐renewal or cancellation is filed. In return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted market value. An application for immediate cancellation can also be requested by the landowner, provided that the proposed immediate cancellation application is consistent with the cancellation criteria stated in the California Land Conservation Act and those adopted by the affected county or city. Non‐renewal or immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property.
Participation in the Williamson Act program is dependent on county adoption and implementation of the program and is voluntary for landowners.
Farmland Security Zone Act: The Farmland Security Zone Act is similar to the Williamson Act and was passed by the California State Legislature in 1999 to ensure that long-term farmland preservation is part of public policy. Farmland Security Zone Act contracts are sometimes referred to as “Super Williamson Act Contracts.” Under the provisions of this act, a landowner already under a Williamson Act contract can apply for Farmland Security Zone status by entering into a contract with the county. Farmland Security Zone classification automatically renews each year for an additional 20 years. In return for a further 35% reduction in the taxable value of land and growing improvements (in addition to Williamson Act tax benefits), the owner of the property promises not to develop the property into nonagricultural uses.
Forestry Resources: State regulations regarding forestry resources are not relevant to the proposed Project because no forestry resources exist on the project site or in the vicinity.
3.2.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The proposed Project site consists of approximately 19.99-acres that is vacant of any development and also has not been in agricultural use for years. The 2018 Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map for Sutter County identifies the project site as “Grazing Land.” The project site is not considered to have Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland.
As development of this property could result from approval of the GPA/RZ, the loss of agricultural land is considered. Currently all four sides of the site are developed with urban type uses. Further, the property has for many years been designated in the City’s General Plan for urban uses, and for which overriding considerations for agricultural land loses within the City’s sphere of influence were made in the General Plan EIR. This is part of the larger scope agreed to by the City and Sutter County to allow urban development within the City’s sphere of influence, but that the great majority of the County’s agricultural lands outside of a city’s sphere of influence would be protected as open space. Considering this project
22 is within the General Plan’s area of anticipated loss of agricultural land, the impact on agriculture land loss will be less than significant.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The proposed Project is currently zoned for urban type uses and the subject property is not under a Williamson Act contract. There will therefore be no impact related to a Williamson Act contract. See discussion above under item 3.2.4.a.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4256), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? The proposed Project is located in the Sacramento Valley in a relatively flat area that was utilized for agriculture but designated years ago for urban use. There is no timberland located on the Project site or within the vicinity of the Project. There will be no impact on existing zoning of forestland and the proposal will not cause the rezoning of any forestlands.
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? There is no forested land on the Project site or within the vicinity of the Project; therefore, there will be no impact on forest land.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The proposed Project is within an area already served by City services and the surrounding properties are developed with non-agricultural uses. There are no forestlands on the Project site or in the vicinity. No properties within the area are under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the impacts on agricultural lands from this proposal will be less than significant.
23 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Table 3.3: Air Quality
Would the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
3.3.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Yuba City is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), which consists of the northern half of the Central Valley and approximates the drainage basin for the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The SVAB is bounded on the west by the Coast Range, on the north by the Cascade Range, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the south by the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The intervening terrain is flat, and approximately 70 feet above sea level. The SVAB consists of the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba and portions of Placer and Solano Counties.
Hot dry summers and mild rainy winters characterize the Mediterranean climate of the Sacramento Valley. The climate of the SVAB is dominated by the strength and position of the semi-permanent highpressure cell over the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii. In summer, when the high-pressure cell is strongest and farthest north, temperatures are high and humidity is low, although the incursion of the sea breeze into the Central Valley helps moderate the summer heat. In winter, when the high-pressure cell is weakest and farthest south, conditions are characterized by occasional rainstorms interspersed with stagnant and sometimes foggy weather. Throughout the year, daily temperatures may range from summer highs often exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit and winter lows occasionally below freezing. Average annual rainfall is about 20 inches with snowfall being very rare. The prevailing winds are moderate in strength and vary from moist clean breezes from the south to dry land flows from the north.
In addition to prevailing wind patterns that control the rate of dispersion of local pollutant emissions, the region experiences two types of inversions that affect the vertical depth of the atmosphere through which pollutants can be mixed. In the warmer months in the SVAB (May through October), sinking air forms a "lid" over the region. These subsidence inversions contribute to summer photochemical smog problems by confining pollution to a shallow layer near the ground. These warmer months are characterized by stagnant morning air or light winds with the delta sea breeze arriving in the afternoon out of the southwest. Usually, the evening breeze transports the airborne pollutants to the north and out of the
24 SVAB. During about half of the day from July to September, however, a phenomenon called the “Schultz Eddy” prevents this from occurring. Instead of allowing the prevailing wind patterns to move north carrying the pollutants out of the valley, the Schultz Eddy causes the wind pattern to circle back south.
This phenomenon exacerbates the pollution levels in the area and increases the likelihood of violating federal or State standards. The Schultz Eddy normally dissipates around noon when the Delta sea breeze begins. In the second type of inversion, the mountains surrounding the SVAB create a barrier to airflow, which can trap air pollutants in the valley. The highest frequency of air stagnation occurs in the autumn and early winter when large high-pressure cells lie over the valley. The air near the ground cools by radiative processes, while the air aloft remains warm. The lack of surface wind during these periods and the reduced vertical flow caused by less surface heating reduces the influx of outside air and allows air pollutants to become concentrated in a stable volume of air. These inversions typically occur during winter nights and can cause localized air pollution "hot spots" near emission sources because of poor dispersion.
The surface concentrations of pollutants are highest when these conditions are combined with smoke from agricultural burning or when temperature inversions trap cool air and pollutants near the ground.
Although these subsidence and radiative inversions are present throughout much of the year, they are much less dominant during spring and fall, and the air quality during these seasons is generally good.” Local Climate: The climate of Sutter County is subject to hot dry summers and mild rainy winters, which characterize the Mediterranean climate of the SVAB. Summer temperatures average approximately 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and 50 degrees Fahrenheit at night. Winter daytime temperatures average in the low 50s and nighttime temperatures are mainly in the upper 30s. During summer, prevailing winds are from the south. This is primarily because of the north- south orientation of the valley and the location of the Carquinez Straits, a sea-level gap in the coast range that is southwest of Sutter County.
Criteria Air Pollutants: Criteria air pollutants are a group of pollutants for which federal or State regulatory agencies have adopted ambient air quality standards. Criteria air pollutants are classified in each air basin, county, or in some cases, within a specific urbanized area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with State and federal standards. If a pollutant concentration is lower than the standard, the area is classified as “attainment” for that pollutant. If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classified as “non-attainment” for that pollutant. If there is not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated “unclassified.” Ambient Air Quality Standards: Both the federal and State government have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health. The federal and State ambient air quality standards have been set at levels whose concentrations could be generally harmful to human health and welfare and to protect the most sensitive persons from experiencing health impacts with a margin of safety. Applicable ambient air quality standards are identified later in this section. The air pollutants for which federal and State standards have been promulgated and which are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the air basins include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants are of concern in Sutter County. Each of these pollutants is briefly described below.
Ozone (O3): is a gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust and other processes undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant.
Carbon Monoxide (CO): is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, with little to no wind, when surfacePage 396 of 728 25 based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SVAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX): is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless.
However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) along with particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOX are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuels.
Nitrogen oxides can also be formed naturally.
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter. Some sources of suspended particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, occur naturally. However, in populated areas, most fine suspended particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, and combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of the burning of high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal, and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries.
Lead: occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combustion of leaded gasoline is the primary source of airborne lead. Since the use of leaded gasoline is no longer permitted for on-road motor vehicles, lead is not a pollutant of concern in the SVAB.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs): are known to be highly hazardous to health, even in small quantities. TACs are airborne substances capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs can be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations.
TAC impacts are assessed using a maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) that estimates the probability of a potential maximally exposed individual (MEI) contracting cancer as a result of sustained exposure to toxic air contaminants over a constant period of 24 hours per day for 70 years for residential receptor locations. The CARB and local air districts have determined that any stationary source posing an incremental cancer risk to the general population (above background risk levels) equal to or greater than 10 people out of 1 million to be excessive. For stationary sources, if the incremental risk of exposure to project-related TAC emissions meets or exceeds the threshold of 10 excess cancer cases per 1 million people, the CARB and local air district require the installation of best available control technology (BACT) or maximum available control technology (MACT) to reduce the risk threshold. To assess risk from ambient air concentrations, the CARB has conducted studies to determine the total cancer inhalation risk to individuals due to outdoor toxic pollutant levels. The CARB has conducted studies to determine the total cancer inhalation risk to individuals due to outdoor toxic pollutant levels. According to the map prepared by the CARB showing the estimated inhalation cancer risk for TACs in the State of California, Sutter County has an existing estimated risk that is between 50 and 500 cancer cases per 1 million people. A significant portion of Sutter County is within the 100 to 250 cancer cases per 1 million people range. There is a higher risk around Yuba City where the cancer risk is as high as 500 cases per 1 million people. There are only very small portions of the County where the cancer risk is between 50 and 100 cases. This represents the
26 lifetime risk that between 50 and 500 people in 1 million may contract cancer from inhalation of toxic compounds at current ambient concentrations under an MEI scenario.
3.3.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Clean Air Act: The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended in 1990) required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health or the environment. Two types of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established. Primary standards protect public health, while secondary standards protect public welfare, by including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, landscaping and vegetation, or buildings.
NAAQS have been established for six “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb).
3.3.3. State Regulatory Setting
California Air Resources Board: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state agency responsible for implementing the federal and state Clean Air Acts. CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which include all criteria pollutants established by the NAAQS, but with additional regulations for Visibility Reducing Particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The proposed Project is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, which includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Shasta, Yolo, Sacramento, Yuba Sutter and portions of Placer, El Dorado and Solano counties. Air basins are classified as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified. The FRAQMD is comprised Sutter and Yuba Counties. Attainment is achieved when monitored ambient air quality data is in compliance with the standards for a specified pollutant. Non-compliance with an established standard will result in a nonattainment designation and an unclassified designation indicates insufficient data is available to determine compliance for that pollutant.
California Clean Air Act: The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for Ozone, CO, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a five percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each non-attainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements.
CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program: This program was designed to allow owners and operators of portable engines and other common construction or farming equipment to register their equipment under a statewide program so they may operate it statewide without the need to obtain a permit from the local air district.
U.S. EPA/CARB Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program: The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires CARB to achieve a maximum degree of emissions reductions from off-road mobile sources to attain State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS); off- road mobile sources include most construction equipment. Tier 1 standards for large compression-ignition engines used in off-road mobile sources went into effect in California in 1996. These standards, along with ongoing rulemaking, address emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and toxic particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB is currently developing a control measure to reduce diesel PM and NOX emissions from existing off-road diesel equipment throughout the state.
27 California Global Warming Solutions Act: Established in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) requires that California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This will be implemented through a statewide cap on GHG emissions, which will be phased in beginning in 2012. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to monitor global warming emissions level.
3.3.4. Regional Regulatory Setting
Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD): The FRAQMD is a bi-county district formed in 1991 to administer local, state, and federal air quality management programs for Yuba and Sutter Counties within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The goal of the FRAQMD is to improve air quality in the region through monitoring, evaluation, education and implementing control measures to reduce emissions from stationary sources, permitting and inspection of pollution sources, enforcement of air quality regulations and by supporting and implementing measures to reduce emissions from motor vehicles.
The FRAQMD adopted its Indirect Source Review guidelines document for assessment and mitigation of air quality impacts under CEQA in 1998. The guide contains criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality, and methods available to mitigate impacts on air quality. FRAQMD updated its Indirect Source Review Guidelines to reflect the most recent methods recommended to evaluate air quality impacts and mitigation measures for land use development projects in June 2010. This analysis uses guidance and thresholds of significance from the 2010 FRAQMD Indirect Source Review Guidelines to evaluate the proposed project’s air quality impacts.
According to FRAQMD’s 2010 Indirect Source Review Guidelines, a project would be considered to have a significant impact on air quality if it would:
▪ Generate daily construction or operational emissions that would exceed 25 pounds per day for reactive organic gases (ROG), 25 pounds per day for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), or 80 pounds per day for PM10; or generate annual construction or operational emissions of ROG or NOX that exceed 4.5 tons per year.
Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2015 Air Quality Attainment Plan: As specified in the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA), Chapters 1568-1588, it is the responsibility of each air district in California to attain and maintain the state’s ambient air quality standards. The CCAA requires that an Attainment Plan be developed by all nonattainment districts for O3, CO, SOx, and NOx that are either receptors or contributors of transported air pollutants. The purpose of the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2015 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan (TAQAP) is to comply with the requirements of the CCAA as implemented through the California Health and Safety Code. Districts in the NSVPA are required to update the Plan every three years. The TAQAP is formatted to reflect the 1990 baseline emissions year with a planning horizon of 2020. The Health and Safety Code, sections 40910 and 40913, require the Districts to achieve state standards by the earliest practicable date to protect the public health, particularly that of children, the elderly, and people with respiratory illness.
