Yuba City City Council
May 16, 2023

The City has adopted a Reasonable Accommodations Policy that provides a procedure for receiving and resolving requests for accommodation to participate in this meeting. Please visit yubacity.net ADA & Accessibility Resources page. If you need assistance in order to attend the City Council meeting, or if you require auxiliary aids or services, e.g., hearing aids or signing services to make a presentation to the City Council, the City is happy to help. Accommodations should be requested as early as possible as additional time may be required in order to provide the requested accommodation; 72 hours in advance is suggested. Please contact City offices at (530) 822-4817 or (TTY: 530-822-4732), so such aids or services can be arranged. Requests may also be made by email at [email protected] or [email protected] or mail City Clerk, 1201 Civic Center Blvd, Yuba City, CA 95993.

AGENDA
MAY 16, 2023

REGULAR MEETING

CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF YUBA CITY
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION

SUTTER ROOM/VIRTUAL
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS/VIRTUAL
MAYOR ● Wade Kirchner
VICE MAYOR ● Shon Harris
COUNCILMEMBER ● Marc Boomgaarden
COUNCILMEMBER ● Michael Pasquale
COUNCILMEMBER ● Dave Shaw
CITY MANAGER ● Diana Langley
CITY ATTORNEY ● Shannon L. Chaffin
1201 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City CA 95993
Wheelchair Accessible

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF YUBA CITY
MAY 16, 2023
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION

SUTTER ROOM/VIRTUAL
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS/VIRTUAL
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Yuba City’s website at www.yubacity.net, subject to staff’s availability to post the documents before the meeting.

The Council Chambers will be open for public attendance and participation. The meeting will also be live streamed for public viewing, but not participation, at the following link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_VuRYNFYLROShcfPxfFcKHA. Emailed comments sent to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting. Please identify the Agenda item(s) addressed by the comments.

Public Comment:

Any member of the public wishing to address the City Council on any item listed on the closed session agenda will have an opportunity to present testimony to the City Council in the Council Chamber prior to the City Council convening into closed session. Comments from the public will be limited to three minutes. No member of the public will be allowed to be present once the City Council convenes into closed session.

Closed Session
A. Confer with Real Property Negotiator (Government Code § 54956.8) Property: Public Utility Easement on APN 23-180-005 & 23-180-006 located on the east side of Garden Highway at the terminus of Oswald Road, 4107 Garden Highway, Yuba City, California 95991
Negotiator: Diana Langley, City Manager
Negotiating parties: Yoshimi Yokohari
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Regular Meeting
Call to Order
Roll Call

__ Mayor Kirchner
__ Vice Mayor Harris
__ Councilmember Boomgaarden
__ Councilmember Pasquale
__ Councilmember Shaw
Invocation/Inspiration
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
City Attorney's Report on Closed Session Items, City Attorney Shannon Chaffin Agenda Modifications/Approval of Agenda
Ceremonial Presentations

1. Police Officer of the Year - Scott Rounds Proclamation

2. National Police Week Proclamation

3. National Public Works Week Proclamation

4. Purple Heart Trail Proclamation
Public Communication

5. Appearance of Interested Citizens
You are welcome and encouraged to participate in this meeting. Public comment is taken on action items appearing on the Consent Calendar or Business Items on the Agenda when they are called. Public comment on any other items within the scope of the City’s jurisdiction, including items not listed on the Agenda will be considered at this time. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. Members of the public submitting written requests at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be allotted five minutes to comment per speaker. Repetitive comments may be limited, and large groups are encouraged to select representatives to express the opinions of the group.

Consent Calendar
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time that Council votes on the motion unless members of the City Council request specific items to be discussed or removed from the Consent Calendar for individual action.

6. Minutes of the May 2, 3, and 4, 2023 meetings
Recommendation: Approve the minutes of May 2, 3, and 4, 2023 meetings

7. Yuba City Police Officers' Association, Police First Level Managers, and First Level Managers Side Letters
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution:

A. Approving a side letter with the Police Officers'
Association
B. Approving a side letter with the Police First Level
Managers
C. Approving a side letter with the First Level Managers

8. Recology Biosolids Budget Adjustments
Recommendation: Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental

appropriation and related transfers in the amount of $200,000 from Wastewater Treatment Facility salary and benefits funds to Account No. 8120-62759 (Specialty Contract Services) for the remaining wastewater biosolids hauling for Fiscal Year 22/23

9. ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements Project (Plans & Specifications) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the Plans and Specifications for the ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements Project, and
authorizing advertisement for bids on the project

10. Housing Element GPA/Rezone Project
Recommendation: Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Rezone 22-04 for the Implementing Policies of the 2021-2029 Housing Element project for approximately 68.54 acres, which includes an X29 Combining District on 14.95 acres, located throughout the City (Assessor’s Parcel Number 59-020- 017, 59-020-015, 59-530-034, 59-020-018, 59-020-016, 51-393- 003, 51-393-002, 57-150-078, 57-150-004, 57-150-050, 58-120- 001, 57-220-065, 53-470-088, 53-470-079, 53-470-083, 53-470- 087, 53-470-076, 53-470-085, 53-470-078, 53-470-077, 53-470- 081, 53-470-086, 53-470-095, 53-470-082, 53-470-092, 53-470- 080, 53-470-090, 53-470-096, 53-470-089, 53-470-093, 53-470- 084, 53-470-094, 53-470-098, and 53-470-097), by title only and waive the second reading

11. Sewer System Management Plan Update Adoption
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution adopting the City of Yuba City Sewer System Management Plan Update subject to minor editorial modifications

12. Letters in Support for H.R. 1586 and S. 796 - Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023
Recommendation: Submit letters of support for H.R. 1586 and S. 796 - Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023

13. Presentation of Investment Report – Quarter Ended March 31, 2023 Recommendation: Note & File Quarterly Investment Report

14. Plumas Street Improvements - Water Tower Abatement
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City awarding a standard agreement to JM Environmental, Inc., in the amount of $175,829 for the abatement services on the Plumas Street water tower, and adopt a CEQA Class 1 Exemption
(Existing Facilities) for the project
Business Items

15. Introduce an Ordinance regulating Trespassing on Private Property and Public Nudity
Recommendation: A. Hold a Public Hearing; then
B. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of Yuba City regulating trespassing and public nudity by amending Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct) of the City of Yuba City Municipal Code by adding Chapter 25, sections 5-25.010 through 5-25.030 (Trespass on Private Property) and Chapter 26,

sections 5-26.010 through5-26.040 (Public Nudity Prohibited), by title only and waive the first reading

16. Montna Bocce Ball Courts (Plans and Specifications) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution adopting a CEQA Class 1 Categorical Exemption, approving the plans and specifications and
authorizing advertisement for bids for the Montna Bocce Ball Courts Project
Future Agenda Items

17. Future Agenda Items
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

18. City Manager's Report

19. City Council Reports
Adjournment

Proclamation
of the City Council
Detective Scott Rounds
In Recognition of your Selection as the
2022 Yuba City Police Department Officer of the Year
WHEREAS, Scott Rounds began his career in law enforcement in 1999 as a Deputy for the Yuba County Sheriff’s Office; and
WHEREAS, Scott was hired as a Police Officer by the City of Yuba City on May 10, 2014 after a very competitive and comprehensive testing process; and WHEREAS, in 2015, Scott was assigned to the Investigation Unit, where he has demonstrated compassion for victims and a deep desire to bring offenders to justice. He is well respected by his peers and all that he comes in contact with. Detective Rounds has worked tirelessly on some of the most difficult cases including homicides and human trafficking; and
WHEREAS, Detective Rounds serves as a mentor and teacher to officers and investigators by passing on the knowledge and skills he has acquired throughout his law enforcement career; and
WHEREAS, Detective Rounds has a passion for human trafficking investigations and is the departments subject matter expert. He has participated in small group and conference presentations along with other subject matter experts to discuss the complexity of human trafficking and promote advocacy for its victims; and
WHEREAS, Detective Rounds’ hard work and dedication to his duties bring great credit to the Yuba City Police Department and to the law enforcement profession; and WHEREAS, he was recognized in 2022 as the Yuba City Police Department’s Officer of the Year for his selfless dedication to his peers and the citizens of Yuba City.

NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that I, Wade Kirchner, Mayor of the City of Yuba City, on behalf of the entire City Council and citizens we serve, do hereby congratulate Detective Scott Rounds on the occasion of his selection as the 2022 Yuba City Police Department Officer of the Year.

Done on this 16th day of May, 2023 in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California.

Proclamation
of the City Council
Yuba City Police Department
National Police Week
May 14 - 20, 2023
WHEREAS, in 1962 President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15th as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day, an annual observance to honor the nation’s fallen law enforcement officers as “men and women of courage, judgement and dedication;” and WHEREAS, the calendar week in which it falls has been designated as National Police Week, a time of reflection and appreciation for the ultimate sacrifices made by the exceptionally dedicated men and women of law enforcement who were killed or disabled in the line of duty; and
WHEREAS, it is important that all citizens understand the challenges, duties and responsibilities of their police department and that the members of our police department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them against violence or disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deceptions and the weak against oppression or intimidation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City is grateful for the day-to-day heroism of our officers, both past and present, as well as their families, who have given so much of their lives in service to our community; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Wade Kirchner, Mayor of the City of Yuba City, on behalf of the entire Council and the citizens we serve, do hereby recognize and honor the men and women whose diligence and professionalism keep our city and citizens safe.

FURTHER, the City Council of the City of Yuba City wishes to honor all the police officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or have become disabled in the performance of duty. May we always remember their tremendous sacrifice and the loved ones they left behind.

Done on this 16th day of May, 2023 in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California.

Proclamation
of the City Council
National Public Works Week
May 21-27, 2023
WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City Public Works Department is proud to create and maintain the vital infrastructure of the City, including construction and maintenance of transportation facilities, water treatment and supply, wastewater treatment and collection, and public facility development and stewardship; and
WHEREAS, these infrastructures, facilities, and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, who are federally mandated first responders, and the engineers, managers, and employees at all levels of government and the private sector, who are responsible for rebuilding, improving, and protecting our nation’s infrastructure essential for our citizens; and, WHEREAS, the American Public Works Association established an annual commemoration of a National Public Works Week in 1960 to recognize, educate, and celebrate the role of public works in the community; and WHEREAS, the 2023 APWA theme of “Connecting the World Through Public Works” recognizes how public works connects us all through infrastructure and service, enhancing the quality of life for the communities these professionals serve; and WHEREAS, each Public Works Department employee performs an essential role in the strength of the Department and the health and welfare of our City through their dedication to their industry and the lives that their work impacts.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Wade Kirchner, Mayor of the City of Yuba City and on behalf of the entire City Council of the City of Yuba City, do hereby proclaim the week of May 21-27, 2023 as Public Works Week, and ask that citizens and civic organizations alike acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing public works services and recognize the contributions that the men and women of Public Works make in our daily lives.

Done on this 16th day of May, 2023 in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California.

Proclamation
of the City Council
City of Yuba City Proclamation
Supporting the Purple Heart Trail
WHEREAS, The National Purple Heart Trail was established in 1992 for the purpose of commemorating and honoring men and women who have been wounded or killed in combat while serving in the United States Armed Forces; and
WHEREAS, The National Purple Heart Trail courses its way across the vast majority of the United States; and
WHEREAS, In 2001, pursuant to the Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, the Legislature designated portions of Interstate Highway Routes 5 and 80 as California’s selections for inclusion in the National Purple Heart Trail; and
WHEREAS, In 2009, pursuant to Assembly Concurrent Resolution 12, the Legislature designated a certain portion of State Highway Route 101 in the Counties of Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara for inclusion in the National Purple Heart Trail, and pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 105, the Legislature designated a certain portion of State Highway Route 223 in the County of Kern for inclusion in the National Purple Heart Trail; and WHEREAS, In 2013, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 27, the Legislature designated certain portions of Santa Barbara and Venture for inclusion in the National Purple Heart Trail; and WHEREAS, The Yuba City American Legion Post 705 wishes to continue the Purple Heart Trail Program, with in the City limits of the City of Yuba City for State Highway 20 and 99.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Yuba City does support the endeavor of Vice Commander, Brock A. Bowen, who has taken the lead for the Yuba City American Legion to bring the Purple Heart Trail through the City of Yuba City, California.

Done on this 16th day of May, 2023 in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California.

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Public Communication
Members of the public may address the City Council on items of interest that are within the City’s jurisdiction. Individuals addressing general comments are encouraged to limit their statements.

Procedure
You are welcome and encouraged to participate in this meeting. Complete a Speaker Card located in the lobby and give to the Clerk, public comment is taken on action items appearing on the Consent Calendar or Business Items on the Agenda when they are called. Public comment on any other items within the scope of the City’s jurisdiction, including items not listed on the Agenda, will be considered at this time.

When a matter is announced, wait to be recognized by the Mayor to provide your comments to the Council. Comments should begin by providing your name and place of residence. A three minute limit is requested when addressing Council.

Request for additional time to address Council
Members of the public submitting written requests at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be allotted 5 minutes to comment per speaker. Repetitive comments may be limited, and large groups are encouraged to select representatives to express the opinions of the group.

Procedure
When requesting to comment, please indicate your name and the topic and mail to:

City of Yuba City
Attn: City Clerk
1201 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City CA 95993
Or email to:

Jackie Sillman, City Clerk
[email protected]

Agenda Item 6

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 16, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk Administrator Summary
Subject: Minutes of the May 2, 3, and 4, 2023 meetings
Recommendation: Approve the minutes of May 2, 3, and 4, 2023 meetings Fiscal Impact: None
Attachments:

1. 05-02-2023 Regular Meeting Minutes (DRAFT)

2. 05-03-2023 - Special Meeting Minutes YCHS (DRAFT)

3. 05-04-2023 - Special Meeting Minutes (DRAFT)
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ciara Wakefield
City Clerk Administrator
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF YUBA CITY
MAY 2, 2023
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS/VIRTUAL
Regular Meeting
Call to Order
The Regular Meeting of the City Council called to order by Mayor Kirchner at 6:00 PM Roll Call

Present: Mayor Kirchner and Councilmembers Boomgaarden, Shaw, and Pasquale

Absent: Councilmember Harris
Invocation/Inspiration
Pastor Greg Mansur, Adventure Church Yuba City
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Councilmember Marc Boomgaarden
Agenda Modifications/Approval of Agenda
No changes were made
Ceremonial Presentations

1. May is Older Americans Month Proclamation
Mayor Kirchner presented a proclamation to members of our Senior Commission:

Tanna Thomas, Chairperson
Anthony Kurlan, Vice Chairperson
John Boyer, Commissioner
Michael McFarlane, Commissioner

2. Small Business Month and April 30th - May 6th is National Small Business Week, Proclamation
Mayor Kirchner presented proclamations to:

G Stan Kearby Insurance
Carolyn Kearby, Chamber Board Chair
Jillian Justice Farmer Insurance - Chamber Business of the Year Jillian Justice-Childs, Chamber Board Co-Chair

Public Communication

3. Appearance of Interested Citizens
Mike Smith spoke
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Shaw moved and Councilmember Pasquale seconded the motion to approve Consent Calendar items 4, 5, and 7. Item 6 was moved to the first Business item

