87 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 Storm water 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.
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
88 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. Local Regulatory Setting
The City’s General Plan Public Utilities Element, along with various infrastructure Master Plans, address provision of water and wastewater services within the City.
3.19.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The demand for treated water from developments that may occur as a result of this GPA/RZ is not anticipated by the Public Works Department to exceed the capacity of the water treatment plant and distribution system. In addition, City policies provide for adequate water treatment, storage, and distribution infrastructure for new development. Additionally, new development will pay service connection fees for wastewater and potable water to offset potential impacts to these systems. Finally, existing in-place utility systems of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for electric power and natural gas and telecommunications (AT&T), are sufficient to serve the proposed project because the Project sites are located adjacent to existing in-place infrastructure. As a result, the impact is considered to be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Water supplies have been determined by the City Public Works Department to be adequate to serve the Project sites in multiple dry year conditions. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan identifies adequate supplies to meet anticipated existing and planned demand for multiple years. This potential impact is considered to be less-than-significant impact. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the existing commitments? The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plan has been identified by the City as having adequate capacity to treat wastewater generated by the proposed project. This impact is anticipated to be less than significant.
The additional impermeable surface that will be created by future development associated with the General Plan Amendment and Rezone will generate additional storm water drainage, but not likely more than existing general Plan designations for these properties, since the percentage of impermeable surface generated by either will likely be similar. Future development will be subject to appropriate storm water drainage system impact fees which cover the Project’s fair share of the impact on the storm water collection system. This impact would be considered less than significant.
89 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? As of June 25, 2021, the Recology Ostrom Road Landfill Remaining Site Net Airspace is 33,764,000 cy; Remaining Net Refuse Capacity is 21,297,000 tons; and Remaining Landfill Service Life is 53 years. The impact would be considered less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Transportation and disposal of all waste due to future development of the subject sites would be facilitated in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. There would be a less than significant impact.
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 and, to a lesser degree due to urbanized development, Yuba City. Wildland fires burn natural vegetation on undeveloped lands and include rangeland, brush, and grass fires. Long, hot, and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100°F add to the County’s fire hazard. Human activities are the major causes of wildland fires, while lightning causes the remaining wildland fires.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program identifies fire threat based on a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). These two factors are combined in determining the
90 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.
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, future construction associated with the proposed sites is not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area.
Project operations likewise would not obstruct any roadways. Impacts related to emergency response or evacuations would 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 Project sites are not within a State Responsibility Area and therefore have not been placed in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. But as noted in Section 3.11 of this Initial Study, the Project sites are within a planned urbanized area, and the urbanized area is surrounded by irrigated agricultural land, which typically is not subject to wildland fire. Impacts of the revised project related to wildland fire hazards are anticipated to be 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?
No physical development is proposed as part of this Project. Future development that may result will require the installation of expanded or new roadways, and the utilization of existing utilities adjacent to or near the sites. The installation of these facilities is not expected to exacerbate the wildfire risk on any of the Project sites, as explained in b) above. Impacts of the Project would be less than significant. 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? As noted in Section 3.7 of this document, the Project sites are located in a topographically flat area. There are no streams or other channels that cross the sites. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Impacts related to these issues would be less than significant.
91 3.21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Table 3-21: Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, 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 substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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?
The Project sites are located on previously disturbed areas or have been previously developed with urban uses. All are within the urbanized area. As such there is little plant or animal habitat value as the sites have been disturbed by historical agricultural operations, residential, and commercial uses. There are no wetlands or similar habitat on the Project sites. Therefore, the future anticipated development of the 35 sites will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
Mitigation is also included addressing potential accidental discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources and for greenhouse gas emissions. With these mitigations, impacts are expected to be less than significant.
92 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.
Development associated with the Project will generate new traffic with each individual site development.
As the Project sites are located on or near major transportation corridors that are within General Plan policy levels of service, traffic from the future multi-family developments will not adversely impact the level of service on streets and intersections in this vicinity. New construction will be required to pay transportation impact fees that offset any impacts the Project may have on City streets. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative traffic impacts.
Pertaining to potential cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions, the site grading process shall comply with the GHG Reduction Measures provided in the adopted Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan.
The additional paving area may create some minor air quality and greenhouse gas, noise, and hazardous material cumulative impacts, however those impacts have been found to be considered less than significant for the Project sites. Additionally, formal development proposals of each of the sites will require additional greenhouse gas screening or modeling to determine any project specific mitigation that may be necessary.
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. For development that may result from this action, construction-related air quality, noise, and hazardous materials exposure impacts would occur for a relatively short period and only be a minor impact during that time period. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans.