Health and Safety Code Section 41503(b): Requires that control measures for the same emission sources are uniform throughout the planning area to the extent that is feasible. To meet this requirement, the NSVPA has coordinated the development of an Attainment Plan and has set up a specific rule adoption protocol. The protocol was established by the Technical Advisory Committee of the Sacramento Valley Basin-wide Air Pollution Control Council and the Sacramento Valley Air Quality Engineering and Enforcement Professionals, which allow the Districts in the Basin to act and work as a united group with the CARB as well as with industry in the rule adoption process. Section 40912 of the Health and Safety Code states that each District responsible for, or affected by, air pollutant transport shall provide for
28 attainment and maintenance of the state and federal standards in both upwind and downwind Districts.
This section also states that each downwind District’s Plan shall contain sufficient measures to reduce emissions originating in each District to below levels which violate state ambient air quality standards, assuming the absence of transport contribution
Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: The District recommends the following best management practices:
▪ Implement the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
▪ Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed FRAQMD Regulation III, Rule 3.0, ▪ Visible Emissions limitations (40 percent opacity or Ringelmann 2.0). ▪ The contractor shall be responsible to ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained prior to and for the duration of onsite operation. ▪ Limiting idling time to 5 minutes – saves fuel and reduces emissions. ▪ Utilize existing power sources or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. ▪ Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites.
▪ Portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, may require California Air Resources Board (ARB) Portable Equipment Registration with the State or a local district permit. The owner/operator shall be responsible for arranging appropriate consultations with the ARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
3.3.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? There is no development plan proposed as part of this GPA/RZ/TPM. However, approval of this request could result in development of eight acres with uses permitted by the C-3 Zone District. As such, grading the site would briefly create equipment exhaust and fugitive dust from this activity. Ongoing air quality impacts will be from exhaust generated by vehicle traffic from the new development. Standards set by FRQAMD, CARB, and Federal agencies relating to a proposed Project will apply to this Project. Prior to the initiation of construction, a Fugitive Dust Control Plan would be submitted to FRAQMD as a part of standard measures required by the District. An Indirect Source Review (ISR) application will be filed with the Air District to address emissions from construction.
Since the developer(s) for any uses that could result from this GPA must prepare an air quality analysis and incorporate the resulting conditions into the project, and that a fugitive dust control plan be submitted prior to beginning work on a project, any potential significant environmental impacts should be reduced to less than significant.
29 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Any development that would result from this GPA/RZ/TPM would generate some criteria pollutants during its construction and from vehicle traffic generated by the new development. However, this GPA/RZ/TPM will not in itself generate any air pollutants. Until an actual development project is proposed air quality impacts cannot be known; however, the City will implement its adopted standards and best management practices to minimize impacts. Future developers will be required to pay the appropriate adopted air quality fee to FRAQMD at the time a specific development project is proposed. Therefore, the cumulative impacts from this proposal are considered to be less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The FRAQMD defines sensitive receptors as: facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. FRAQMD states that if a project is located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor location, the impact of diesel particulate matter shall be evaluated. According to the FRAQMD’s Indirect Source Review Guidelines, “Construction activity can result in emissions of particulate matter from the diesel exhaust (diesel PM) of construction equipment.
River Valley High School, which is located across the street from the proposal is a nearby sensitive receptor. The proposed Project could lead to development that would result in the generation of criteria pollutants during the limited period of site grading and construction. As such FRAQMD adopted criteria must be satisfied, and a condition is included to assure that occurs before the tentative map is recorded.
The Best Management Practices (BMPs) that can be used to reduce the impact to sensitive receptors from off-road diesel equipment include:
▪ Install diesel particulate filters or implement other ARB-verifies diesel emission control strategies on all construction equipment to further reduce diesel PM emissions beyond the 45% reduction required by the Districts Best Available Mitigation Measure for Construction Phase; ▪ Use equipment during times when receptors are not present (e.g., when school is not in session or during non-school hours; or when office buildings are unoccupied); ▪ Establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from off-site receptors;
▪ Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible; ▪ Use haul trucks with on-road engines instead of off-road engines even for on-site hauling; ▪ Equip nearby buildings with High Efficiency Particle Arresting (HEPA) filter systems at all mechanical air intake points to the building to reduce the levels of diesel PM that enter the buildings; and/or,
▪ Temporarily relocate receptors during construction.
Therefore, due to the temporary nature of construction and assuming all FRAQMD criteria is met as required, the nearby school students would not be subjected to long-term exposure to diesel particulate
30 matter. Therefore, any exposure of these students to pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No specific development is proposed, however, most uses allowed for by the C-3 Zone District typically do not generate objectionable odors. However, any future development would have to be evaluated on its own merits as part of the review process at that time.
Biological Resources
Table 3.4: Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on states or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
31 3.4.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The 19.99 acres is level and is within the Yuba City urbanized area and surrounded on all sides by other development. The four lane SR 20 is on the property’s north side. There are no riparian areas or known critical habitat areas on-site or in the vicinity.
3.4.2. Federal & State Regulatory Setting
Threatened and Endangered Species: State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal endangered species acts, candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society are collectively referred to as “species of special status.” Permits may be required from both the CDFW and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the “take” of a listed species. “Take” is defined by the state of California as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Furthermore, the CDFW and the USFWS are responding agencies under CEQA. Both agencies review CEQA documents in order to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species issues and to make projectspecific recommendations for their conservation.
Migratory Birds: State and federal laws also protect most birds. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
Birds of Prey: Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW.
Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters: Natural drainage channels and adjacent wetlands may be considered “Waters of the United States” subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE. The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations but has also been subject to interpretation of the federal courts.
Waters of the U.S. generally include:
▪ All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters, which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
▪ All interstate waters including interstate wetlands.
32 ▪ All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. ▪ All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition.
▪ Tributaries of waters identified in the bulleted items above.
As determined by the United States Supreme Court in its 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision, channels and wetlands isolated from other jurisdictional waters cannot be considered jurisdictional on the basis of their use, hypothetical or observed, by migratory birds. Similarly, in its 2006 consolidated Carabell/Rapanos decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that a significant nexus between a wetland and other navigable waters must exist for the wetland itself to be considered a navigable, and therefore, jurisdictional water.
The USACE regulates the filling or grading of Waters of the U.S. under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by “ordinary high-water marks” on opposing channel banks. All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into Waters of the U.S. are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that result in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or waiver of such certification) verifying that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380: Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specific criteria that define “endangered” and “rare” as specified in CEQA Guidelines section 15380(b).
3.4.3. Local Regulatory Setting
The General Plan provides the following policies for the protection of biological resources within the project area:
8.4-G-1 Protect special status species, in accordance with State regulatory requirements.
8.4-G-2 Protect and enhance the natural habitat features of the Feather River and new open space corridors within and around the urban growth area.
8.4-G-3 Preserve and enhance heritage oaks in the Planning Area.
8.4-G-4 Where appropriate, incorporate natural wildlife habitat features into public landscapes, parks, and other public facilities
8.4-I-1 Require protection of sensitive habitat area and special status species in new development site designs in the following order: 1) avoidance; 2) onsite mitigation; 3) offsite mitigation. Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any development within 300 feet of any creeks, sensitive habitat areas, or areas of potential sensitive status species.
8.4-I-2 Require preservation of oak trees and other native trees that are of a significant size, by requiring site designs to incorporate these trees to the maximum extent feasible.
33 8.4-I-3 Require to the extent feasible, use of drought tolerant plants in landscaping for new development, including private and public projects.
3.4.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Response provided in section b) below.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
A review of the site identified no native trees on the site. There are no wetland areas or creek corridors or areas that appear to be sensitive habitat areas. The site is several miles from the Feather River. There were no known special status species identified within by the General Plan in the vicinity. Therefore, the impacts on biological resources would likely be considered less than significant. Any future project that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM would have to be evaluated on its own merits. For this project, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on states or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No wetlands or federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present within the proposed Project area or general vicinity. There would be no impact on any wetland areas or waterways. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed Project would not disturb any waterways, as the nearest waterway is the Feather River, being several miles to the east. Therefore, migratory fish would not be affected. Nor are there any significant native trees proposed to be removed that could be potential nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds that may choose to nest in the vicinity of the Project. As such there would be no significant impacts on fish or wildlife habitat.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No trees or other known biological resources that would be protected by local policies or ordinances remain on the proposed Project site. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on biological resources caused by this project.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
34 There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans in the vicinity of this Project.
Cultural Resources
Table 3.5: Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5.
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5.
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outsides of formal cemeteries?
X
3.5.1. Federal Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), Section 106: The significance of cultural resources is evaluated under the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 are as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
▪ That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
▪ That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or ▪ That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ▪ That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP are considered to be historic properties. Sites younger than 50 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
3.5.2. State Regulatory Setting
CEQA requires consideration of project impacts on archaeological or historical sites deemed to be "historical resources." Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource is considered a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, a "historical resource" is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of
35 Historical Resources (Title 14 CCR §15064.5[a][1]-[3]). Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).
The eligibility criteria for the California Register are the definitive criteria for assessing the significance of historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (Office of Historic Preservation). Generally, a resource is considered "historically significant" if it meets one or more of the following criteria for listing on the California Register:
▪ Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
▪ Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. ▪ Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. ▪ Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1[c])
In addition, the resource must retain integrity. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, § 4852(c)).
Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5: Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
3.5.3. Native American Consultation
In September of 2014, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which added provisions to the PRC regarding the evaluation of impacts on tribal cultural resources under CEQA, and consultation requirements with California Native American tribes. In particular, AB 52 now requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on “tribal cultural resources” separately from archaeological resources (PRC § 21074; 21083.09). AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (PRC § 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).
In response to AB 52, on August 19, 2022, the City supplied the following Native American tribes with a project description and map of the proposed project area and a request for comments:
▪ United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria ▪ Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
36 ▪ Estom Yomeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria ▪ Mechoopda Indian Tribe
▪ Pakan’yani Maidu of Strawberry Valley
▪ Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians
Additional details on tribal comments are provided in Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.
3.5.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.
The property is vacant of any structures. There are no above ground buildings or other improvements.
As such it is unlikely that there are any historical resources on the property and none have been inventoried in the City General Plan. Therefore, there will be no potential significant impacts on any historical resources, directly or indirectly.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
Response provided in section c) below.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of formal cemeteries? The 19.99-acre property is vacant with no evidence that it was previously utilized for anything other than farming. No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the proposed Project site. Further, the property is tilled annually for weed/fire hazard control, making it even less likely there are any historical resources on the property.
On August 29, 2022 the Mooretown Rancheria responded that they are not aware of any known cultural resources on this site.
In October 2022 the United Auburn Indian Community did respond to these proposed mitigation measures (See section 3-18: Tribal Cultural Resources) stating that they are satisfied with the mitigation measures.
Additional detail on tribal comments is provided in Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.
37 3.6 Energy
Table 3.6: Energy
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
3.6.1 State Regulatory Setting
California has implemented numerous energy efficiency and conservation programs that have resulted in substantial energy savings. The State has adopted comprehensive energy efficiency standards as part of its Building Standards Code, California Codes of Regulations, Title 24. In 2009, the California Building Standards Commission adopted a voluntary Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen, which became mandatory in 2011. Both Title 24 and CALGreen are implemented by the City of Yuba City in conjunction with its processing of building permits.
CALGreen sets forth mandatory measures, applicable to new residential and nonresidential structures as well as additions and alterations, on water efficiency and conservation, building material conservation, interior environmental quality, and energy efficiency. California has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard, which requires electricity retailers in the state to generate 33% of electricity they sell from renewable energy sources (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric from small generators, etc.) by the end of 2020. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which increases the electricity generation requirement from renewable sources to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.
3.6.2. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? There is no development project proposed so there will be no direct impacts on energy consumption.
However, commercial uses or other type of development permitted by the C-3 Zone District could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM. If so, project construction would involve fuel consumption and use of other nonrenewable resources. Construction equipment used for such improvements typically runs on diesel fuel or gasoline. The same fuels typically are used for vehicles that transport equipment and workers to and from a construction site. However, construction-related fuel consumption would be finite, short-term, and consistent with construction activities of a similar character. This energy use would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Electricity may be used for equipment operation during construction activities. It is expected that more electrical construction equipment would be used in the future, as it would generate fewer air pollutant
38 and GHG emissions. This electrical consumption would be consistent with construction activities of a similar character; therefore, the use of electricity in construction activities would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption would be reduced.
Moreover, under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard, a greater share of electricity would be provided from renewable energy sources over time, so less fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity would occur.
The project would be required to comply with CALGreen and with the building energy efficiency standards of California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 in effect at the time of project approval. Compliance with these standards would reduce energy consumption associated with project operations, although reductions from compliance cannot be readily quantified. Overall, project construction would typically not consume energy resources in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Following construction of a project, the main sources of energy consumption would be for building operations and other operations, and vehicle usage. However, the operations of the new business(es) and their associated vehicles will have to be evaluated when a development application is submitted.
Project impacts related to energy consumption from this non-development proposal are considered less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Development that could result from this Project would be required to be consistent with applicable state and local plans to increase energy efficiency. Consideration of energy efficiency would have to be determined when a development is proposed.