4. Minutes of the April 18th meeting
Approve the minutes of the April 18th meeting

5. Dunn Ranch Estates Subdivision (Acceptance of Public Improvements) Adopt Resolution 23-053 accepting certain street and related improvements pursuant to the Dunn Ranch Estates Subdivision Agreement with James R. Scott, Trustee of The Scott Family Trust dated November 6, 2000, and authorizing the Subdivider to file a Notice of Completion. [Subdivision is located south of Monroe Road and east of Royo Ranchero Drive]
[Item 6 moved to Business Items]

6. Thiara Estates Subdivision
Adopt Ordinance 005-23 of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-13 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for RZ 22-07 and TSM 22-08, and rezoning Assessor’s Parcels 17-066-003, -005, and 021 from R-1X20 to R-1, located on the west side of Tuly Parkway across from the terminus of Bradley Estates Drive and bordering the east side of Elmer Avenue, and waive the second reading

7. Update of Safe and Sane Fireworks Regulations
Adopt Ordinance 006-23 of the City Council of Yuba City regulating the use of fireworks by adding Section 4-11.02 (Discharge of Fireworks) of Chapter 11, and amending Section 4-17.20 (Exemptions [Noise Regulations]) of Chapter 17 and Section 5602 of Chapter 5 (Fire Prevention), and adding Section 5602.2 (dangerous fireworks) to Section 4-5.02 of Chapter 5, all of Title 4 of the Yuba City Municipal Code by title only and waive the second reading
The motion was passed with four (4) votes
Business Items
[Item 6 moved from Consent Calendar]

6. Thiara Estates Subdivision
Mike Smith spoke
Virginia Smith spoke

Rhonda (Last Name Unknown) spoke
Dennis Miller spoke
Councilmember Boomgaarden moved and Councilmember Shaw seconded the motion to:

Adopt Ordinance 005-23 of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-13 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for RZ 22-07 and TSM 22-08, and rezoning Assessor’s Parcels 17-066-003, -005, and 021 from R-1X20 to R-1, located on the west side of Tuly Parkway across from the terminus of Bradley Estates Drive and bordering the east side of Elmer Avenue, and waive the second reading
The motion was passed with four (4) votes

8. Plumas Street Improvements Design Award
Sandee Drown spoke
Councilmember Shaw moved and Councilmember Pasquale seconded the motion to:

Adopt Resolution 23-054 Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Melton Design Group, Inc. of Chico, CA for the Plumas Street Improvements Project (Preliminary Engineering Services) in the amount of $185,700, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney
The motion was passed with four (4) votes

9. Housing Element GPA/Rezone Project
Mayor Kirchner opened a Public Hearing
No public comment
Mayor Kirchner closed the Public Hearing
Councilmember Shaw moved and Councilmember Boomgaarden seconded the motion to:

B. Adopt Resolution 23-055 of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-07 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Implementing Policies of the 2021-2029 Housing Element project, and adopt General Plan Amendment 22-03 for approximately 68.54 acres located throughout the City (Assessor’s Parcel Number 59-020-017, 59-020- 015, 61-120-004, 59-530-034, 59-020-018, 59-020-016, 51-393-003, 51-393-002, 57-150-078, 57-150-004, 57-150-050, 58-120-001, 57-220-065, 53-470-088, 53- 470-079, 53-470-083, 53-470-087, 53-470-076, 53-470-085, 53-470-078, 53-470- 077, 53-470-081, 53-470-086, 53-470-095, 53-470-082, 53-470-092, 53-470-080, 53-470-090, 53-470-096, 53-470-089, 53-470-093, 53-470-084, 53-470-094, 53-470- 098, and 53-470-097); and
C. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to adopt Rezone 22-04 for the Implementing Policies of the 2021-2029 Housing Element project for approximately 68.54 acres, which includes an X29 Combining District on 14.95 acres, located throughout the City (Assessor’s Parcel Number 59-020- 017, 59-020-015, 61- 120-004, 59-530-034, 59-020-018, 59-020-016, 51-393-003, 51-393-002, 57-150- 078, 57-150-004, 57-150-050, 58-120-001, 57-220-065, 53-470-088, 53-470-079,

53-470-083, 53-470-087, 53-470-076, 53-470-085, 53-470-078, 53-470-077, 53- 470-081, 53-470-086, 53-470-095, 53-470-082, 53-470-092, 53-470-080, 53-470- 090, 53-470-096, 53-470-089, 53-470-093, 53-470-084, 53-470-094, 53-470-098, and 53-470-097), by title only and waive the first reading The motion was passed with four (4) votes

10. Merriment Village Apartments - Homekey 3.0 Grant Application Submittal Councilmember Boomgaarden moved and Councilmember Shaw seconded the motion to:

A. Adopt Resolution 23-056 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
The motion was passed with three (3) votes [Pasquale opposed] Future Agenda Items

11. Future Agenda Items
No suggestions were made
Reports and Communications

12. City Manager's Report

13. City Council Reports
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice Mayor Harris
- Mayor Kirchner
Adjournment
Mayor Kirchner adjourned the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 7:49 PM _____________________________
Wade Kirchner, Mayor

ATTEST:
____________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 2

MINUTES (DRAFT)

CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF YUBA CITY
MAY 3, 2023
1:45 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING

YUBA CITY HIGH SCHOOL

SOUTH GYM
850 B STREET, YUBA CITY
Special Meeting
Call to Order
The Special Meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Kirchner at 1:50 PM Roll Call

Present: Mayor Kirchner and Councilmembers Boomgaarden, Harris, Pasquale and Shaw

Absent: None
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Pledge was led by Mr. Cy Olsen, YCHS Principal
Ceremonial Presentations

1. Centennial Anniversary for Yuba City High School Proclamation Mayor Kirchner presented a proclamation to Mr. Cy Olsen, YCHS Principal [Congressman LaMalfa presented a certificate to Mr. Cy Olsen, YCHS Principal]

2. Youth Commission Presentation
Justin Douthwit and Dylan Brown from the Community Services Department and representatives from our Youth Commission gave a presentation Public Communication

3. Appearance of Interested Citizens
YCHS student spoke
Reports and Communications

4. City Council Reports

- Vice Mayor Harris
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Shaw
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Mayor Kirchner
Adjournment
Mayor Kirchner adjourned the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 2:30 PM _____________________________
Wade Kirchner, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 3

MINUTES (DRAFT)

SPECIAL MEETING

CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF YUBA CITY
MAY 4, 2023
8:30 A.M. YUBA CITY POLICE DEPT
1545 POOLE BLVD
Special Meeting
Call to Order
The Special Meeting of the City Council called to order by Mayor Kirchner at 8:30 AM Roll Call

Present: Mayor Kirchner and Councilmembers Boomgaarden, Harris, Pasquale and Shaw

Absent: None
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Public Communication on Items on the Agenda

1. Members of the public may address the City Council concerning any item that has been described in the notice of this meeting.

No public comment
Business from the City Council

2. City Council Team Building and Training Workshop, facilitated by Juan Lopez, Amistad and Associates
No public comment
Adjournment
Mayor Kirchner adjourned the Special Meeting of the City Council at 12:17 PM _____________________________
Wade Kirchner, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

Agenda Item 7

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 16, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Human Resources Department
Presentation By: Natalie Springer, Human Resources Director Summary
Subject: Yuba City Police Officers' Association, Police First Level Managers, and First Level Managers Side Letters
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution:

A. Approving a side letter with the Police Officers' Association B. Approving a side letter with the Police First Level Managers C. Approving a side letter with the First Level Managers Fiscal Impact: The proposed changes have a potential increase cost to the City of $7,000 annually.