93 4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference According to Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, an MND may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public record. The incorporated language will be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the ND. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at, or can be obtained through, the City of Yuba City Development Services Department located at the address provided above. The following documents are incorporated by reference:
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.
Airport Land Use Commission. 1994. Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. April 1994.
Airport Land Use Commission. 2011. Yuba County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted March 17, 2011
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland 2012. August 2014.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2013. Sutter County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014.
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.
94 Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) CEQA Significance Thresholds.
Yuba Sutter Transit Route Map.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. “Fault Zone Activity Map.” AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor. Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland Map.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
City of Yuba City Wastewater Master Plan.
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
95 Attachment 1:
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PLAN
Implementation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element:
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 22-07 For General Plan Amendment 22-03 and Rezoning 22-04
96 City of Yuba City
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PLAN
Implementation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element:
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 22-07 For General Plan Amendment 22-03 and Rezoning 22-04
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementing
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
3.3 Air
Quality
AQ 1: For any development project on the Project
parcels that would involve excavation, grading, or
site preparation that would expose soil, the
Developer shall comply with all applicable Rules
of the Feather River Air Quality Management
District (FRAQMD) and shall include the required
FRAQMD Basic Construction Emission Control
Practices on all grading or improvement plans.
AQ 2: Compliance with FRAQMD standards related to a
Fugitive Dust Control Plan and permit
requirements relative to the operation of facility
heaters, fumigation, and boiler processes shall be
adhered to pursuant to established regulations.
AQ 3: Prior to individual project entitlement approval
for any future development project, each multifamily residential project shall be screened for construction emissions based on the thencurrent screening criteria established by the FRAQMD.
Developer Development
Services
Department
Prior to
issuance of
any grading
or building
permits
Agenda Item 10
CITY OF YUBA CITY
STAFF REPORT
Date: May 2, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Diana Langley, City Manager
Summary
Subject: Merriment Village Apartments - Homekey 3.0 Grant Application Submittal Recommendation: A. Adopt a Resolution authorizing a joint application with Habitat for Humanity Yuba/Sutter, Inc, to apply for Homekey 3.0 funds through the State Department of Housing and Community Development for a 79-unit affordable housing project located at 428 North Walton Avenue, which is Phase 1 of the proposed 217-unit Merriment Village Apartments
B. Authorize the Mayor to submit a Funding Commitment letter for the City to contribute $1,787,922 in development fee waivers and $155,000 annually of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds, provided that the City continues to receive PLHA funds
Fiscal Impact: Habitat for Humanity is requesting a contribution of $1,787,922 from the City toward City of Yuba City development fees and $155,000 annually of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Funding for ongoing annual operation costs.
Purpose:
To provide affordable housing options through the development of Habitat for Humanity's proposed Merriment Village Apartment Project, a 217-unit apartment complex located on the east side of Walton Avenue, north of Franklin Road. The project will be broken into multiple phases, with Phase 1 including a 79-unit apartment building and the site work for the entire project.
Council's Strategic Goal:
This proposed project addresses Council's goals of Public Safety, Fiscal Responsibility, and the overarching goal of Quality of Life.
Background:
For approximately the last year, Vice Mayor Harris and Councilmember Boomgaarden have worked on a committee with Habitat for Humanity to explore opportunities to provide affordable housing options within Yuba City utilizing the California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) Homekey funding. Through the process, the team evaluated existing hotel/motel sites for the potential to convert to affordable housing. In evaluating these sites, the owners were either unwilling to sell,
were asking too much for the property, or the sites were not a good fit for conversion to affordable housing. Once it was determined that an existing site was not an option, consideration was turned to vacant properties for new construction.
The committee looked at a couple of vacant properties that were large enough to accommodate a sizable project, and landed on a 7.47-acre property located on the east side of Walton Avenue, north of Franklin Road, identified as 428 North Walton Avenue, APN 58-120-001. Habitat for Humanity brought their design team together, consisting of Hilbers, Inc. of Yuba City and BSB Design of Sacramento to develop a site plan for a proposed 217-unit apartment complex titled Merriment Village Apartments.
Homekey is a statewide effort to sustain and rapidly expand housing for persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Homekey requires lead applicants to be cities, counties, cities and counties, and all other state, regional, and local public entities, which is why Habitat for Humanity is requesting the City's participation in the project. Homekey funding requires a 55-year commitment for the use of the property to be affordable permanent housing. There is an option that the City would be able to sell the property should it not be feasible. However, the use would still be required to meet Homekey standards and must be approved by HCD. Habitat for Humanity will be the owner and property manager for the site, and multiple agencies will provide support services to residents.