3.7 Geology and Soils
Table 3.7: Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly create potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
39 c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the
California Building Code creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resources or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
3.7.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Topography and Geology: According to the Sutter County General Plan, Sutter County is located in the flat surface of the Great Valley geomorphic province of California. The Great Valley is an alluvial plain approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central portion of California. The Great Valley’s northern portion is the Sacramento Valley, drained by the Sacramento River, and its southern portion is the San Joaquin Valley, drained by the San Joaquin River. The geology of the Great Valley is typified by thick sequences of alluvial sediments derived primarily from erosion of the mountains of the Sierra Nevada to the east, and to a lesser extent, erosion of the Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range to the north. These sediments were transported downstream and subsequently laid down as a river channel, floodplain deposits, and alluvial fans.
Seismic Hazards: Earthquakes are due to a sudden slip of plates along a fault. Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause structural damage, injury, and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks such as water, power, gas, communication, and transportation lines. Other damage-causing effects of earthquakes include surface rupture, fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground. Secondary impacts can include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, and dam failure.
Seismicity: Although all of California is typically regarded as seismically active, the Central Valley region does not commonly experience strong ground shaking resulting from earthquakes along known and previously unknown active faults. Though no active earthquake faults are known to exist in Yuba City, active faults in the region could generate ground motion felt within the County. Numerous earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater on the Richter scale have occurred on regional faults, primarily those within the San Andreas Fault System in the region. There are several potentially active faults underlying the Sutter Buttes, which are associated with deep-seated volcanism.
The faults identified in Sutter County include the Quaternary Faults, located in the northern section of the County within the Sutter Buttes, and the Pre-Quaternary Fault, located in the southeast of the City, just east of where Highway 70 enters into the County. Both Faults are listed as non-active faults but have the potential for seismic activity.
Ground Shaking: As stated in the Sutter County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, although the County has felt ground shaking from earthquakes with epicenters located elsewhere, no major earthquakes or earthquake related damage has been recorded within the County. Based on historic data and known
40 active or potentially active faults in the region, parts of Sutter County have the potential to experience low to moderate ground shaking. The intensity of ground shaking at any specific site depends on the characteristics of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake fault, and on the local geologic and soils conditions. Fault zone maps are used to identify where such hazards are more likely to occur based on analyses of faults, soils, topography, groundwater, and the potential for earthquake shaking sufficiently strong to trigger landslide and liquefaction.
Liquefaction: Liquefaction, which can occur in earthquakes with strong ground shaking, is mostly found in areas with sandy soil or fill and a high-water table located 50 feet or less below the ground surface.
Liquefaction can cause damage to property with the ground below structures liquefying making the structure unstable causing sinking or other major structural damage. Evidence of liquefaction may be observed in "sand boils,” which are expulsions of sand and water from below the surface due to increased pressure below the surface.
Liquefaction during an earthquake requires strong shaking and is not likely to occur in the city due to the relatively low occurrence of seismic activity in the area; however, the clean sandy layers paralleling the Sacramento River, Feather River, and Bear River have lower soil densities and high overall water table are potentially a higher risk area if major seismic activity were to occur. Areas of bedrock, including the Sutter Buttes have high density compacted soils and contain no liquefaction potential, although localized areas of valley fill alluvium can have moderate to high liquefaction potential.
Landslides: Landslides are downward and outward movements of slope forming materials which may be rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of such materials. The size of landslides varies from those containing less than a cubic yard of material to massive ones containing millions of cubic yards. Large landslides may move down slope for hundreds of yards or even several miles. A landslide may move rapidly or so slow that a change of position can be noted only over a period of weeks or years. A similar, but much slower movement is called creep. The susceptibility of a given area to landslides depends on a great many variables. With the exception of the Sutter Buttes, Yuba City is located in a landslide-free zone due to the flat topography. The Sutter Buttes are considered to be in a low landslide hazard zone as shown in Bulletin 198 by the California Division of Mines and Geology.
Soil Erosion: Erosion is a two-step process by which soils and rocks are broken down or fragmented and then transported. The breakdown processes include mechanical abrasion, dissolution, and weathering.
Erosion occurs naturally in most systems but is often accelerated by human activities that disturb soil and vegetation. The rate at which erosion occurs is largely a function of climate, soil cover, slope conditions, and inherent soil properties such as texture and structure. Water is the dominant agent of erosion and is responsible for most of the breakdown processes as well as most of the transport processes that result in erosion. Wind may also be an important erosion agent. The rate of erosion depends on many variables including the soil or rock texture and composition, soil permeability, slope, extent of vegetative cover, and precipitation amounts and patterns. Erosion increases with increasing slope, increasing precipitation, and decreasing vegetative cover. Erosion can be extremely high in areas where vegetation has been removed by fire, construction, or cultivation. High rates of erosion may have several negative impacts including degradation and loss of agricultural land, degradation of streams and other water habitats, and rapid silting of reservoirs.
Subsidence: Subsidence is the sinking of a large area of ground surface in which the material is displaced vertically downward, with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is usually a direct result of groundwater, oil, or gas withdrawal. These activities are common in several areas of California, including parts of the Sacramento Valley and in large areas of the San Joaquin Valley. Subsidence is a greater hazard in areas where subsurface geology includes compressible layers of silt and clay. Subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal generally affects larger areas and presents a more serious hazard than does
41 subsidence due to oil and gas withdrawal. In portions of the San Joaquin Valley, subsidence has exceeded 20 feet over the past 50 years. In the Sacramento Valley, preliminary studies suggest that much smaller levels of subsidence, up to two feet may have occurred. In most of the valley, elevation data are inadequate to determine positively if subsidence has occurred. However, groundwater withdrawal in the Sacramento Valley has been increasing and groundwater levels have declined in some areas. The amount of subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal depends on several factors, including: (1) the extent of water level decline, (2) the thickness and depth of the water bearing strata tapped, (3) the thickness and compressibility of silt-clay layers within the vertical sections where groundwater withdrawal is occurring, (4) the duration of maintained groundwater level decline, (5) the number and magnitude of water withdrawals in a given area, and (6) the general geology and geologic structure of the groundwater basin.
The damaging effects of subsidence include gradient changes in roads, streams, canals, drains, sewers, and dikes. Many such systems are constructed with slight gradients and may be significantly damaged by even small elevation changes. Other effects include damage to water wells resulting from sediment compaction and increased likelihood of flooding of low-lying areas.
Expansive Soils: Expansive soils are prone to change in volume due to the presence of moisture. Soft clay soils have the tendency to increase in volume when moisture is present and shrink when it is dry (shrink/swell). Swelling soils contain high percentages of certain kinds of clay particles that are capable of absorbing large quantities of water, expanding up to 10 percent or more as the clay becomes wet. The force of expansion is capable of exerting pressure on foundations, slabs, and other confining structures.
Soils: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has mapped over 40 individual soil units in the county. The predominant soil series in the county are the Capay, Clear Lake, Conejo, Oswald, and Olashes soils, which account for over 60 percent of the total land area. The remaining soil units each account for smaller percentages the total land area. The Capay and Clear Lake soils are generally present in the western and southern parts of the county. The Conejo soils occur in the eastern part closer to the incorporated areas of the county. Oswald and Olashes soils are located in the central portion of the county extending north to south, with scattered areas along the southeastern edge of the county. Soil descriptions for the principal soil units in the county are provided below. These descriptions, which were developed by the NRCS, are for native, undisturbed soils and are primarily associated with agricultural suitability. Soil characteristics may vary considerably from the mapped locations and descriptions due to development and other uses. Geotechnical studies are required to identify actual engineering properties of soils at specific locations to determine whether there are specific soil characteristics that could affect foundations, drainage, infrastructure, or other structural features.
3.7.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
Historic Sites Act of 1935: This Act became law on August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) and has been amended eight times. This Act establishes as a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects, including geologic formations.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which was first authorized by Congress in 1977, coordinates the earthquake-related activities of the Federal Government. The goal of NEHRP is to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States through basic and directed research and implementation activities in the fields of earthquake science and engineering. Under NEHRP, FEMA is responsible for developing effective earthquake risk reduction tools and promoting their implementation, as well as supporting the development of disaster-resistant building codes and standards. FEMA's NEHRP activities are led by the FEMA Headquarters (HQ), Federal Insurance
42 and Mitigation Administration, Risk Reduction Division, Building Science Branch, in strong partnership with other FEMA HQ Directorates, and in coordination with the FEMA Regions, the States, the earthquake consortia, and other public and private partners.
3.7.3 State Regulatory Setting
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (originally enacted in 1972 and renamed in 1994) is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The statute prohibits the location of mot types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and regulates construction in the corridors along active faults.
California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act: The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones.
Uniform Building Code: The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the Uniform Building Code with necessary California amendments. The Uniform Building Code is a widely adopted model building code in the United States published by the International Conference of Building Officials. About one-third of the text within the California Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions.
Paleontological Resources: Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals and associated deposits. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has identified vertebrate fossils, their taphonomic and associated environmental indicators, and fossiliferous deposits as significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be considered significant resources. CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature (CEQA Appendix G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) Section 15126.4 (a)(1)). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 (see above) also applies to paleontological resources.
3.7.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Directly or indirectly create potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
According to the Yuba City General Plan, no active earthquake faults are known to exist in Sutter County, although active faults in the region could produce ground motion in Yuba City (Dyett & Bhatia, 2004). The closest known fault zone is the Bear Mountain Fault Zone, located approximately 20 miles northeast of Yuba City (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2015). Potentially active faults do exist in the Sutter Buttes,
43 but those faults are considered small and have not exhibited activity in recent history. Because the distance from the City to the closest known active fault zone is large, the potential for exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects from fault rupture is low. Considering that the Building Code incorporates construction standards for minimizing earthquake damage to buildings, and the low potential for a significant earthquake activity in the vicinity, the potential for adverse impacts from an earthquake is less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
In the event of a major regional earthquake, fault rupture or seismic ground shaking could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. Ground shaking could potentially expose people and property to seismic-related hazards, including localized liquefaction and ground failure. However, all new structures are required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction, and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards. General Plan Implementing Policies 9.2-I-1 through 9.2-I-8 and the building codes reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The proposed Project is not located within a liquefaction zone according to the California Department of Conservation’s California Geologic Survey regulatory maps. Regardless, all new structures are required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction, and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards. Therefore, the potential impact from ground failure is less than significant. iv. Landslides?
According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan, due to the flat topography, erosion, landslides, and mudflows are not considered to be a risk in the City limits or within the City’s Sphere of Influence.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Development of the property that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM would result in approximately 19.99 acres of ground being disturbed during site grading. Even though the area is relatively flat, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the City/Sutter County drainage system.
However, as part of the grading and construction of the property, the applicant will be required to follow Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and provide erosion control measures to minimize soil runoff during the construction process. Therefore, impacts from soil erosion are less than significant. c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
See d) below.
44 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The extreme southwest corner of the Yuba City Sphere of Influence is the only known area with expansive soils. The Project area is not located within that area and therefore will not be impacted by the presence of expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? All new development that could result from this Project will be connected to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. No new septic systems will be utilized. As such, there will be no new impacts from septic systems.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature? Due to prior ground disturbancesfor agricultural usesit is unlikely that any paleontological resources exist on the site. However, the following mitigation measure shall apply if any paleontological resources are discovered:
3.7.5 Paleontological Mitigation Measures
Paleontological Mitigation Measure 1: Mitigation Measure # 1 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 @ 530-822-5145.
Mitigation shall be conducted as follows:
1. Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by intense field survey in the vicinity that potential paleontological resource was found, as determined by the paleontologist;
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 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.
With the application of this mitigation measure to any future development project the impacts on paleontological resources will be less than significant.
45 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 3.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
3.8.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98), which became effective December 29, 2009, requires that all facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent per year beginning in 2010, report their emissions on an annual basis. On May 13, 2010, the USEPA issued a final rule that established an approach to addressing GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA) permitting programs. The final rule set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
In addition, the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) found that the USEPA has the authority to list GHGs as pollutants and to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) under the CAA. On April 17, 2009, the USEPA found that CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride may contribute to air pollution and may endanger public health and welfare. This finding may result in the USEPA regulating GHG emissions; however, to date the USEPA has not proposed regulations based on this finding.
3.8.2 State & Local Regulatory Setting
The City’s Resource Efficiency Plan as designed under the premise that the City, and the community it represents, is uniquely capable of addressing emissions associated with sources under the City’s jurisdiction and that the City’s emission reduction efforts should coordinate with the state strategies of reducing emissions in order to accomplish these reductions in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The City developed this document with the following purposes in mind:
▪ Local Control: The Yuba City Efficiency Plan allows the City to identify strategies to reduce resource consumption, costs, and GHG emissions in all economic sectors in a way that maintains local control over the issues and fits the character of the community. It also may position the City for funding to implement programs tied to climate goals. ▪ Energy and Resource Efficiency: The Efficiency Plan identifies opportunities for the City to increase energy efficiency and lower GHG emissions in a manner that is most feasible within the community. Reducing energy consumption through increasing the efficiency of energy technologies, reducing energy use, and using renewable sources of energy are effective ways to reduce GHG emissions. Energy efficiency also provides opportunities for cost‐savings.
46 ▪ Improved Public Health: Many of the GHG reduction strategies identified in the Efficiency Plan also have local public health benefits. Benefits include local air quality improvements; creating a more active community through implementing resource‐efficient living practices; and reducing health risks, such as heat stroke, that would be otherwise elevated by climate change impacts such as increased extreme heat days.