Purpose:

To approve side letters which clarifies the language to administer Public Safety Dispatcher POST and education pay, ensure current and past language complies with CalPERS law, and update the language for Police First Level Managers to include pay for the POST Dispatch Supervisor Certificate.

Council's Strategic Goal:

This item supports the City Council's goal of Public Safety.

Background:

Upon review of the Public Safety Dispatcher POST and education pay, it was determined that clarification was needed to ensure proper administration of POST and education pay for employees. In response to the identified issues, the City’s negotiator met with the Police Officer’s Association negotiator to find a resolution for both parties.

The Police Officers' Association side letter addresses non-sworn employees' cumulative maximum for any combination of POST and education incentive pay of seven and a half percent (7.5%) of base hourly rate. Additionally, the updated side letter removes the field of degree requirement for all employees.

While discussing POST and education pay for Police First Level Managers, the POST Dispatcher Supervisor was identified as the appropriate certification for the position of Communication Center

Supervisor. This side letter addresses non-sworn employees' cumulative maximum for any combination of POST and education incentive pay of ten percent (10%) of base hourly rate. The side letter also includes the POST Dispatch Supervisor Certificate incentive pay.

When the Communication Center Supervisor was part of the First Level Manager’s bargaining unit, the past language requires clarification to make certain of CalPERS compliance.

Analysis:

Police Officer's Association
The following is the proposed clarification in table format.

POST Certification and Education Pay Percentage of Base Hourly Rate
POST Public Safety Dispatch Intermediate Certificate 2.5% POST Public Safety Dispatch Advance Certificate 2.5%
Associate's Degree 2.5%
Bachelor's Degree 5%

Cumulative maximum for any combination is 7.5%
Police First Level Managers
The following in the proposed clarification language in table format.

POST Certification and Education Pay Percentage of base Hourly Rate
POST Public Safety Dispatch Advanced Certificate 2.5%
POST Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor Certificate 2.5% Associate's Degree 2.5%
Bachelor's Degree 5%

Cumulative maximum for any combination is 10%
First Level Managers
This side letter is necessary to ensure that the previous POST certification and education incentive pay for the Communication Center Supervisor is in compliance with CalPERS so there is no dispute with CalPERS on past POST certification and education incentive pay.

Staff has been in communication with the impacted bargaining units and the bargaining units are in agreement with the side letters.

Fiscal Impact:

The proposed changes have a potential increase cost to the City of $7,000 annually.

Alternatives:

1. Do not approve the Police Officers' Association side letter resulting in loss of pay for staff and provide direction.

2. Do not approve Police First Level Managers side letter resulting in a loss of pay for staff and provide

staff direction.

3. Do not approve First Level Managers side letter resulting in possible CalPERS compliance issues for an employee and provide staff direction.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution:

A) Approving a side letter with the Yuba City Police Officer's Association B) Approving a side letter with Police First Level Managers C) Approving a side letter with the First Level Managers Attachments:

1. Education Incentive Pay Resolution Final

2. Yuba City POA Side Letter

3. Yuba City PFLM Side Letter

4. Yuba City FLM Side Letter
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Natalie Springer
Human Resources Director
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. ____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVING THE YUBA CITY POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION, POLICE

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS, AND FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS SIDE LETTERS TO

CLARIFY INCENTIVE PAY PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the Yuba City Police Officers’ Association, Police First Level Managers, and First Level Managers commitment to the City and its citizens while providing outstanding and dedicated service to all;
WHEREAS, City staff and impacted bargaining units have determined further clarification is need to administer the Public Safety Dispatcher POST Certificate and education incentive pay; WHEREAS, the First Level Managers Side Letter is to memorialize similar clarifications to ensure that previous the POST certificate and education incentive pay relating to the Communication Center Supervisor (when that classification was in the FLM unit) is in compliance with CalPERS requirements.

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

1. Approve the attached Police Officers’ Association Side Letter to clarify the Dispatcher Incentive Pay language includes POST Public Safety Dispatch Intermediate Certificate at

2.5% of base hourly rate, POST Public Safety Dispatch Advance Certificate at 2.5% of base hourly rate, Associate’s Degree at 2.5% base hourly rate, and Bachelor’s Degree at 5% of base hourly rate. The cumulative maximum for any combination is 7.5%.

2. Approve the attached Police First Level Managers Side Letter to clarify the Dispatcher Incentive Pay language includes POST Public Safety Dispatch Advance Certificate at

2.5% of base hourly rate, POST Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor Certificate at 2.5% of base hourly rate, Associate’s Degree at 2.5% base hourly rate, and Bachelor’s Degree at 5% of base hourly rate. The cumulative maximum for any combination is 10%.

3. Approve the attached First Level Managers Side Letter to ensure that the previous POST certification and education incentive pay for the Communication Center Supervisor is in compliance with CalPERS.

Authorize staff to make any necessary clarifying language changes to the language in the above Side Letters as long as the changes do not modify the Side Letters substantive terms or past practice.

The director of Finance is hereby authorized to make the necessary budget adjustments to implement the provisions of this resolution.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of May 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
_________________________
Wade Kirchner, Mayor

ATTEST:
__________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY:
_________________________
Stacey Sheston, Special Counsel
Best Best & Krieger, LLP

Yuba City and Yuba City Police Officers' Association (POA) Side Letter of Agreement to the
2021-2023 PFLM MOU
The City of Yuba City (City) and Yuba City Police Officers' Association (POA) have met and conferred in good faith pursuant to the requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act to amend provisions of their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), including applicable side letters, with a current tenn of July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2023. This side letter of Agreement describes the Parties' full and complete agreement to amend that MOU. This Side letter replaces Article 3 Section 4 Education Incentives as follows:

4. Non-sworn educational incentives
Dispatchers who possess a POST Public Safety Dispatch Advanced Certificate receive POST Certificate pay of two and a half percent (2.5%) of their base hourly rate of pay.

Dispatchers who possess a POST Dispatch Supervisor Certificate receive a POST Certificate pay of two and a half percent (2.5%) of their base hourly rate of pay.

Employees who possess an Associate' s degree receive two and a half percent (2.5%) of their base hourly rate of pay.

Or
Employees who possess a Bachelor's degree receive five percent (5.0%) of their base hourly rate of pay.

The cumulative maximum for any combination of POST and education incentive pay under this Section is ten percent (10%) of base hourly rate. Degrees must be from a regionally accredited institution.

The above sections and language revisions are the only amendments to the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This Side Letter Agreement does not change, modify, or otherwise alter any other terms or conditions of the current MOU between the City of Yuba City and the Yuba City Police Officers' Association (POA).

Date: ________ _ Date: May 9, 2023
City of Yuba City
Diana Langley, City Manager
Michael W. Jarvis
Brian Thornton, PFLM Representative
-r x;;&JTim~ Talbot

Agenda Item 8

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 16, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Recology Biosolids Budget Adjustments
Recommendation: Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental appropriation and related transfers in the amount of $200,000 from Wastewater Treatment Facility salary and benefits funds to Account No. 8120-62759 (Specialty Contract Services) for the remaining wastewater biosolids hauling for Fiscal Year 22/23 Fiscal Impact: $200,000 – Account No. 8120-62759 (Specialty Contract Services) Purpose:

To provide the necessary additional funding for hauling and disposal services for the residual biosolids resulting from the wastewater treatment process.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item addresses Council’s strategic goals of Fiscal Responsibility and Infrastructure by providing the necessary funding to support the operations of the Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Background:

The Wastewater Treatment Facility process results in treated water that is discharged into the Feather River and compacted waste, known as biosolids, which requires off-site disposal. Recology YubaSutter hauls the biosolids from the facility and utilizes them to cover their landfills.