On March 29th, HCD issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Round 3 of Homekey and noted $736 million available statewide. For the Sacramento region, which includes the counties of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba, there is a total of $37,158,338 available. Funding available through Homekey 3.0 will not be enough to fund the entire project, which is estimated at close to $75 million, so Habitat for Humanity is proposing to split the project into multiple phases and evaluate other funding programs, such as the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, for the remaining phases.
The ASHC Program is also administered by HCD and funds land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The AHSC Program is provided from the State's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is an account established to receive Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds. The most recent round of the AHSC Program recently closed, so Habitat for Humanity will be looking to apply during the next round anticipated in 2024.
Also in regard to funding, in July 2020, the City applied for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grant under HCD. The City was awarded approximately $310,000 on an annual basis. The City was required to submit a plan to allocate the PLHA funding with the grant application and the City committed to utilizing 50% for the predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable, multi-family rental housing projects in collaboration with the Regional Housing Authority and other affordable housing developers. The remaining 50% is to be used for supportive services and programs for the local homeless population in collaboration with Sutter County, Sutter Yuba Homeless Consortium, and other qualified homeless service providers. Over the five years covered by the current Notice of Funding Availability under the PLHA program, the City is projected to receive a total of $1,866,000.
The scope for the entire proposed Merriment Village Apartments includes the following:
• 70 Studio Units
• 67 1 Bedroom/1 Bathroom Units
• 79 2 Bedroom/1 Bathroom Units
• 1 3 Bedroom/2 Bathroom Unit
• Club house/Supportive Services
• Facilities Building
On March 21, 2023, the City Council received a presentation on Merriment Village from Habitat for Humanity, which included a request that the City Council consider waiving fees that would be owed the City, totaling $4,500,000, as well as contribute $155,000 of PLHA funding toward the annual ongoing operation of the project. Overall, Council expressed support for the project but had concerns regarding the fee waiver request and contribution of ongoing funding. Council directed staff to bring back the project for formal consideration.
On April 18, 2023, the City Council received an updated presentation on Merriment Village. HCD released the Notice of Funding Availability for Homekey 3.0 and only $37,158,338 is available for the Sacramento region. With an estimated project cost close to $75 million, it is not possible for the entire proposed Merriment Village Project to be funded through the Homekey program. Habitat for Humanity is proposing to split the project into multiple phases, with Phase 1 including the 4-story, 79-unit building comprised of 2 bedroom/1 bathroom units fronting Walton Avenue, and the site work for the remainder of the site. If approved by Council, the City and Habitat for Humanity will be applying for up to $19 million for Phase 1. With the project being split into phases, at this time Habitat for Humanity is requesting a contribution of $1,787,922 from the City towards City of Yuba City development fees and $155,000 annually of PLHA Funding for ongoing annual operation costs. Council voted 4-1 to authorize the City Manager to continue working with Habitat for Humanity to apply for Homekey 3.0 funds.
Analysis:
The application for Homekey 3.0 was released on April 24th by HCD, and requires that the City adopt a resolution authorizing a joint application with Habitat for Humanity and provide a funding commitment letter. Habitat for Humanity is preparing the application package and intends to submit within the next few days, pending Council's authorization to proceed. Once the application is submitted, there is a 40- 90 day approval process from HCD.
For the remaining portion of the project, Habitat for Humanity is looking ahead to the next release of AHSC Program funding, which is anticipated in 2024. There is no guarantee as to availability of funding or timeline for the remainder of the project. It is possible that Phase I could be constructed and the remainder of the site remain undeveloped for an extended period of time. Also, it is likely that Habitat for Humanity will request a City contribution toward future phases as well.
Fiscal Impact:
Habitat for Humanity is requesting that the City Council consider waiving fees that would be owed to the City, totaling $1,787,922 as well as contribute $155,000 of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding toward the annual ongoing operation of the project. Projected City fees for the development of the project are as follows:
City Fee Fee Estimate
Development Impact Fees $780,147.91
Building Permit Fees $199,594.72
Sewer Connection & Extension Fees $495,956.07
Water Connection Fees $312,223.08
Total Estimated City Fees: $1,787,921.78
An outright waiver of the fees would typically require them to be paid or offset from another source.
Instead, options available to address the fees include:
• Execute a loan for the fees that would then be paid by a combination of PLHA funds and other funding sources available to the City for affordable housing. There is approximately $1,474,000 of Low-Mod Housing Asset Funds available, although $1M is currently committed to the Richland Village Affordable Housing Development project through January 19, 2025. Should the Richland Village project not proceed, the $1M would be available for Merriment Village or other affordable housing projects.
• Direct all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the nine (9) Housing Successor agency homes toward the fees for Merriment Village. The Regional Housing Authority is interested in utilizing at least a portion of the proceeds for their proposed senior housing project on Garden Highway. However, the City has not committed those funds to the Regional Housing Authority at this time.