Demonstrating Consistency with State GHG Reduction Goals—A GHG reduction plan may be used as GHG mitigation in a General Plan to demonstrate that the City is aligned with State goals for reducing GHG emissions to a level considered less than cumulatively considerable.
3.8.3 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Response provided in section b) below.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving force for Global Climate Change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. Global Climate Change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased emission of GHGs and long-term global temperature. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.
GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA).
The construction of commercial facilities that could result from approval of this GPA/RZ/TPM would generate GHG emissions due to the use of motorized construction equipment. The emissions will be from construction equipment during the construction process. Once completed, vehicle traffic generated by auto use will contribute GHG gases. Due to the small size of the of a project that could result from this action, it is not expected to create significant greenhouse gas emissions. However, on a cumulative scale, possible reasonable reductions could be applied to the project in order to further minimize those impacts.
Specifically addressing this proposal, the City’s Resource Efficiency Plan addresses greenhouse gas concerns and provides a description of greenhouse gas reduction measures. A mitigation measure is included that requires any future project that could result from approval of this GPA/RZ/TPM to incorporate the relevant greenhouse gas reduction measures. With this mitigation the impacts from greenhouse gases will be less than significant.
47 3.8.4 Greenhouse Mitigation Measure
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measure 1: The site grading process shall comply with the GHG Reduction Measures provided in the adopted Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan.
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Table 3.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires.
X
3.9.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): The USEPA was established in 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard setting, and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. USEPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment — air, water, and land — upon which life depends. USEPA works to develop and enforce
48 regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress, is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance. Where national standards are not met, USEPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states and tribes in reaching the desired levels of environmental quality.
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act: The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (U.S.
Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List (NPL).
CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) on October 17, 1986.
Clean Water Act/SPCC Rule: The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. As part of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. EPA oversees and enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation contained in Title 40 of the CFR, Part 112 (Title 40 CFR, Part 112) which is often referred to as the “SPCC rule” because the regulations describe the requirements for facilities to prepare, amend and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans: A facility is subject to SPCC regulations if a single oil storage tank has a capacity greater than 660 gallons, or the total above ground oil storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons, or the underground oil storage capacity exceeds 42,000 gallons, and if, due to its location, the facility could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into or upon the “Navigable Waters” of the United States. Other federal regulations overseen by the U.S. EPA relevant to hazardous materials and environmental contamination include Title 40, CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter D – Water Programs and Subchapter I – Solid Wastes. Title 40, CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Parts 116 and 117 designate hazardous substances under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act: Title 40, CFR, Part 116 sets forth a determination of the reportable quantity for each substance that is designated as hazardous. Title 40, CFR, Part 117 applies to quantities of designated substances equal to or greater than the reportable quantities that may be discharged into waters of the United States.
The NFPA 70®: National Electrical Code® is adopted in all 50 states. Any electrical work associated with the Proposed Project is required to comply with the standards set forth in this code. Several federal regulations govern hazards as they are related to transportation issues. They include:
49 Title 49, CFR, Sections 171-177 (49 CFR 171-177), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles. 49 CFR 350-399, and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways. 49 CFR 397.9, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish criteria and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials.
3.9.2 State Regulatory Setting
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA): The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991 by Governor’s Executive Order. The six boards, departments, and office were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of State resources. The mission of CalEPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC): DTSC is a department of Cal/EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans-up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Government Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, DHS lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and which have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.
Unified Program: The Unified Program (codified CCR Title 27, Division 1, Subdivision 4, Chapter 1, Sections 15100- 15620) consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of the following six environmental and emergency response programs:
▪ Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) program and Hazardous Waste On-site Treatment activities; ▪ Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) program Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan requirements;
▪ Underground Storage Tank (UST) program;
▪ Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (HMRRP) program; ▪ California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program; ▪ Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMMP/HMIS) requirements.
The Secretary of CalEPA is directly responsible for coordinating the administration of the Unified Program.
The Unified Program requires all counties to apply to the CalEPA Secretary for the certification of a local unified program agency. Qualified cities are also permitted to apply for certification. The local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is required to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, fee structures, and inspection and enforcement activities for these
50 six program elements in the county. Most CUPAs have been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department.
Hazardous Waste Management Program: The Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) regulates hazardous waste through its permitting, enforcement, and Unified Program activities in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 25135 et seq. The main focus of HWMP is to ensure the safe storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was created by the California legislature in 1967. The mission of SWRCB is to ensure the highest reasonable quality for waters of the State, while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters.
California Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA): In California, every employer has a legal obligation to provide and maintain a safe and healthful workplace for employees, according to the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (per Title 8 of the CCR). The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) program is responsible for enforcing California laws and regulations pertaining to workplace safety and health and for providing assistance to employers and workers about workplace safety and health issues. Cal/OSHA regulations are administered through Title 8 of the CCR. The regulations require all manufacturers or importers to assess the hazards of substances that they produce or import and all employers to provide information to their employees about the hazardous substances to which they may be exposed.
California Fire Code: The California Fire Code is Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code. The California Fire Code incorporates the Uniform Fire Code with necessary California amendments. This Code prescribes regulations consistent with nationally recognized good practice for the safeguarding to a reasonable degree of life and property from the hazards of fire explosion, and dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the use or occupancy of buildings or premises and provisions to assist emergency response personnel.
3.9.3 Local Regulatory Setting
Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The SCACLUP was adopted in April 1994 by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). SACOG is the designated Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties under the provisions of the California Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670.1 Airport Land Use Commission Law. The purpose of the ALUC law is to (1) protect public health, safety, and welfare through the adoption of land use standards that minimize the public’s exposure to safety hazards and excessive levels of noise, and (2) Prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses around public-use airports, thereby preserving the utilities of these airports into the future.
3.9.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Response provided in section b) below.
51 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As no development is proposed from this GPA/RZ/TPM any future hazardous materials will be from a future development. This includes those materials associated with grading and construction equipment, which typically includes solvents, oil, and fuel. Provided that these materials are legally and properly used and stored, a proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. On an ongoing basis the only anticipated hazardous waste would be from small business generated hazardous waste. Assuming proper and legal disposal of those wastes there should also not be a significant impact from hazardous materials. However, any future development project will have to be evaluated on its own merits.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? River Valley High School is located immediately south of this site. Any development that could result from approval of this GPA/RZ/TPM would likely generate some construction equipment emissions. However, the time for operating equipment on the site is short. Assuming proper use of the fuels, solvents, and oil for the grading and paving equipment, there should not be any significant impacts to the school students.
Similarly, for household hazardous waste generated by new residences, assuming proper and legal use and disposal there will be no significant impacts to the school. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The property is not on any listings of sites that are contaminated by hazardous wastes. Therefore, there is not a potential for significant impacts from a known hazardous materials site. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The site is not located within the Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, nor is it within two miles of a public use airport.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Yuba City Fire Department and Police Department serve this area. Neither agency has expressed concern over impacts the Project may have on any emergency response plans. Accordingly, there will be no significant impacts on emergency response or evacuations plans. g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
52 The site is located in an urban area and the urban area is surrounded by irrigated agricultural lands. There are no wildlands on the site or in the immediate vicinity. Accordingly, there will be no significant impacts from potential wildland fires.
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 which
would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
Iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
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.
53 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones: The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) makes available federally subsidized flood insurance to owners of flood-prone properties. To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that can be used for planning purposes. Flood hazard areas identified on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map are identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA are defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.
SFHAs are labeled as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30. Moderate flood hazard areas, labeled Zone B or Zone X (shaded) are also shown on the FIRM, and are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annualchance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded).
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 PorterCologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code), which establishes the legal framework for water quality control activities by the SWRCB. The intent of the Porter- Cologne Act is to regulate factors which may affect the quality of waters of the State to attain the highest quality which is reasonable, considering a full range of demands and values. Much of the implementation of the SWRCB's responsibilities is delegated to its nine Regional Boards. The Project site is located within the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control board.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB): administers the NPDES storm waterpermitting program in the Central Valley region. Construction activities on one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). Additionally, CVRWQCB is responsible for issuing Waste Discharge Requirements Orders under California Water Code Section 13260, Article 4, Waste Discharge Requirements.
State Department of Water Resources: California Water Code (Sections 10004 et seq.) requires that the State Department of Water Resources update the State Water Plan every five years. The 2013 update is the most current review and included (but is not limited to) the following conclusions:
▪ The total number of wells completed in California between 1977 and 2010 is approximately 432,469 and ranges from a high of 108,346 wells for the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region to a low of 4,069 wells for the North Lahontan Hydrologic Region. ▪ Based on the June 2014 California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) basin prioritization for California’s 515 groundwater basins, 43 basins are identified as high priority, 84 basins as medium priority, 27 basins as low priority, and the remaining 361 basins as very low priority.
▪ The 127 basins designated as high or medium priority account for 96 percent of the average annual statewide groundwater use and 88 percent of the 2010 population overlying the groundwater basin area.
54 ▪ Depth-to-groundwater contours were developed for the unconfined aquifer system in the Central Valley. In the Sacramento Valley, the spring 2010 groundwater depths range from less than 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) to approximately 50 feet bgs, with local areas showing maximum depths of as much as 160 feet bgs.
▪ The most prevalent groundwater contaminants affecting California’s community drinking water wells are arsenic, nitrate, gross alpha activity, and perchlorate.
California Government Code 65302 (d): The General Plan must contain a Conservation Element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, river and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources.
That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any County-wide water agency and with all district and city agencies which have developed, served, controlled, or conserved water for any purpose for the County or city for which the plan is prepared.
Coordination shall include the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information described in Section 65352.5 if that information has been submitted by the water agency to the city or County. The conservation element may also cover:
▪ The reclamation of land and waters.
▪ Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. ▪ Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan.
▪ Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores. ▪ Protection of watersheds.
▪ The location, quantity, and quality of the rock, sand, and gravel resources. ▪ Flood control.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: On September 16, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed historic legislation to strengthen local management and monitoring of groundwater basins most critical to the state’s water needs. The three bills, SB 1168 (Pavley) SB 1319 (Pavley) and AB 1739 (Dickinson) together makeup the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act comprehensively reforms groundwater management in California. The intent of the Act is to place management at the local level, although the state may intervene to manage basins when local agencies fail to take appropriate responsibility. The Act provides authority for local agency management of groundwater and requires creation of groundwater sustainability agencies and implementation of plans to achieve groundwater sustainability within basins of high and medium priority.
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?
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 groundwater well in addition to surface water supplies due to recent drought conditions. Since any development that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM will only receive water through the City system, it is unlikely that the project could impact the water quality in the City system.
55 All of the wastewater generated by any new development that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM will flow into the City wastewater treatment facility which is in compliance with all state water discharge standards. The wastewater from the potential development is not expected to generate any unique type of waste that would cause the system to become out of compliance with state standards. However, when an actual development project is proposed, a more detailed review of waste or pollutant generation will have to be conducted.
All storm water runoff associated with the project will drain into the Live Oak Canal and ultimately into the Feather River. The water quality of the stormwater runoff is addressed through General Plan Implementing Policies 8.5-I-1 through 8.5-I-10 which require a wide range of 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.
With the level of oversight on the City’s water supply, and enforcement of Best Management Practices at construction sites, there will not be significant impacts on the City’s water and waste-water systems or storm water drainage system from any development projects that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin? All development that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM would be connected to the City’s water system.
While consumer consumption of City water will increase with the project, very little, if any, groundwater will be utilized as the City primarily utilizes surface water supplies in its system. 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:
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? There will be an increased amount of stormwater drainage caused by new impermeable surfaces created by any new development that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM, which will ultimately drain into the Feather River. The project will be required to construct the local collection facilities and pay the appropriate fees to the Sutter County Water Agency for its fair share of improvements and expansion to the existing drainage system that will be connected too. Also, as noted above, all new construction must involve use of Best Management Practices. Assuming all required standards are met there is not expected to be any significant impacts from additional storm water drainage from the site.
Iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency this portion of the City is outside of the 100- year flood plain. This is due to the existing levee system that contains seasonally high-water flows from the nearby Feather River from flooding areas outside of the levee system. Additional construction within the City that is outside of the levee system does not impact the levee system and therefore does not increase, impede, or otherwise have any effect on the highwater flows within the levee system.
Therefore, there is no impact on the high-water flows within the Feather River levee system.
56 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this portion of the City is outside of the 100- year flood plain. 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 that the project site would be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow or landslide. Therefore, there is no potential for significant impacts from any of these types of events.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Regarding impacts on a groundwater management plan, the City primarily utilizes surface water from the Feather River for its water supply, so any impact on groundwater would be less than significant. Regarding water quality, as noted in Part a) above, all new construction is required to utilize of Best Management Practices. Assuming all required standards are met water quality of runoff water from any development that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM will not create any significant impacts. The City primarily utilizes surface water for its water source so there will be no significant impacts on groundwater.
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 or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
3.11.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The proposed GPA/RZ is on 8 acres of a 19.99-acre property for which the three-lot parcel map is proposed. The property is abutted by a mix of uses. East is an auto dealership, west are single-family residences, south is a public high school, and State Route 20 is on the north side. This 19.99 acres has been planned for office type uses. The GPA/RZ would expand the allowable uses of eight of the 19.99 acres by allowing for a full range of commercial uses.
3.11.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal or state regulations pertaining to land use and planning relevant to the proposed Project.