The biosolids disposal and associated costs are negotiated as part of the City’s Collection Services Franchise Agreement. Amendment No. 2 to the Franchise Agreement was approved by Council on April 19, 2022. One of the City’s requests in Amendment No. 2 stabilized the volumetric rate for biosolids hauling, as the rate as calculated per the Franchise Agreement was projected to increase dramatically in October 2022 and would have drastically impacted the wastewater operating budget.

Rather than increasing from $61 per ton to $76 per ton, the rate was reduced to $63 per ton for the 2022-2023 contract year.

Analysis:

Though staff calculated the estimated need in Account No. 8120-62759 (Specialty Contract Services) as part of the annual budget process based on the per-ton rate provided in Amendment No. 2, the

estimate did not appropriately account for the increase in the per-load hauling fee. The hauling fee is still subject to the original increase formula in the Franchise Agreement, which is based on the Consumer Price Index (Water and Sewer and Trash Collection Services).

Additionally, staff projected a reduction in biosolids due to placing the new screw presses into service, which were installed as part of the Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements Project. While the screw presses are performing well as expected, resulting in drier, denser biosolids, the overall improvements to the facility through the project have also increased the efficiency of the wastewater treatment process. The facility now produces more biosolids over the same period, resulting in approximately the same volume and number of loads overall.

Fiscal Impact:

In order to encumber additional funds and process the remaining invoices from Recology for Fiscal Year 22/23, Public Works is requesting authorization to transfer $200,000 from salary and benefits savings to fund the remaining three (3) months of biosolids disposal. There are sufficient funds in the Wastewater Treatment Facility’s salary and benefits accounts due to vacant and underfilled positions during the fiscal year.

Staff has projected the rates and fees for next fiscal year and requested an increase of $200,000 to Account No. 8120-62759, for a line item total of $575,000, as part of the operating budget process. The City’s upcoming Utilities Rate Study 2024 will evaluate the long-term fiscal impact of biosolids hauling and disposal costs on the operating budget as part of the process to determine rate recommendations for future years.

Alternatives:

There are no alternatives for biosolids disposal at this time due to the current Franchise Agreement.

Recommendation:

Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental appropriation and related transfers in the amount of $200,000 from Wastewater Treatment Facility salary and benefits funds to Account No. 8120-62759 (Specialty Contract Services) for the remaining wastewater biosolids hauling for Fiscal Year 22/23.

Attachments:

None
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Scarlett O. Harris
Administrative Analyst II
Diana Langley
City Manager

Agenda Item 9

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 16, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements Project (Plans & Specifications) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the Plans and Specifications for the ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements Project, and authorizing advertisement for bids on the project
Fiscal Impact: Engineer’s Estimate $400,000 – Account No. 1220 (ADA Public Facilities Sidewalk Improvements)
Purpose:

To promote full participation, self-sufficiency, equal opportunity, access, and safety by constructing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant improvements in accordance with the City's ADA Self Evaluation & Transition Plan for the Public Right-of-Way.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This project advances the Council’s Strategic Goals for Infrastructure and Public Safety by improving the City's sidewalks to increase mobility for all pedestrians.

Background:

On July 17, 2012, the City adopted the ADA Self-Evaluation & Transition Plan for the Public Right of Way (Transition Plan). This Transition Plan identifies physical obstacles in Yuba City’s public right-of-way facilities that limit accessibility of activities to individuals with disabilities. In addition, the Transition Plan describes methods to achieve ADA compliance and identifies priorities for implementation.

Using the priorities noted in the Transition Plan, as well as complaints logged through the City’s YC311 system and directly with the Public Works Department, the ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements Project scope of work includes the upgrade of 25 pedestrian access ramps and 123 linear feet of sidewalk at locations shown on Attachment 2. This is also a part of the general repairs necessary to the upkeep of the City’s sidewalk, curbs, and gutters.

Analysis:

Public Works has prepared the project plans, specifications, and cost estimate for the ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements Project. The focus of this project is to remove access barriers. With Council approval of the plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids, staff proposes the following schedule:

Advertise for Bid: May 2023
Award Contract: July 2023
Start of Construction: August 2023
Completion: October 2023

The plans and specifications for the project are on file in the Public Works Department at City Hall and at http://www.yubacity.net/publicworksplans.

Construction management and inspection will be administered by the City’s Public Works Department staff.

Fiscal Impact:

The estimated total project cost is $400,000. This estimate includes contingency and construction management costs. CIP Account No. 1220 (ADA Public Facilities Sidewalk Improvements) has adequate funding programmed for this project.

A detailed fiscal impact and any necessary fiscal appropriations will be presented to Council at the time of award based on the actual bid amounts.

Environmental:

City staff completed all necessary environmental documents required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and has determined that the project is categorically excluded under 24 CFR 50.20(a)(1), special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of accessibility to elderly and persons with disabilities.

Staff has also performed a preliminary environmental assessment of this project relative to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and determined that it falls within the Class 1 Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, as concrete replacement and utility alignment adjustments within existing City facilities is defined as repairs, maintenance, or minor alterations of existing public facilities, involving negligible or no expansion.

Further, none of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 apply to this project.

Alternatives:

A. Provide staff with alternative direction regarding priority locations.

B. Delay or cancel proposed project.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution approving the plans and specifications for the ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements Project, and authorizing advertisement for bids on the project.

Attachments:

1. Resolution – Approval of Plans and Specifications

2. Project Location Map
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Fabiola Vazquez
Assistant Engineer
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ADA RAMP AND

SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING

ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ON THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department intends to solicit bids for construction of the ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved and ordered by the City Council of Yuba City as follows:

1. City staff completed all necessary environmental documents required by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development and has determined that the project is categorically excluded under 24 CFR 50.20(a)(1), special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of accessibility to elderly and persons with disabilities.

Additionally, the City has performed a preliminary environmental assessment of this project relative to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and the City Council finds and determines that the project falls within the Class 1 Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, as the concrete replacement and utility alignment adjustments within existing City facilities are qualifying repairs, maintenance, or minor alterations of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion. Further, none of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set form in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to this project.

2. The plans and specifications for the ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements Project be approved.

3. The Public Works Department is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for bids for the ADA Ramps and Sidewalk Improvements Project.

The foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16 th day of May
2023.

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

ADA RAMP & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT LOCATION MAP 0' 1500' 3000'
1" = 1500'

BRIDGE ST
SR-20

BUTTE HOUSE RD
PLUMAS BLVD SR-99 LIVE OAK BLVDGRAY AVE CLARK AVE

QUEENS AVE
AREA A
AREA B
AREA C
AREA D
AREA E
Area Intersection
A Queens Ave/Granada Way
A Queens Ave/La Cresenta Ct
A Queens Ave/La Palma Ct
B Gray Ave/Melton Dr
B Gray Ave/La Colina Ln
C Clark Ave/Lewis Ave
D Reeves Ave/Cooper Ave
D Reeves Ave/Orange St
D Reeves Ave/Olive St
D Reeves Ave/Chestnut St
D Reeves Ave/Almond St
D Reeves Ave/Walnut St
E Percy Ave/Palm Ave
E Percy Ave/Brooks Ave
E Percy Ave/Elm St

Agenda Item 10

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 16, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services Summary
Subject: Housing Element GPA/Rezone Project
Recommendation: Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Rezone 22-04 for the Implementing Policies of the 2021-2029 Housing Element project for approximately 68.54 acres, which includes an X29 Combining District on 14.95 acres, located throughout the City (Assessor’s Parcel Number 59-020- 017, 59-020-015, 59-530-034, 59-020-018, 59-020-016, 51-393-003, 51-393- 002, 57-150-078, 57-150-004, 57-150-050, 58-120-001, 57-220-065, 53-470- 088, 53-470-079, 53-470-083, 53-470-087, 53-470-076, 53-470-085, 53-470- 078, 53-470-077, 53-470-081, 53-470-086, 53-470-095, 53-470-082, 53-470- 092, 53-470-080, 53-470-090, 53-470-096, 53-470-089, 53-470-093, 53-470- 084, 53-470-094, 53-470-098, and 53-470-097), by title only and waive the second reading
Fiscal Impact: Staff time for processing the project application.