• Direct all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale of City-owned surplus properties toward the fees for Merriment Village.
• Request that Habitat for Humanity include a portion or all of the fees in their grant applications.
In regard to the request for $155,000 of the City's PLHA funds for the ongoing operation of the project, it cannot be assumed that HCD will continue to provide the funding for the 55-year duration required by Homekey funding. Should the PLHA program be discontinued, the City would need the ability to discontinue contributing toward the ongoing operation of the project, or identify alternative funding sources. In addition, there are several demands for the PLHA funding, including the City's contribution to Sutter County for the ongoing operation of the Second Street homeless campground, estimated to be approximately $90,000 annually.
If the application is approved by HCD, staff will prepare a formal proposal for repayment of the development fees for Council consideration.
Alternatives:
1. Deny the request to partner with Habitat for Humanity to submit an application under Homekey 3.0 to HCD.
2. Modify the City's contribution toward the project.
3. Modify the Commitment Letter to place a minimum or maximum time limit, or other conditions, on the contribution of PLHA funds.
Recommendation:
A. Adopt a Resolution authorizing a joint application with Habitat for Humanity Yuba/Sutter, Inc, to apply for Homekey 3.0 funds through the State Department of Housing and Community Development for a 79-unit affordable housing project located at 428 North Walton Avenue, which is Phase 1 of the proposed 217-unit Merriment Village Apartments.
B. Authorize the Mayor to submit a Funding Commitment letter for the City to contribute $1,787,922 in development fee waivers and $155,000 annually of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds, provided that the City continues to receive PLHA funds.
Attachments:
1. Resolution - Joint Application with Habitat for Humanity
2. Funding Commitment Letter
Prepared By: Submitted By:
Diana Langley Diana Langley
City Manager City Manager
ATTACHMENT 1
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY
AUTHORIZING JOINT APPLICATION TO AND PARTICIPATION IN THE HOMEKEY
PROGRAM
WHEREAS:
A. The Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) has issued a Notice of Funding Availability, dated March 29, 2023 (“NOFA”), for the Homekey Program (“Homekey” or “Program”). The Department has issued the NOFA for Homekey grant funds pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50675.1.3 (Assem. Bill No. 140 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), § 20.).
B. The City of Yuba City (“Co-Applicant”) desires to jointly apply for Homekey grant funds with Habitat for Humanity Yuba/Sutter, Inc. (“Corporation”).
Therefore, Co-Applicant is joining Corporation in the submittal of an application for Homekey funds (“Application”) to the Department for review and consideration.
C. The Department is authorized to administer Homekey pursuant to the Multifamily Housing Program (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 50675) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code). Homekey funding allocations are subject to the terms and conditions of the NOFA, the Application, the Department-approved STD 213, Standard Agreement (“Standard Agreement”), and all other legal requirements of the Homekey Program.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:
1. Co-Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to submit a joint Application to the Department in response to the NOFA, and to jointly apply for Homekey grant funds in a total amount not to exceed $25,000,000.
2. If the Application is approved, Co-Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver a Standard Agreement in a total amount not to exceed $25,000,000, any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to secure the Homekey funds from the Department and to participate in the Homekey Program, and all amendments thereto (collectively, the “Homekey Documents”).
3. Co-Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Standard Agreement, and that the NOFA and Application will be incorporated in the Standard Agreement by reference and made a part thereof. Any and all activities, expenditures, information, and timelines represented in the Application are enforceable through the Standard Agreement. Funds are to be used for the allowable expenditures and activities
identified in the Standard Agreement.
4. The City Manager is authorized to execute the Application and the Homekey Documents on behalf of Co-Applicant for participation in the Homekey Program.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and read at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Yuba City on the 2ND day of May, 2023, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_______________________
Wade Kirchner, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
ATTACHMENT 2
May 2, 2023
Homekey Round 3 Application – Merriment Village
City of Yuba City
Yuba City, CA
SUBJECT: FUNDING COMMITMENT LETTER FOR MERRIMENT VILLAGE This letter is intended to indicate that the City of Yuba City will commit funding to the development of Merriment Village, located at 428 North Walton Ave, Yuba City, CA.
See all committed funding sources detailed below:
• Development Fee Waivers – $1,787,922
• Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Funds - $155,000 annually, provided that the City continues to receive PLHA funds.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the City Manager, Diana Langley, at 530-822-4792 or by email at [email protected].
Thank you,
Wade Kirchner
Mayor
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Future Agenda Items
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice Mayor Harris
- Mayor Kirchner
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Manager’s Report
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Council Reports
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice Mayor Harris
- Mayor Kirchner
Adjournment