57 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?
This GPA/RZ will not physically divide an established community. The proposal is within an existing nonresidential area, being surrounded on three sides by non-residential uses. Although the GPA/RZ is not accompanied by a development project, potential future development will be non-residential in nature, located within a non-residential area. As the existing surrounding uses are already eclectic in nature, this proposal is not expected to divide the community. Therefore, the impacts of this proposal on dividing the community will be less than significant.
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? The revision of the General Plan and Zoning regulations from only allowing office and related uses to providing for a full range of commercial uses for eight of the 19.99 acres is in itself a change in regulations.
This initial study has not identified any City land use plans or policies that will be violated by this proposal.
However, specific projects will have to be reviewed on their own merits at the time of application. As the proposed change in land use designation in itself is not in conflict with any land use policies, it will not create any significant environmental impacts due to conflicts with any plans or programs.
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 locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
X
58 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;
▪ Mined lands are reclaimed to a useable condition once mining is completed; and ▪ Hazards to public safety both now and in the future are eliminated.
Areas in the State (city or county) that do not have their own regulations for mining and reclamation activities rely on the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Office of Mine Reclamation to enforce this law. SMARA contains provisions for the inventory of mineral lands in the State of California.
The State Geologist, in accordance with the State Board’s Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, must classify Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) as designated below:
▪ MRZ-1. Areas where available geologic information indicates that there is minimal likelihood of significant resources.
▪ MRZ-2. Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant mineral deposits are located or likely to be located.
▪ MRZ-3. Areas where mineral deposits are found but the significance of the deposits cannot be evaluated without further exploration.
▪ MRZ-4. Areas where there is not enough information to assess the zone. These are areas that have unknown mineral resource significance.
SMARA only covers mining activities that impact or disturb the surface of the land. Deep mining (tunnel) or petroleum and gas production is not covered by SMARA.
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?
Response provided in section b) below.
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?
59 The property contains no known mineral resources and there is little opportunity for mineral resource extraction. The Yuba City General Plan does not recognize any mineral resource zone within the City limits, and no mineral extraction facilities currently exist within the City. Additionally, the site has nearby residential uses, which generally is considered incompatible with mineral extraction facilities. As such the project will not have an impact on mineral resources.
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 midrange. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of Aweighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements.
Noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. Noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the
60 contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise 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 outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. The approximate threshold of vibration perception is 65 VdB, while 85 VdB is the vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.
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
61 a noise element. The purpose of a noise element is to guide future development to enhance future land use compatibility.
Title 24 – Sound Transmission Control: Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) codifies Sound Transmission Control requirements, which establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards for new hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. Specifically, Title 24 states that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room of new dwellings Title 24, Part 2 requires an acoustical report that demonstrates the achievements of the required 45 dBA CNEL. Dwellings are designed so that interior noise levels will meet this standard for at least ten years from 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 projects that have noise exposure greater than “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.
1 City of Yuba, 2004. City of Yuba General Plan. April 8, 2004.
62 ▪ 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.
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.
63 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.
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 of standards 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?
Noise sensitive uses exist on both the south side of the project site (River Valley High School) and to the west (single-family residences). Although a specific development project is not proposed, the requested commercial zoning will allow for a full range of commercial uses. As such, increased operational noise and increased traffic noise will have to be considered when a specific project is proposed. Temporary construction noise, however, will occur regardless of the ultimate use of the property.
During construction of a commercial project, which will primarily occur during daylight hours, Monday through Saturday, noise from construction activities would contribute to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. This could have an impact on the nearby high school and single-family residences.
Activities involved in construction could generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 2, ranging from 79 to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers) and ranging from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, with feasible noise control. However, due to the limited duration of the construction activities, that the construction will occur during the less sensitive daylight hours and considering the distance between the construction area and the existing residences, the noise effects from this activity are expected to be less than significant with mitigation.
Table 1: 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.
64 (2) Feasible noise control includes the use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds operating in accordance with manufacturers specifications The construction noise is expected to impact nearby noise sensitive uses during the construction of the project. Due to distance the high school and residences have from the construction activity, and that the City limits the hours of construction to between 6:00a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sundays, the temporary noise impacts from construction is considered less than significant. However, that construction could expose the neighboring noise sensitive uses to high levels during the day, Mitigation Measure “Noise Mitigation 1” provided below is recommended to further reduce noise associated with construction. When a specific development project is proposed, any unique noise characteristics that it may generate will have to be considered and the City will implement its existing adopted development standards and design guidelines at that time which are anticipated to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Table 3 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.
Table 2: 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 levels of construction equipment in Table 3 are at a distance of 25 feet from the equipment. As noted above, construction activities are limited to daylight hours. Infrequent construction-related vibrations would be short-term and temporary, and operation of heavy-duty construction equipment would be intermittent throughout the day during construction. Therefore, with the short duration of grading activities associated with the project, the approximate reduction of 6 VdB for every doubling of distance from the source, and consideration of the distance to the high school and nearest existing residences, the temporary impact to any uses in the vicinity of the project would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project is not within an airport land use plan. There are no public or private airports or airfields located in this vicinity. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to the Project.
65 3.13.4 Noise Mitigation Measure
Noise Mitigation Measure 1: The City shall establishproject shall use 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 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.
66 3.14 Population and Housing
Table 3.14: 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 vacant 19.99 acres is abutted on the west side by single-family residential uses and on the south side by River Valley High School, both of which can be sensitive to neighboring commercial development. The north side is the four-lane State Route 20, and an auto dealership is on the east side.
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 implementations of Senate Bill [SB] 375), following timetables set forth in the law. The housing element must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and “make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community,” among other requirements. The City adopted its current Housing Element in 2013.
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
67 (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
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)?
The proposed GPA/RZ/TPM could lead to eight acres of commercial development, as well as the remaining
11.99 acres that is currently designated for office development (there is an approved use permit on this
11.99 acres for a church) . As the property is currently surrounded by other development it is essentially an infill project. Urban growth in this area has been planned for many years and City services are currently available to the property. And, while this involves a general plan amendment, the proposal is consistent with the policies in the General Plan, which describes the larger overall land use pattern for the City and all of the basic infrastructure needs to support that growth. Therefore, unplanned growth resulting from this Project will not occur and as a result will not generate any potential for significant impacts. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
There will be no residences removed as part of this proposal nor has housing previously been considered for this property. Therefore, there will not be impacts on housing.
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
2 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2012. Regional Needs Housing Plan 2013-2021. Adopted September 20, 2012.
3 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2017. About SACOG. SACOG website. Available: http://www.sacog.org/about/.
Accessed July 25, 2017.
68 environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
3.15.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Law enforcement is provided by the Yuba City Police Department. Fire protection is provided by the Yuba City Fire Department. Nearby parks and other urban services including streets, water, sewer, and 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 systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service features such as fire apparatus access roads, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland urban interface areas.
California Health and Safety Code (HSC): State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California HSC, which includes regulations for building standards (as set forth in the CBC), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
California Master Mutual Aid Agreement: The California Master Mutual Aid Agreement is a framework agreement between the State of California and local governments for aid and assistance by the interchange of services, facilities, and equipment, including but not limited to fire, police, medical and health, communication, and transportation services and facilities to cope with the problems of emergency rescue, relief, evacuation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
69 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, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection: The Fire Department reviewed the proposal and did not express concerns. Since new development pays development impact fees intended to offset the cost of additional fire facilities and equipment costs resulting from this growth, the impacts on fire services will be less than significant.
Police Protection: The Yuba City Police Department will provide police services to the site. The Police Department reviewed the proposal and did not express concerns. Since new development will pay development impact fees that intended to offset the cost of additional police facilities and equipment resulting from this growth the impacts on police services will be less than significant.
Schools: Expanding or new businesses can create a demand for housing via its employees. However, new residences that may result from expanded employment opportunities will pay the Yuba City Unified School District adopted school impact fees that are intended to provide the new resident’s fair share for expanded or new educational facilities needed to accommodate this new growth. Therefore, the impact on schools will be less than significant.
Parks: The City charges a park impact fee for each new residence that is utilized to purchase parkland and construct new parks. Commercial development typically does not generate significant demand for parks.
Therefore, the impact on parks from this project will be less than significant.
Other Public Facilities: The project will be connected to City water and wastewater systems. Each new connection to those systems must pay connection fees that are utilized for expansion of the respective treatment plants. The City also collects development impact fees for County services that are provided to the new residences, such as the library system and justice system.
Accordingly, the project will have a less than significant impact with regard to the provision of public services.
70 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.
71 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? Since there is no residential development associated with the Project, development of the property that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM will not materially increase the use of the City’s park system.
Therefore, the impact on the City park system from this Project is 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? There is no proposal to provide any on-site recreational facilities, nor does commercial development typically increase demand for park usage. Therefore, the impact on parks from this Project will be less than significant.
3.17 Transportation/Traffic
Table 3.17: 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 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:
72 ▪ 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?
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, there were 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 - copy provided in Appendix A of this document), other programs have been established. 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 that ensure those intersection improvements are improved as nearby property develops, the Project meets General Plan polices. There is also a mitigation measure applied to this Project regarding the impacts from additional traffic on these intersections (discussed further below). As a result, the traffic related impacts are less than significant.
73 Other Intersections of Concern: There remains other nearby 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 are 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 GPA/RZ/TPM 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 concerns on these impacted intersections.
At this time the City does not have a program to collect fees towards improving those intersections. As such a mitigation measure is included 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. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? 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. Any project that may result from this GPA/RZ/TPM will likely 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 50-85% range of the norm. In other words, per the SACOG regional screening maps this subdivision is located in an area that meets the 15 percent vehicle trip reduction criteria. Thus, the
74 transportation impacts from this development is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.4(b) and it follows that the traffic impacts generated by this project are considered to be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The Project will be accessed by several intersections, as discussed in Part a) above. As several of those intersections remain unsignalized, adding additional traffic from projects that could occur from this GPA/RZ/TPM could further increase traffic hazards at these intersections. As provided in Part a), above a mitigation measure is provided below that will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the project plans and did not express concerns about emergency access to the property. As such there will not be a potential for any significant impacts on emergency access that could result from future development of this property.
3.17.4 Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure
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.
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
Would the project cause of substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local X
75 register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
3.18.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). The following analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to TCRs is derived primarily from the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Yuba City General Plan (2004) and 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. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.
Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.
Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological,
76 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.
Senate Bill 18: Effective since March 2005, it requires city and county governments to consult with California Native American tribes early in the planning process with the intent of protecting traditional tribal cultural places. The purpose of involving the tribes at the early stage of planning efforts is to allow consideration of tribal cultural places in context of broad local land use policy before project-level land use decisions are made by a local government. As such, SB 18 applies to the adoption or substantial amendment of general or specific plans. As the later adopted AB 52 provides for a similar review process for all discretionary reviews including general plan amendments and specific plan amendments, the provisions of SB 18 fall within the SB 52 review process for purposes of this document.
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 tools to assist them. Wooden digging sticks, poles for shaking acorns loose, and baskets of primarily willow and redbud were used to gather vegetal resources. Stone mortars and pestles were used to process many of the vegetal foods; baskets, heated stones, and wooden stirring sticks were used for cooking. Basalt and obsidian were primary stone materials used for making knives, arrow and spear points, clubs, arrow straighteners, and scrapers. (Wilson and Towne 1978.)
Nisenan settlement locations depended primarily on elevation, exposure, and proximity to water and other resources. Permanent villages were usually located on low rises along major watercourses. Village size ranged from three houses to 40 or 50 houses. Larger villages often had semi-subterranean dance
77 houses that were covered in earth and tule or brush and had a central smoke hole at the top and an entrance that faced east (Wilson and Towne 1978:388). Early Nisenan contact with Europeans appears to have been limited to the southern reaches of their territory. Spanish expeditions intruded into Nisenan territory in the early 1800s. In the two or three years following the gold discovery, Nisenan territory was overrun by immigrants from all over the world. Gold seekers and the settlements that sprang up to support them were nearly fatal to the native inhabitants. Survivors worked as wage laborers and domestic help and lived on the edges of foothill towns. Despite severe depredations, descendants of the Nisenan still live in their original land area and maintain and pass on their cultural identity.
3.18.4 Summary of Native American Consultation
The City solicited consultation with culturally affiliated California Native American tribes (regarding the proposed project in accordance with AB 52. In response to AB 52, on August 19,2022, the City supplied the following Native American tribes with a project description and map of the proposed project area and a request for comments:
• United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria • Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
• Estom Yomeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria
• Mechoopda Indian Tribe
• Pakan’yani Maidu of Strawberry Valley
• Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians
3.18.5 Tribal Cultural Resources within Project Area
In the absence of specific information from California Native American Tribes, information about potential impacts to TCRs or Native American Cultural Places can be 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 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a Native American tribe that are:
▪ Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
▪ Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision k of Section 5010.1; and/or
78 ▪ 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.
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) 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).
There are no buildings or structures on the property. Additionally, the property has been annually tilled for years. Therefore, the impact on historical resources would not be significant. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
On August 29, 2022 the Mooretown Rancheria responded that they are not aware of any known cultural resources on this site.
The United Auburn Indian Community responding to the City’s request in an October 8, 2022 email, approved the mitigation measures.