Purpose:

To adopt an ordinance approving Rezone 22-04 with Combining Zone District X29, consistent with General Plan Amendment 22-03 that was approved on May 2, 2023, to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item meets the City Council’s strategic goal of providing high quality infrastructure and quality of life.

Background:

At the May 2, 2023, regular City Council meeting, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 22-03 and Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-07 and introduced an ordinance to rezone certain properties consistent with the adopted General Plan Amendment. At this meeting, the City Council removed Assessor Parcel 61-120-004 from the project because written property owner confirmation of support had not been provided. Additionally, a revised ordinance exhibit map was provided for the Regional Housing Authority area clarifying that Assessor’s Parcel 53-4760-081, which is currently developed with a solar array, will be rezoned from M-2 (Industrial District) to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residence District) to be consistent with the Regional Housing Authority’s purpose and operations.

The 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted by City Council on March 1, 2022, and certified by the CA Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) on May 5, 2022.

This proposed GPA and RZ is an implementation of the General Plan Housing Element. It is a Cityinitiated effort to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) fair share assessment for lower income residents as identified by the recently adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. Housing Element Policy H-C-7 provides that the City will provide a sufficient amount of zoned land to accommodate the RHNA number (1,544 dwelling units). The City’s Housing Element vacant land inventory identified capacity to accommodate 1,336 dwelling units, leaving a shortfall of 208 units for the lower income RHNA. The proposed GPA and RZ will alleviate this shortfall by increasing potential residential development density consistent with Program H-C-7 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

This GPA and RZ does not include any actual development, as the private sector is responsible for developing the proposed sites.

The candidate sites that were selected to be redesignated to accommodate future potentially higher density residential development were selected based on consideration of several factors including land use compatibility, access to available utility and public road infrastructure, property owner interest, and site constraints. The acreage consists of parcels ranging between 0.5-10 acres in area, which is expressly encouraged by the State and reflected in Housing Element Program H-C-7.

On March 22, 2023, the Yuba City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted to adopt Resolution PC 23-09 recommending approval of GPA 22-03 and R 22-04 to the City Council together with Environmental Assessment 22-07.

Analysis:

GPA 22-03 and RZ 22-04 involve 34 parcels that implement the requirements of Program H-C-7 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. This GPA and RZ is intended to make available adequate land capable of accommodating the 1,544 needed lower income housing units in compliance with RHNA and State Housing law.

This proposed project, covering 68.54 acres, increases the minimum residential development densities to 12 units per acre. The rezoning will also include an X29 Combining Zone District for three of the 35 parcels, totaling 14.95 acres, that will require new residential densities to be a minimum of 20 units per acre. More specifically:
• General Plan Amendment 22-03: The proposal will amend the General Plan Land Use Element by re-designating 34 parcels from; Medium/Low Density Residential (28 parcels), Low Density Residential (3 parcels), Office and Office Park (2 parcels), and Public Facility (1 parcel) all to a Medium/High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan Designation. General Plan Amendment 22-03 was approved by the City Council on May 2, 2023. • Rezone 22-04: The proposal will rezone eleven of those same properties to be consistent with the GPA discussed above. This includes three parcels currently in a One-Family Residential (R1) Zone District, five parcels in a Two-Family Residence (R-2) Zone District, and three parcels in a Commercial Office (C-O) Zone District. All are proposed to be rezoned to a Multiple-Family (R-3) Zone District in order to be consistent with the HDR General Plan designation described above. Twenty-three of the properties were previously zoned R-3, and a rezoning is not required.

• X29 Combining District: In addition, three of the 34 properties, totaling 14.95 acres will have an X29 Combining District added to the R-3 zoning. The X29 Combining District will require new residential development to occur at a minimum of 20 units per acre as compared to the standard R-3 zoned properties that could be developed at a minimum of 12 units per acre.

Applying the X29 Combining District to 14.95 acres exceeds the Program H-C-7 requirement to rezone 10.4-acres with an increased residential density.

The project will provide an additional 68.54 acres within the City for multiple-family residential housing, primarily on underutilized or vacant infill sites. The sites are appropriately located along or near major transportation corridors within the City. The sites will provide more opportunities for future development to build at higher densities. Support for multifamily housing will enhance the community by providing a balance of housing types within the City.

General Property Characteristics:

Per the Environmental Study prepared for the project, the proposed sites have been previously disturbed and do not contain any environmental constraints such as riparian habitat, water features, sensitive natural communities, or hazardous materials. The sites have adequate access to major roadways as well as the utility infrastructure necessary to support multiple-family development. The areas surrounding the 35 sites contain urban levels of development with low density residential, commercial, office, and light industrial uses that are generally compatible with multiple-family residential uses. The overall characteristics for each area where the General Plan amendments are proposed are described in further detail below. The properties are generally located within four areas of the City:

1. Butte House Road Corridor – There are several parcels consisting of approximately 7.25 acres along the north side of Butte House Road between Tharp Road and Romero Street. This area is primarily a residential area that is transitioning between homes on larger lots that were built prior to the area being incorporated into the City, to larger properties developing into more urban and suburban type development. Butte House Road is designated in the General Plan Circulation Element as a four-lane major arterial designed to accommodate high traffic volumes from urban development.

2. Walton Avenue Corridor – Five infill type properties consisting of approximately 9.73 acres fronting along Walton Avenue, north and south of Franklin Road. This is primarily a single-family residential area with some smaller locally serving commercial uses. This proposal will allow for the development of a wider mix of different residential densities and uses. Walton Avenue is designated as a four-lane major arterial having capacity to accommodate traffic from urban development. One of the properties (7.38 acres) is proposed to be rezoned to the X29 Combining District is located within this area.

3. Regional Housing Authority (RHA) – Twenty-two of the properties consisting of approximately 50.34 acres are located within the area owned and managed by the Regional Housing Authority. The developed portion of the RHA properties primarily consists of multiple-family development. As such, any new multiple-family development would be compatible with the existing uses. Two of the properties (7.57 acres) proposed to be rezoned to the X29 Combining District are located within this area.

4. Market Street Area – There are two adjoining properties, consisting of approximately 1.22 acres on Market Street just north of downtown. The site is vacant and is located at the northwest corner of Perkins Way and Market Street. The site exhibits flat topography that was previously disturbed.

Historical aerials indicate the site was previously used as a vehicle and material storage yard.

Attachment 1 provides the location and details for all properties involved in this rezoning.

Compatibility with Surrounding Uses:

While no development accompanies this project, the subject sites were reviewed to ensure future multiple-family development at the prescribed density would be compatible with neighboring uses and the existing physical build-out surrounding each site. The sites are located within the developed portion of the City, which consists of a suburban level of development supported by a large grid roadway network. Existing development within these areas of the City include a mix of single-family residential, commercial, and to a lesser extent, offices, multiple-family, and vacant lands. Overall, the larger suburban context featuring a robust roadway network, utility infrastructure, emergency services, local parks, and a large commercial development presence supports the concept of additional multiple-family residences.