No known TCRs have been identified (as defined in Section 21074) within the proposed project area. Given the level of previous disturbance within the Project area, it is not expected that any TCRs would remain.
However, during grading and excavation activities, there is a potential to encounter native soils, which may contain undiscovered TCRs. In the unlikely event resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities that are associated with Native American culture, compliance with the TCR Mitigation Measures provided below would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
3.18.8 Tribal Cultural Mitigation Measures
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 start-date. The lead agency shall contact the United
79 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 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 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 2, below: Inadvertent/Unanticipated Discoveries Mitigation Measure 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.
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.
80 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 or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water or wastewater
treatment or storm drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projected demand in addition to the existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
3.19.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wastewater:
Yuba City owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that provides sewer service to over 60,000 residents and numerous businesses. The remainder of the residents and businesses in the Yuba City Sphere of Influence (SOI) are currently serviced by private septic systems.
In the early 1970s, the City’s original sewage treatment plant was abandoned, and the current Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) was constructed.
Water:
The water supply source for the City is surface water from the Feather River with use of a backup groundwater well. The City of Yuba City is a public water agency with more than 18,000 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 offers residential, commercial, industrial, electronic, and hazardous waste collection, processing, recycling, and disposal, as well as construction and demolition waste processing, diversion, and transfer to a disposal facility. The City’s municipal solid waste is delivered to the Ostrom Road Landfill; a State-permitted solid waste facility
81 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 administers the issuance of these federal permits. Obtaining a NPDES permit requires preparation of detailed information, including characterization of wastewater sources, treatment processes, and effluent quality. Any future development that exceeds one acre in size would be required to comply with NPDES criteria, including preparation of a 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 is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40050 et seq. or Assembly Bill (AB 939, codified in PRC 40000), administered by CalRecycle, requires all local and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills.
This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.
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.
82 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? Response provided in section b) below.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Any development that could result from this 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.
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 growth. 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 treatment facilities 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 on-site water well at the water plant that supplements the 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.
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.
Stormwater drainage in this area is provided by a combination of Yuba City drainage lines and the Sutter County Water agency which maintains the Live Oak Canal System. As the Sutter County Water Agency did not comment on the project, the impacts on the stormwater drainage system will be less than significant.
83 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 are expected 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? 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.
Response provided in section e) below.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Recology Yuba-Sutter provides solid waste disposal for the area as well as for all of Sutter and Yuba Counties. There is adequate collection and landfill capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
84 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
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 project site is not within a State Responsibility Area and therefore has not been placed in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
85 3.20.2 Impact Assessment/ Environmental Consequences a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As discussed in Section 3.17 of this Initial Study, any development that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM is not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area. Nor has the Police or Fire Department provided comments with concerns. Therefore, the impacts of the Project related to emergency response or evacuations would 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? The level Project site is within the Yuba City urban area with little, if any, native vegetation remaining, and the Yuba City urban area is surrounded by irrigated farmland. This type of environment is generally not subject to wildfires. In light of this, the exposure of new residents to wildfire is less than significant. 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?
As discussed above, the site is not near any wildland areas and the GPA/RZ/TPM 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. Thus, the project will not create any potential significant impacts that could result from these types of improvements.
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? 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.
86 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 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
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
X
c) Have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
3.21.1 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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?
This is an infill project within the urban area. The land was cleared many years ago of native vegetation.
Therefore any development that could occur as a result of this Project will not significantly degrade the quality of the natural 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.
The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the proposed Project, with its mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the local 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
87 viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.
This amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan was compared to policies in other elements of the General Plan. There is a mitigation measure applied to the project that addresses traffic concerns generated by the development that could result from this project. 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 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 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?
The proposed Project in and of itself would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction-related air quality, noise, and hazardous materials exposure impacts that could result from this GPA/RZ/TPM 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.
88 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:
Ben Moody, Public Works Director, November 1, 2022, memo regarding the status of the X19 Zone District.
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.” AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones.
89 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor. Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland Map.
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.
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
90 Appendix A
MITIGATION MEASURES AND
MONITORING PLAN
Spirit Drive Parcel Map:
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 22-15 For General Plan Amendment 22-06, Rezoning 22-08, and Tentative Parcel Map 22-04: Spirit Drive Parcel Map
1 City of Yuba City
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PLAN
Spirit Drive Parcel Map:
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 22-15 For General Plan Amendment 22-06, Rezone 22-08, and Tentative Parcel Map 22-04 Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible
Party/Agency
Responsible Party
Monitoring
Agency
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 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.
Applicant or
Developer
Public Works Dept.,
Development
Services Dept.
During
construction
phase
2 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.
Applicant or
Developer
Development
Services Dept.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
3.13 Noise Noise Mitigation Measure 1: The project shall use 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 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).
Applicant or
Developer
Public Works Dept.,
Development
Services Dept.
During
Construction
phase
3 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.
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.
Applicant or
Developer
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 start-date. 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 Applicant or
Developer
Public Works Dept.,
Development
Services Dept.
During
construction
phase
4 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 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.
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
5 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 6
ATTACHMENT 7
City of Yuba City Planning Commission
Re GPA 22-06, RZ-08, TPM-22-04
I am writing regarding the above referenced property proposed amendment, rezone and parcel map changes with plans to remove the current development requirements for various nearby street intersection improvements.
I object to all of the proposed changes insofar that they will remove the developer requirement to make street intersection improvements. These parcels are across the street from a high school, which means a lot of traffic, from parents in a hurry to drop off students to young, first time drivers rushing to school and leaving in the same rush. It is also adjacent to two auto dealerships that have individuals driving automobiles that they are wholly unfamiliar with, on test drives cruising through these neighborhoods.
The high school also hosts sporting and community events that strain the available parking and pack the roads with individuals unfamiliar with their surroundings.
These parcels also adjoin El Margarita to its intersection with Colusa Highway. El Margarita is an old farming road designed for minimal traffic with narrow lanes and in the area of this development no shoulders. In the mornings El Margarita handles traffic that far exceeds its design and is ripe for dangerous accidents.
Ideally these parcels, when developed, will require the developer to not only fund safe intersections with signals and street lights, curbs and sidewalks designed to safely guide and protect drivers and pedestrians but also ensure El Margarita is widened and hopefully its intersection with Colusa highway and the Colusa Highway frontage road improved and made safer.
When traffic signals, street lights, sidewalks etc are not required at the time of development they are left to the city to improve at a later date. Since there are a plethora of areas within our city that desperately need improvement it is imperative we do not create another with this development.
If you have further questions you are welcomed to contact me at [email protected]
Thank you
William Ramsaur
1032 Kimberly Drive
Yuba City, Ca 95993
Agenda Item 11
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 Planned Development (PD) 17: Nestory Park Self Storage Recommendation: Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving a Planned Development (PD) 17 for Nestory Park Self Storage located along the north side of Winship Road approximately 430 feet east of the intersection of Winship Road and Garden Highway (APNs: 53-500-008 and 53-500-035) and an associated Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 Planned Development (PD) 17 for a 4.9-acre property, consisting of two parcels, located on the north side of Winship Road approximately 430 feet east of Garden Highway. The properties are identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 53-500-008 and 53-500-035.
Council’s Strategic Goal:
This item implements the Council’s goal of being Business Friendly.
Background:
The applicant, David Flaherty, filed applications for PD 17 and DP 22-04, Nestory Park Self Storage, in July 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 Development Plan (DP) 22-04.
On January 17, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing for PD 17 and Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-12. The City Council voted 5-0 in approval of EA 22-12 and voted to advance PD 17 to a second reading on February 7, 2023.
Analysis:
This property is vacant with no history of being built on. Discretionary review is triggered by the rezoning to a PD Zone District that will amend the development standards. Self-storage facilities are a permitted use in the M-1 Zone District, but discretionary review is also triggered by its large size (Zoning Regulations Sec. 8-5.7001(d)) requiring Planning Commission approval for the Development Plan.
The site is designated in the General Plan as Business, Technology & Light Industrial (B,T,& LI), and self-storage facilities are consistent with that designation. The site is within two zone districts. The western parcel is in a Commercial/Light Industrial (C-M) Zone District, and the eastern parcel is zoned Light Industrial (M-1). The proposal is to rezone the parcels to the PD 17 Zone District to modify the existing setback requirements in order to eliminate potential loitering areas and maximize development capacity.
The PD Zone District is intended to provide individualized zoning for projects that do not fit within traditional zone districts. The Zoning Regulations require that a 15-foot-wide landscaped yard (setback) be provided when there is a land use transition between commercial or industrial uses and residential uses. It is intended to provide a visual barrier between what are sometimes incompatible uses. The request is to reduce it to zero, and to reduce the front yard and landscaping from the standard 20 feet wide to 10 feet.
Compatibility with neighboring uses:
The project is located on the perimeter of an area designated for light industrial uses. Three sides either have or are planned for light-industrial uses. The fourth side, to the north, has multiple-family residences that would face the rear of the proposed facility. Only the north side of the property raises a potential compatibility issue.
While the ordinance requires a 15-foot-wide landscaped setback be installed to provide a buffer between the light industrial use and the multiple-family residences, the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to a PD 17 Zone District that amends the development standards to reduce the setback from 15 feet to zero, with vine type plantings along the masonry type wall. For the reasons provided below in the “Rezoning to a Planned Development Zone District” section, due to the nature of the proposed business and local conditions, the proposed self-storage facility with the zero rear yard is not expected to be incompatible with the neighboring multi-family residential.
To further reduce potential compatibility issues there is a condition included that prohibits container stacking. As such, it is not expected that there will be any compatibility issues with neighboring uses.
Rezoning to a Planned Development Zone District:
The PD 17 is requested to reduce front and rear yard setbacks in order to make a larger percentage of the property available for the proposed self-storage facility. It reflects the Light Industrial (M-1) Zone District in all respects except for the front and rear yard reductions.
The reduction of the rear yard to zero, with vine type plantings along the masonry type wall will likely not cause any issues with the neighboring multifamily parcels for several reasons:
• The small landscape area will consist of vine type plantings to create a vertical garden that will largely diminish the view of the light industrial type of facility. • The PD zoning, in addition to reducing the setbacks, also limits the use of the property to this approved site plan. This is important as the proposed self-storage facility is typically a low intensity, quiet use, as compared to other types of light industrial projects that could locate on this site. If changes are proposed to the project, they will have to be reviewed via a public
process by the Planning Commission.
• For much of the project, there is considerable open space between the nearest multi-family residences and the proposed self-storage facility. Along much of the northern property line, the distance between uses would be well over 100 feet. For the easterly approximately 300 feet of the project, the minimum distance between the uses would be about 80 feet. One problem area, however, is that were the minimum distance between uses is about 80 feet, there is a Housing Authority street that is essentially on or very near the property line. As stated, the applicant is coordinating with the adjacent property owner regarding a landscape easement on the Regional Housing Authority parcel to the north (APN: 53-470-087). The addition of landscaping in this area will serve as a buffer between the street and the masonry wall.
Airport Land Use Plan:
The project is located within the boundary of the Sutter County Airport Land Use Plan which provides polices regulating land uses near the airport. Regarding building height, a very small two-story portion of the Project is well below the several imaginary cones that limit height around the airport. It may be possible in future years, however, that the trees planted to landscape the property could grow into one of those zones. This should not be significant as the trees can be topped if needed.
There are also three safety zones around the airport that limit the intensity of uses, the Clear Zone, the Approach and Departure Zone, and the Overflight Zone. The project is outside of the Clear Zone, which is the area within 200 feet of the end of the runway. The project is also outside of the Approach and Departure Zone which is a cone shaped area extending beyond the 200-foot Clear Zone for 2,000 feet.
The project is within the Overflight Zone, which is the area overflown by aircraft during normal traffic pattern procedures but outside of the Clear Zone and Approach and Departure Zone. This Zone limits intensity of uses, but the proposed Self-Storage facility is permitted as it is a low-population density use.
The project is in conformance with the Sutter Airport Land Use Plan and, as such, there is not a potential for significant adverse impacts on the users of the Project nor to airport operations.
Traffic:
Self-storage facilities are very low traffic generators. There is a potential concern, however, that allowing commercial trucks in the permitted vehicle storage area could impact the non-signalized Garden Highway / Winship Road intersection. Although commercial truck parking was not proposed by the applicant, there is a standard included in the PD that prohibits commercial truck parking. Thus, traffic generated by this project does not raise noteworthy concerns.
Building Design:
The walls and back of buildings along the rear and front of the facility are decorative and also will be completely (rear) or partially (front) covered by landscaping or the views of them interrupted by neighboring light industrial uses (west and east sides). However, the two-story portion of the building near the main entrance does not, in staff opinion, meet a quality design standard. Providing a second story that emphasizes the look of storage unit doors facing the highway does not represent an attractive design. As such, staff recommends that this elevation be improved to add a stronger design element to that upper story. Staff has included a condition that requires an enhanced design that meets this standard be approved by the Development Services Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant has also indicated interest in potentially lowering the overall walls and building heights in some areas of the development. This proposed revision is required to be approved by the Development Services Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
Availability of City services:
All City services, including water, sewer, and storm-water drainage (a combination of City and the Gilsizer County Drainage District) are available to this site.
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 self-storage project. The findings of the mitigated negative declaration are that, with the proposed mitigations for Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Tribal Cultural Resources, the self-storage facility will not create any significant environmental impacts. 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.
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 Planned Development 17.
2. Provide staff with alternate direction.
Recommendation:
Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving a Planned Development (PD) 17 for Nestory Park Self Storage located along the north side of Winship Road approximately 430 feet east of the intersection of Winship Road and Garden Highway (APNs: 53-500-008 and 53-500-035) and an associated Mitigated Negative Declaration by title only and waive the second reading.
Attachments:
1. City Council Ordinance to Establish PD 17
2. Nestory Park Self Storage 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 APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 17 FOR NESTORY PARK
SELF STORAGE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINSHIP ROAD APPROXIMATELY 430 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINSHIP ROAD AND GARDEN HIGHWAY (APNS: 53-500-008 AND 53-500-035) AND AN
ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, David Flaherty (“Applicant”), Yanni Limited L.L.C, filed applications for Planned Development (PD) 17 and Development Plan (DP) 22-04 to construct a self-storage facility, outdoor vehicle storage area and shipping container storage area; and WHEREAS, as a result the following entitlements are being considered for approval by the City:
• Planned Development (PD) 17
• Development Plan (DP) 22-04
• Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-12
(collectively “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planned Development Zone has been requested in order to reduce the setbacks on the property from 15 feet to 18 inches (north side) and landscaping from 15 feet to zero feet and to reduce the front (south side) setback and landscaping from 20 feet to 10 feet; 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, a review of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations determined that the proposed self-storage facility was consistent with the elements of the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations, provided that the PD rezoning is approved; and WHEREAS a review of the Sutter County Airport Land Use Plan determined that the project is consistent with the airport plan; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of the adequacy of providing reduced setbacks and landscaping indicated that for several reasons the proposed facility would be compatible with neighboring uses; 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 Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment 22-12) 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, 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
2 WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission contingently approved Development Plan 22-04 and contingently adopted Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-12; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt Environmental Assessment 22-12 and Planned Development 17; 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.
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 approve PD No. 17 and the associated Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-12 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
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 finds 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 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.
3. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, including the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as updated, 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 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.
4. Planned Development 17 Findings. Yuba City Municipal Code Section 8-5.2706, requires that
3 the City make the following findings to approve a Planned Development (PD) Zone (the required findings are in italics).
a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
Evidence. Self-storage facilities are considered to be light industrial type uses. They are specially listed as permitted uses in the C-M Zone District, and the C-M Zone District is listed in the Zoning Regulations as being consistent with the Light Industrial General Plan Designation.
b. The proposal is consistent with the planned surrounding land uses.
Evidence. Based on the analysis provided earlier in this report, the proposal is also a permitted use on three sides of this project that are also zoned for light industrial uses.
Regarding the residentially zoned property to the north, with the buffering provided, this use will also be consistent with that multiple-family use. c. There are or will be adequate public facilities available to properly serve the development, including streets to adequately handle the anticipated traffic.
Evidence. The project will be served by all City services. Regarding streets, selfstorage facilities are low traffic generators and Winship Road level of service is well within the City policy of streets being within Level of Service D. There is also a provision in the PD Zone District that does not allow parking for commercial trucks. d. The quality of the development is as good or better than would be accomplished through traditional zoning and design criteria.
Evidence. While the setbacks and landscaping area is much less than would otherwise be provided per the City landscaping standards, adequate buffering between the selfstorage facility and the neighboring multiple-family residences will be adequate, and the street frontage landscaping will be as good as the neighboring light industrial facility.
5. Approval of Planned Development 17. The City Council adopts Planned Development (PD) 17 and reclassifies the zone districts for those districts as depicted in Exhibit A shown on the zoning map of the City of Yuba City from Commercial/Light Industrial (C-M) and Light Industrial (M-1) to Planned Development (PD) 17, subject to the uses and development standards set forth in Exhibit B.
6. 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.
7. 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.
4 8. 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 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, PD 17
Exhibit B: PD 17 Zone District
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.
5 EXHIBIT A
6
7 EXHIBIT B
8
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 Planned Development (PD) 17 and Development Plan (DP) 22-04: Nestory Park Self Storage
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 22-12 and adopt an Ordinance to approve Planned Development 17; and
C. Adopt a Resolution contingently approving DP 22-04, Nestory Park Self Storage, subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, on 4.9-acres, located along the north side of Winship Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) 53-500-008 and 53-500-035).
Applicant/Owner: David Flaherty / Nestory Park
Project Location: The 4.9-acre property, consisting of two parcels, is located on the north side of Winship Road approximately 430 feet east of Garden Highway.
The properties are identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 53-500-008 and 53-500-035.
General Plan: The site is designated in the General Plan as Business, Technology & Light Industrial (B,T,& LI), and self-storage facilities are consistent with that designation.
Zoning: Existing: The site is within two zone districts. The western parcel is in a Commercial/Light Industrial (C-M) Zone District, and the eastern parcel is zoned Light Industrial (M-1).
Proposed: The site is proposed to be rezoned to the PD 17 Zone District to modify the existing setback requirements in order to eliminate potential loitering areas and maximize development capacity.
Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
2 Project Description:
The proposal is a project that includes Planned Development (PD) 17 and Development Plan 22- 04, titled Nestory Park Self Storage.
PD 17 is a proposal to rezone the property from the C-M Zone District and M-1 Zone District to a PD 17 Zone District. This individualized zone district allows the modification of uses and standards, and PD 17 proposed a reduction of setbacks and associated landscaping on the front and rear portions of the property. The rear setback is requested to be reduced from a 15-footwide landscaped area to zero, with vine type plantings along the masonry type wall. The applicant is coordinating with the adjacent property owner regarding a possible landscape easement on the Regional Housing Authority parcel to the north (APN: 53-470-087), however if an easement is not possible, then the applicant will pursue an alternative landscaping solution along that property line that will be reviewed by the Development Services Director through the Building Permit process. The front setback is proposed to be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet with an associated reduction in landscape area.
DP 22-04 proposes to construct Nestory Park Self Storage facility on 4.9 acres. The request includes seven buildings that will house approximately 89,785 square feet of indoor self-storage units, approximately 70 outdoor vehicle storage spaces and approximately 127 shipping container spaces. In addition, an office/reception area near the entrance is proposed with seven public parking spaces just outside the entrance gate. No on-site caretaker residence is proposed. No commercial semi-trucks will be allowed in the outdoor vehicle storage area, and the perimeter of the project will include the rear of the self-storage units or walls that will block views of the outdoor storage area and the shipping containers.
Background:
This level property is vacant with no history of being built on. Discretionary review is triggered by the rezoning to a PD Zone District that will amend the development standards as outlined above.
Self-storage facilities are a permitted use in the M-1 Zone District, but discretionary review is also triggered by its large size (Zoning Regulations Sec. 8-5.7001(d)) requiring Planning Commission approval.
The PD Zone District is intended to provide individualized zoning for projects that do not fit within traditional zone districts. The Zoning Regulations require that a 15-foot-wide landscaped yard (setback) be provided when there is a land use transition between commercial or industrial uses and residential uses. It is intended to provide a visual barrier between what are sometimes incompatible uses. The request is to reduce it to zero, and to reduce the front yard and landscaping from the standard 20 feet wide to 10 feet.
Analysis:
Compatibility with neighboring uses:
The project is located on the perimeter of an area designated for light industrial uses. Three sides either have or are planned for light-industrial uses. The fourth side, to the north, has multiple-family residences that would face the rear of the proposed facility. Only the north side of the property raises a potential compatibility issue. Adjacent land uses are provided in
Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
3 Table 1:
While the ordinance requires a 15-foot-wide landscaped setback be installed to provide a buffer between the light industrial use and the multiple-family residences, the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to a PD 17 Zone District that amends the development standards to reduce the setback from 15 feet to zero, with vine type plantings along the masonry type wall. For the reasons provided below in the “Rezoning to a Planned Development Zone District” section, due to the nature of the proposed business and local conditions, the proposed self-storage facility with the zero rear yard is not expected to be incompatible with the neighboring multi-family residential.
To further reduce potential compatibility issues there is a condition included that prohibits container stacking.
As such, it is not expected that there will be any compatibility issues with neighboring uses.
Rezoning to a Planned Development Zone District:
As provided in the project description, the PD 17 is requested to reduce front and rear yard setbacks in order to make a larger percentage of the property available for the proposed selfstorage facility. It reflects the Light Industrial (M-1) Zone District in all respects except for the front and rear yard reductions. The proposed PD 17 Zone District is attached.
The reduction of the rear yard to zero, with vine type plantings along the masonry type wall will likely not cause any issues with the neighboring multifamily parcels for several reasons:
• The small landscape area will consist of vine type plantings to create a vertical garden that will largely diminish the view of the light industrial type of facility.
Table 1: Bordering Information and Uses
General Plan
Land Use
Classification
Zoning Existing
Land Use
Project
Site
Business,
Technology & Light
Industrial (BT & LI)
Heavy
Commercial/Light
Industrial (CM)
and Light
Industrial (M-1)
The property is vacant.
North Medium/High Density
Residential (MDR)
Multiple-Family
Residential (R-3) Multiple-family residences
East BT & LI M-1 Orchard
West BT & LI M-1
Commercial condominium
buildings housing heavy
commercial/light industrial uses.
South BT & LI M-1 Orchard
Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
4 • The PD zoning, in addition to reducing the setbacks, also limits the use of the property to this approved site plan. This is important as the proposed self-storage facility is typically a low intensity, quiet use, as compared to other types of light industrial projects that could locate on this site. If changes are proposed to the project, they will have to be reviewed via a public process by the Planning Commission.
• For much of the project, there is considerable open space between the nearest multifamily residences and the proposed self-storage facility. Along much of the northern property line, the distance between uses would be well over 100 feet. For the easterly approximately 300 feet of the project, the minimum distance between the uses would be about 80 feet. One problem area, however, is that were the minimum distance between uses is about 80 feet, there is a Housing Authority street that is essentially on or very near the property line. As stated, the applicant is coordinating with the adjacent property owner regarding a landscape easement on the Regional Housing Authority parcel to the north (APN: 53-470-087). The addition of landscaping in this area will serve as a buffer between the street and the masonry wall.
Airport Land Use Plan:
The project is located within the boundary of the Sutter County Airport Land Use Plan which provides polices regulating land uses near the airport. Regarding building height, a very small two-story portion of the Project is well below the several imaginary cones that limit height around the airport. It may be possible in future years, however, that the trees planted to landscape the property could grow into one of those zones. This should not be significant as the trees can be topped if needed.
There are also three safety zones around the airport that limit the intensity of uses, the Clear Zone, the Approach and Departure Zone, and the Overflight Zone. The project is outside of the Clear Zone, which is the area within 200 feet of the end of the runway. The project is also outside of the Approach and Departure Zone which is a cone shaped area extending beyond the 200-foot Clear Zone for 2,000 feet. The project is within the Overflight Zone, which is the area overflown by aircraft during normal traffic pattern procedures but outside of the Clear Zone and Approach and Departure Zone. This Zone limits intensity of uses, but the proposed Self-Storage facility is permitted as it is a low population density use.
The project is in conformance with the Sutter Airport Land Use Plan and, as such, there is not a potential for significant adverse impacts on the users of the Project nor to airport operations.
Traffic
Self-storage facilities are very low traffic generators. There is a potential concern, however, that allowing commercial trucks in the permitted vehicle storage area could impact the nonsignalized Garden Highway/ Winship Road intersection. Although commercial truck parking was not proposed by the applicant, there is a standard included in the PD that prohibits commercial truck parking. Thus, traffic generated by this project does not raise noteworthy concerns.
Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
5 Building Design:
The walls and back of buildings along the rear and front of the facility are decorative and also will be completely (rear) or partially (front) covered by landscaping or the views of them interrupted by neighboring light industrial uses (west and east sides). However, the two-story portion of the building near the main entrance does not, in staff opinion, meet a quality design standard. Providing a second story that emphasizes the look of storage unit doors facing the highway does not represent an attractive design. As such, staff recommends that this elevation be improved to add a stronger design element to that upper story. Staff has included a condition that requires an enhanced design that meets this standard be approved by the Development Services Director prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant has also indicated interest in potentially lowering the overall walls and building heights in some areas of the development. This proposed revision is required to be approved by the Development Services Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
Availability of City services:
All City services, including water, sewer, and storm-water drainage (a combination of City and the Gilsizer County Drainage District) are available to this site.
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 self-storage project. The findings of the mitigated negative declaration are that, with the proposed mitigations for Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Tribal Cultural Resources, the self-storage facility will not create any significant environmental impacts. 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
Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
6 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.
Planned Development 17 Findings:
Yuba City Municipal Code Section 8-5.2706, requires that the City make the following findings to approve a Planned Development (PD) Zone (the required findings are in italics).
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
Evidence. Self-storage facilities are considered to be light industrial type uses. They are specially listed as permitted uses in the C-M Zone District, and the C-M Zone District is listed in the Zoning Regulations as being consistent with the Light Industrial General Plan Designation.
2. The proposal is consistent with the planned surrounding land uses.
Evidence. Based on the analysis provided earlier in this report, the proposal is also a permitted use on three sides of this project that are also zoned for light industrial uses.
Regarding the residentially zoned property to the north, with the buffering provided, this use will also be consistent with that multiple-family use.
3. There are or will be adequate public facilities available to properly serve the development, including streets to adequately handle the anticipated traffic.
Evidence. The project will be served by all City services. Regarding streets, self-storage
Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
7 facilities are low traffic generators and Winship Road level of service is well within the City policy of streets being within Level of Service D. There is also a provision in the PD Zone District that does not allow parking for commercial trucks.
4. The quality of the development is as good or better than would be accomplished through traditional zoning and design criteria.
Evidence. While the setbacks and landscaping area is much less than would otherwise be provided per the City landscaping standards, adequate buffering between the self-storage facility and the neighboring multiple-family residences will be adequate, and the street frontage landscaping will be as good as the neighboring light industrial facility.
Development Plan 22-04 Findings:
Based upon analysis of the Development Plan application and subject to the applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval, the following required findings of Section 8-
5.7001(d) of the Zoning Regulations can be made (the required findings are in italics).
1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, public access, parking, landscaping, and other features required by this chapter.
Evidence. If the PD17 rezoning is approved, the proposed self-storage facility will fit within the 4.90-acre site and meet all City standards. This includes off-street parking, lighting, landscaping, and other City adopted standards. All City services are available to the site, and adequate public access is provided by Colusa Frontage Road.
2. The streets serving the site are adequate to carry the quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use.
Evidence. The site is served by Winship Road. The City Public Works Department determined that the street would adequately serve the site. With the proposed condition that prohibits commercial truck parking on this project site, the nearest intersection at Garden Highway and Winship Road will not be impacted.
3. The site design, design of the buildings, and the scale of the project will complement neighboring facilities.
Evidence. Based on the analysis provided in the staff report, the design of the project combined with the condition added for further review of the two-story portion of the project, adequately addresses the City’s desire for quality building design. The project’s design and street frontage landscaping will complement the neighboring properties.
4. The application satisfies at least one of the findings found in Title 6, Chapter 9, Article 6 of the Municipal Code.
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,
Planning Commission
December 14, 2022
8 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.
B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council of the City of Yuba City approve Environmental Assessment 22-12 and adopt an Ordinance to approve Planned Development 17; and
C. Adopt a Resolution contingently approving DP 22-04, Nestory Park Self Storage, subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, on 4.9-acres, located along the north side of Winship Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) 53-500-008 and 53-500-035).
Attachments:
1. PC 22-15: Resolution Recommending Approval of PD 17
Exhibit A: Zoning Map, PD 17
2. PC 22-16: Resolution to Contingently Approve DP 22-04 Exhibit A: Development Plan 22-04
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
A. PD 17 Zone District
3. Location Map
4. Environmental Assessment 22-12 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program
ATTACHMENT 1
PC 22-15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 22-15
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY (PLANNING COMMISSION) RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF YUBA CITY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 22-12 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 17, NESTORY PARK
SELF-STORAGE, LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINSHIP ROAD APPROXIMATELY 430 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINSHIP ROAD AND GARDEN HIGHWAY (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 53-500-008 AND 53-500- 035).
WHEREAS the City received an application for Planned Development (PD) 17 and Development Plan (DP) 22-04 to construct a self-storage facility, outdoor vehicle storage area and shipping container storage area; and
WHEREAS, as a result the following entitlements are being considered for approval:
• Planned Development (PD) 17
• Development Plan (DP) 22-04
• Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-12
(collectively “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planned Development Zone has been requested in order to reduce the setbacks on the property from 15 feet to 18 inches (north side) and landscaping from 15 feet to zero feet and to reduce the front (south side) setback and landscaping from 20 feet to 10 feet; 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 a review of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations determined that the proposed self-storage facility was consistent with the elements of the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations, provided that the PD rezoning is approved; and WHEREAS a review of the Sutter County Airport Land Use Plan determined that the project is consistent with the airport plan; and
WHEREAS the analysis of the adequacy of providing reduced setbacks and landscaping indicated that for several reasons the proposed facility would be compatible with neighboring uses; 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. 2022110562) 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 22-12, Planned Development (PD) 17 and Development Plan (DP) 22-04, at which time it received input from City Staff, public comment
PC 22-15
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 22-12 and Planned Development (PD) 17.
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. 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 Planned Development (PD) 17 or Development Plan (DP) may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the MND prepared in Environmental Assessment 22-
12. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and determine as follows:
a. 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 projectspecific 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.
3. Adoption of 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.
PC 22-15
4. Planned Development 17 Findings. Yuba City Municipal Code Section 8-5.2706, requires that the City make the following findings to approve a Planned Development (PD) Zone (the required findings are in italics).
a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
Evidence. Self-storage facilities are considered to be light industrial type uses. They are specially listed as permitted uses in the C-M Zone District, and the C-M Zone District is listed in the Zoning Regulations as being consistent with the Light Industrial General Plan Designation.
b. The proposal is consistent with the planned surrounding land uses.
Evidence. Based on the analysis provided earlier in this report, the proposal is also a permitted use on three sides of this project that are also zoned for light industrial uses.
Regarding the residentially zoned property to the north, with the buffering provided, this use will also be consistent with that multiple-family use. c. There are or will be adequate public facilities available to properly serve the development, including streets to adequately handle the anticipated traffic.
Evidence. The project will be served by all City services. Regarding streets, selfstorage facilities are low traffic generators and Winship Road level of service is well within the City policy of streets being within Level of Service D. There is also a provision in the PD Zone District that does not allow parking for commercial trucks. d. The quality of the development is as good or better than would be accomplished through traditional zoning and design criteria.
Evidence. While the setbacks and landscaping area is much less than would otherwise be provided per the City landscaping standards, adequate buffering between the selfstorage facility and the neighboring multiple-family residences will be adequate, and the street frontage landscaping will be as good as the neighboring light industrial facility.
5. Recommendation of Approval of Planned Development 17. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopts Planned Development 17, per the attached Exhibit “A” made a part hereof by this reference.
6. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
PC 22-15
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: Planned Development 17 Zoning Map
EXHIBIT A
R-3
M-1
M-1
C-M
C-3
C-2
WINSHIP
GARDEN
MC KEEHAN
Nestory Park Self Storage
Development Plan 22-04 - Planned Development 17
Project Site
I!
R-3
M-1
M-1
C-M
C-3
C-2
WINSHIP
GARDEN
Project Site
MC KEEHAN
PD 17
Existing Zoning District
Proposed Zoning District
ATTACHMENT 2
PC 22-16
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 22-16
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY (PLANNING COMMISSION) CONTINGENTLY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 22-04, NESTORY PARK SELF-STORAGE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINSHIP ROAD APPROXIMATELY 430 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINSHIP ROAD AND GARDEN HIGHWAY (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 53- 500-008 AND 53-500-035).
WHEREAS the City received an application for Development Plan (DP) 22-04 to construct a self-storage facility, outdoor vehicle storage area and shipping container storage area; 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 a review of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations determined that the proposed self-storage facility is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations with the approval of Planned Development 17; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Environmental Assessment 22-12, Planned Development (PD) 17 and Development Plan (DP) 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 DP 22-04 such that no decision of approval of DP 22-04 becomes final and effective until immediately after the City Council adopts the MND (EA 22-12) and adopts Planned Development 17; and if no such approval occurs within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution, then the Planning Commission intends that DP 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 environmental effects of the Project, including the development of the Nestory Park Self Storage 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 DP 22-04 is consistent with, and have been fully assessed by, the MND, and that DP 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. Development Plan Findings. The following are required findings of Section 8-
5.7001(C) of the Municipal Code that must be made prior to approving the project (the required
PC 22-16
findings are in italics).
a. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, public access, parking, landscaping, and other features required by this chapter.
Evidence. If the PD17 rezoning is approved, the proposed self-storage facility will fit within the 4.90-acre site and meet all City standards. This includes off-street parking, lighting, landscaping, and other City adopted standards. All City services are available to the site, and adequate public access is provided by Colusa Frontage Road. b. The streets serving the site are adequate to carry the quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use.
Evidence. The site is served by Winship Road. The City Public Works Department determined that the street would adequately serve the site. With the proposed condition that prohibits commercial truck parking on this project site, the nearest intersection at Garden Highway and Winship Road will not be impacted. c. The site design, design of the buildings, and the scale of the project will complement neighboring facilities.
Evidence. Based on the analysis provided in the staff report, the design of the project combined with the condition added for further review of the two-story portion of the project, adequately addresses the City’s desire for quality building design. The project’s design and street frontage landscaping will complement the neighboring properties.
d. The application satisfies at least one of the findings found in Title 6, Chapter 9, Article 6 of the Municipal Code.
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.
4. Recommendation of Approval of Development Plan 22-04. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves DP 22-04, Nestory Park Self Storage, 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 DP 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 22-12) and ii) adopts Planned Development 17 (collectively “Council Approvals”). If all
PC 22-16
of the Council Approvals are not made within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution, then DP 22-04 shall be returned to the Planning Commission for further 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 DP 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 Planned Development 17, 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: Development Plan 22-04
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT A
TREES 6 15 GAL GINKGO BILOBA 'PRINCETON SENTRY' GINKGO
15 15 GAL LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA 'DYNAMITE' CRAPE MYRTLE 4 15 GAL PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY' CHINESE PISTACE
SHRUBS, PERENNIALS & GROUNDCOVERS
69 1 GAL CALAMAGROSTIS 'KARL FOERSTER' KARL FOERSTER GRASS 4 1 GAL HEMEROCALLIS 'ROSY CHIPPER' DAYLILY 3 5 GAL CAMELLIA JAPONICA 'SILVER WAVES' CAMELLIA 15 5 GAL GELSEMIUM SEMPERVIRENS CAROLINA JESSAMINE
20 5 GAL HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA PURPLE VINE LILAC
11 5 GAL LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS 'COMPACTA' TEXAS SAGE
73 5 GAL LONICERA HECKROTTII 'GOLDFLAME' GOLDFLAME HONEYSUCKLE 31 5 GAL MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM CREEPING BOOBIALLA
40 5 GAL TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE
87 5 GAL XYLOSMA CONGESTUM SHINY XYLOSMA
PLANTING LEGEND
QTY. SIZE DESCRIPTION COMMON NAME
SYMBOL
(TREES
CALLOUT NTS) -LF-CJ-KF-HE- MP-X-KD-GB-LI LTHG -GS-HV-LH-TJ WINSHIP ROAD N 3CJ 8MP 4HE 5MP 5 1 GB GB
14 MP 6LF 6KF
13LF 8KF KF 5MP 4KD
87X
10 LI 13
LI2
16HE
15GS
20 HV
40TJ L H H H H H L H H H H H L H H H H H L L
73LH L L L L L H H H H H L L L L L T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T L L T T T T T L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G L L L L KF
10 KF
10 KF
10 KF
10 KF5 NESTORY PARK STORAGE FACILITY WINSHIP ROAD YUBA CITY, CA 95993 APN 053-500-024 L1
REVISIONS PLANTING PLAN
DRAWN BY
APPROVED
LICENSE
COMMERCIAL
409125
SHEET
OF 1 4 SCALE 1"
30'
C. TOMEI
DATE 6/30/2022 BOTANICA ANDSCAPES L 0 30' 60'
(15) WALL MOUNTED TRELLIS SYSTEMS AT 24"
ON CENTER BY STAINLESS CABLE SOLUTIONS
BETWEEN COLUMNS. SEE DETAIL 9/L4. -GB -LI -KD -CJ -LF -KF - MP -X -TJ -LH -HV -GS -HE NOTE ADDITIONAL WALL MOUNTED TRELLIS
SYSTEM(S) ON SOUTH WALL WHERE
INDICATED ON COLORED ELEVATIONS.
WASAU TILE
66" ROUND PICNIC TABLE, GRAY
EXHIBIT B
1 CITY OF YUBA CITY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 22-04
DECEMBER 14, 2022
NESTORY PARK STORAGE
APN: 53-500-008, 53-500-035
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 the development plan 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.
Approval of this development plan shall be considered null and void in the event of failure by the applicant and/or the authorized representative, architect, engineer, or designer to disclose and delineate all facts and information relating to the subject property and the proposed development.
Approval of this development plan may become null and void in the event that development is not completed in accordance with all the conditions and requirements imposed on this development plan, the zoning ordinance, and all City standards and specifications. This development plan is granted, and the conditions imposed, based upon the application submittal provided by the applicant, including any operational statement. The application is
2 material to the issuance of this development plan. Unless the conditions of approval specifically require operation inconsistent with the application, a new or revised development plan is required if the operation of this establishment changes or becomes inconsistent with the application. Failure to operate in accordance with the conditions and requirements imposed may result in revocation of the development plan or any other enforcement remedy available under the law. The City shall not assume responsibility for any deletions or omissions resulting from the development plan review process or for additions or alterations to any construction or building plans not specifically submitted and reviewed and approved pursuant to this development plan or subsequent amendments or revisions. These conditions are conditions imposed solely upon the development plan, and are not conditions imposed on the City or any third party. Likewise, imposition of conditions to ensure compliance with federal, state, or local laws and regulations does not preclude any other type of compliance enforcement.
These conditions are applicable to any person or entity making use of this development plan, 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 development plan.
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, 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.