The sites would have direct access to public roads and would not require a connection to an existing single-family neighborhood that would impact traffic on a roadway currently experiencing low traffic volumes. The sites are sized to accommodate multiple-family development including necessary site improvements such as private driveways, pedestrian connectivity, onsite parking spaces, landscaping, and recreational amenities such as clubhouses, pools, private patios, balconies, and/or play equipment.

Orientation of multiple-family buildings can also be designed to minimize intrusion to adjacent uses, as well as height reduction, locating buildings closer to public street frontages, landscape buffering, location of solid waste enclosures, balcony placement, and lighting considerations. Additional City review and permitting will be required for any subsequent development proposals for the project sites to review for compliance with R-3 Zone District development standards and to ensure design compatibility with the existing neighboring uses.

General Plan Compliance:

The proposed GPA and RZ is consistent with the guiding goals and policies contained within the City of Yuba City General Plan. The project supports and forwards the following highlighted goals contained within the General Plan:
• 3.4-I-5: Provide a variety of housing in all neighborhoods and reserve sites, where appropriate, for housing types that ensures that Yuba City remains an inclusive, affordable community. • 2.5-G-7: Enhance aspects of the community that help economic development and draw residents to Yuba City, including small-town ambience, educational, cultural, environmental, and recreational resources, and affordable housing.
• 3.4-I-7: Promote infill development that maintains the scale and character of established neighborhoods.
• 3.5-G-6: Encourage and provide incentives for infill development, including affordable housing for low and very low-income residents, within existing residential areas at a density not less than surrounding development, subject to appropriate standards to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.

The project will allow for future development of multiple-family housing within the urbanized area of the

City on underutilized or vacant infill sites. The sites range in size from 1-acre to 8.21 acres, which are sized to support a small multiple-family complex to a medium or large-scale multiple-family development. The parcel sizes would accommodate the various aspects of a multiple-family development including the minimum number of dwellings required of the HDR designation and R-3 zoning (12-36 units/acre), vehicular and emergency vehicle access, off-street parking, landscaping, water quality treatment, onsite amenities, and utilities. The sites are appropriately located along major transportation corridors within the City that provide an appropriate transition area from low density residential development, office, or vacant land uses to higher intensity uses such as multiple-family residences.

Support for affordable housing will increase the City’s economic vitality in attracting new residents and enhancing the community with a balance of housing types within the City.

Zoning Compliance:

Although the project does not propose any physical development. The candidate sites have been selected based on a number of factors, including suitability to support high density residential development, and ability to meet objective standards of the R-3 zone and Title 8 of the City Code. All new development that may follow this action will be reviewed for compliance with all City development and design standards.

Traffic:

The project was evaluated for resulting traffic related impacts associated with the proposed GPA and RZ and impacts were determined to be less than significant. Although no physical development is proposed as part of this project, the future development of the subject sites would result in construction activities and the occupation of new residences that would result in vehicle trips being generated, potentially beyond those which could be anticipated under the existing general plan and zoning. The City’s circulation system has been designed and sized for the ultimate build-out of the City’s land uses per the General Plan, and potential circulation impacts from build-out have been analyzed and disclosed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Significant impacts to capacity or level of service from future multiple-family residential development that may occur from the project are not anticipated given that the project sites front or are adjacent to major arterial streets (Butte House Road, Walton Avenue, and Garden Highway). These arterial streets are anticipated to be major traffic carriers and are within all level of service standards provided in the General Plan. The project sites all have nearby access to public transportation routes. Additionally, any project in excess of 25 units is required to have a Development Plan review by the Planning Commission and possibly the City Council to address project specific requirements, including traffic.

Future development that could occur on these sites would trigger improvements such as new driveways, internal circulation, solid waste servicing, frontage improvements, and/or other offsite public improvements. Additionally, a proposed development would be required to improve public street frontages and other facilities such as pedestrian infrastructure, public transportation improvements, and roadway improvements as needed. This review would ensure the site is adequate to serve the project and the anticipated traffic volumes produced from the development could be properly accommodated.

Future residential development projects will also be conditioned to contribute their fair share to the cost of circulation improvements via the existing citywide traffic impact fees that would be assessed.

Availability of City Services:

City design standards require new development to be connected to City services and project sites are near or within previously developed areas of the City; therefore water, wastewater, and stormwater

drainage infrastructure is available to serve multiple-family development at each of the sites. Additional studies to determine capacity for existing infrastructure may be required based on a project specific development application. The GPA and RZ proposal do not conflict with any adopted plan or policy with regard to City utility infrastructure development or maintenance.

Environmental Considerations:

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 environmental assessment (EA) 22-07 that was approved by the City Council as part of General Plan Amendment 22-03 and the list of identified mitigation measures, it was determined there is no evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and a mitigated negative declaration was adopted by the City Council on May 2, 2023, covering both the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. The findings of the mitigated negative declaration are that, with the proposed mitigations for Air Quality, the project will not create any significant impacts to nearby neighborhoods. As a result, the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and no additional environmental review is necessary.

Fiscal Impact:

Staff time for processing the project application.

Alternatives:

1. Since General Plan Amendment 22-03 and Environmental Assessment 22-07 were approved by the City Council on May 2, 2023, by adoption of a resolution, no viable options exist because State law requires consistency between the General Plan and site zoning.

2. Provide staff with alternate direction.

Recommendations:

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to adopt Rezone 22-04 for the Implementing Policies of the 2021-2029 Housing Element project for approximately 68.54 acres, which includes an X29 Combining District on 14.95 acres, located throughout the City (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 59-020-017, 59-020-015, 59-530-034, 59-020-018, 59-020-016, 51-393-003, 51-393-002, 57- 150-078, 57-150-004, 57-150-050, 58-120-001, 57-220-065, 53-470-088, 53-470-079, 53-470-083, 53- 470-087, 53-470-076, 53-470-085, 53-470-078, 53-470-077, 53-470-081, 53-470-086, 53-470-095, 53- 470-082, 53-470-092, 53-470-080, 53-470-090, 53-470-096, 53-470-089, 53-470-093, 53-470-084, 53- 470-094, 53-470-098, and 53-470-097), and waive the second reading Attachments:

1. City Council Ordinance

2. Planning Commission Staff Report Packet
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Doug Libby, AICP
Deputy Director of Development Services
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

1 ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY TO ADOPT REZONE 22-04 FOR THE IMPLEMENTING POLICIES OF THE 2021- 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECT FOR APPROXIMATELY 68.54 ACRES, WHICH INCLUDES AN X29 COMBINING DISTRICT ON 14.95 ACRES, LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 59- 020-017, 59-020-015, 59-530-034, 59-020-018, 59-020-016, 51-393-003, 51-393- 002, 57-150-078, 57-150-004, 57-150-050, 58-120-001, 57-220-065, 53-470-088, 53-470-079, 53-470-083, 53-470-087, 53-470-076, 53-470-085, 53-470-078, 53- 470-077, 53-470-081, 53-470-086, 53-470-095, 53-470-082, 53-470-092, 53-470- 080, 53-470-090, 53-470-096, 53-470-089, 53-470-093, 53-470-084, 53-470-094, 53-470-098, AND 53-470-097).

WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City Council adopted the 2021-2029 City of Yuba City General Plan Housing Element and Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2001072105, which identified a lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) shortfall of 208 units and requires the City to rezone a minimum of 10.3 acres to MultipleFamily Residence (R-3) to alleviate that shortfall; and WHEREAS, The City of Yuba City is required to implement Program H-C-7 of the 2021- 2029 City of Yuba City General Plan Housing Element by a date certain; and WHEREAS, The City of Yuba City has identified 34 sites totaling 68.54 acres that meet the criteria identified under Program H-C-7 to alleviate the City’s lower income RHNA shortfall; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated an effort to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) fair share assessment for lower income residents as identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element and consistent with Program H-C-7 adopted on March 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, as a result the following entitlements are being considered for approval:
• Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-07
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-03
• Rezone (RZ) 22-04 with an X29 Combining District
(collectively “Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2023020503) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Environmental Assessment 22-08, General Plan Amendment 22-03, and Rezone 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

2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Environmental Assessment and all associated documents prepared for the project, the staff report pertaining to the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Environmental Assessment, and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt Environmental Assessment 22-07 and General Plan 22-03, and adopt an Ordinance to approve Rezone 22-04; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, the Yuba City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider the Project and received both oral testimony and written information presented at the hearing regarding the General Plan Amendment and Rezone; and 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 now desires to find that Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-07 prepared for the project is in conformance with State and local environmental guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 22-03 and Environmental Assessment 22-07 on May 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve RZ 22-04.

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

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

2. CEQA Findings: The City Council of the City of Yuba City has concurrently approved EA 22- 07 by adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment. No further CEQA is required, as CEQA has been completed for this project.

3. Rezone Findings. The City Council finds that Rezone 22-04 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 22-03. The City Council finds that Rezone 22-04 i) is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as amended and as further described in the City Council’s Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 22-03; ii) is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to promote and protect the public’s health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare; iii) the project would provide open space, light, air, privacy, convenience, access, aesthetic values, protection of environmental values, and protection of public and private improvements; and iv) the project will allow for the creation of quality economic growth and development for the City.

4. Approval of RZ 22-04. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City adopts an Ordinance approving RZ 22-04 and reclassify the zone districts for those districts as depicted in Exhibit “A” and “B” shown on the zoning map of the City of Yuba City.

5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of

3 this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

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

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced by the City Council after waiving reading, except by Title, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of May 2023, and adopted the Ordinance after the second reading at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of May 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

4 Exhibit A: Zoning Map, Rezone 22-04Exhibit B: X29 Combining District Description I, ______________________________, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Yuba City, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Ordinance passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City on the date and by the vote indicated herein.

5 EXHIBIT A

6

7

8

9

10 EXHIBIT B

11

ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF YUBA CITY

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 22, 2023
To: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Deputy Development Services Director Subject: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-03 and Rezone (RZ) 22-04 to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing, and;
B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council of the City of Yuba City approve Environmental Assessment 22-07 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the Mitigation Measures, and adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendment 22-03 and Rezone 22- 04, on 75.89 acres, which includes an X29 Combining District on 14.95 acres, located throughout the City (Assessor’s Parcel Number 59-020- 017, 59-020-015, 61-120-004, 59-530-034, 59-020-018, 59-020-016, 51-393-003, 51-393-002, 57-150-078, 57-150-004, 57-150-050, 58- 120-001, 57-220-065, 53-470-088, 53-470-079, 53-470-083, 53-470- 087, 53-470-076, 53-470-085, 53-470-078, 53-470-077, 53-470-081, 53-470-086, 53-470-095, 53-470-082, 53-470-092, 53-470-080, 53- 470-090, 53-470-096, 53-470-089, 53-470-093, 53-470-084, 53-470- 094, 53-470-098, and 53-470-097).

Applicant: City of Yuba City
Owner(s): Various
Project Location: Citywide - Attachment 2 provides the location and details for all properties involved.

Specific Plan: None of the properties are located within a specific plan.

General Plan: Existing: The properties are located in various general plan designations:
• Low Density Residential (LDR): Three of the parcels (1.35 acres).

Approximately 1.8% of the area is designated LDR, which provides for a residential density range of 2 to 8 residences per acre. • Low-Medium Density Residential (MDR): 29 of the 35 parcels (72.32 acres). Approximately 95% of the area being considered is currently

Item 9
2 designated MDR, which provides for a residential density range of 6 to 14 residences per acre.
• Office and Office Park (O): Two parcels (1.22 acres). Approximately

1.6% of the area is designated O. This designation does not provide for residential uses except when in conjunction with an office development. • Public & Semipublic (P): One parcel (1 acre). Approximately 1.3% of the area is designated P. This designation does not provide for residential development.

Proposed:
• Medium-High Density Residential (HDR): All 35 properties (75.89 acres) are proposed to be re-designated HDR. This designation provides for a residential density of 12 to 36 residences per acre.

Zoning: Existing zoning: The properties are located in various zone districts:
• One-Family Residence (R-1) Zone District: Three parcels (1.35 acres).

Approximately 2% of the project area is zoned R-1.
• Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District: Six parcels (18 acres).

Approximately 23.7% of the project area is zoned R-2.
• Multiple-Family Residence (R-3) Zone District: Twenty-three parcels (54.32 acres). Almost 72% of the project area is zoned R-3. These properties do not need rezoning, even though the corresponding general plan designation is being modified.
• Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District: Three parcels (2.22 acres).

Approximately 3% of the project area is zoned C-O.

Proposed zoning:
• Multiple-Family (R-3): Twelve (12) parcels (21.57 acres) currently zoned R-1, R-2, and C-O are proposed to be rezoned to an R-3 Zone District. The other 23 parcels are already zoned R-3; and • X29 Combining District: Three of the 35 properties (14.95 acres) are also proposed to have an X29 Combining Zone District added to the R3 zoning. The X29 would require any residential development to be built to a minimum of 20 units per acre, as compared to the standard R-3 zoned properties that could be developed at a minimum of 12 units per acre.

Purpose:

Consideration of a Resolution to recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 22-03 and Rezone 22-04 with Combining Zone District X29 to implement the 2021- 2029 Housing Element.

Item 9
3 Background:

The 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted by City Council on March 1, 2022, and certified by the CA Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) on May 5, 2022.

This proposed GPA and RZ is an implementation of the General Plan Housing Element. It is a City-initiated effort to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) fair share assessment for lower income residents as identified by the recently adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. Housing Element Policy H-C-7 provides that the City will provide a sufficient amount of zoned land to accommodate the RHNA number (1,544 dwelling units). The City’s Housing Element vacant land inventory identified capacity to accommodate 1,336 dwelling units, leaving a shortfall of 208 units for the lower income RHNA. The proposed GPA and RZ will alleviate this shortfall by increasing potential residential development density consistent with Program H-C-7 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. This GPA and RZ does not include any actual development, as the private sector is responsible for developing the proposed sites.

The candidate sites that were selected to be redesignated to accommodate future potentially higher density residential development were selected based on consideration of several factors including land use compatibility, access to available utility and public road infrastructure, property owner interest, and site constraints. The acreage consists of parcels ranging between 0.5-10 acres in area, which is expressly encouraged by the State and reflected in Housing Element Program H-C-7.

Project Description:

GPA 22-03 and RZ 22-04, involves 35 parcels that implements the requirements of Program HC-7 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. This GPA and RZ is intended to make available adequate land capable of accommodating the 1,544 needed lower income housing units in compliance with RHNA and State Housing law.

This proposed project, covering 75.89 acres, increases the minimum residential development densities to 12 units per acre. The rezoning will also include an X29 Combining Zone District for three of the 35 parcels, totaling 14.95 acres, that will require new residential densities to be a minimum of 20 units per acre. More specifically:
• General Plan Amendment 22-03: The proposal will amend the General Plan Land Use Element by re-designating 35 parcels from; Medium/Low Density Residential (29 parcels), Low Density Residential (3 parcels), Office and Office Park (2 parcels), and Public Facility (1 parcel) all to a Medium/High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan Designation. • Rezone 22-04: The proposal will rezone twelve of those same properties to be consistent with the GPA discussed above. This includes three parcels currently in a One-Family Residential (R-1) Zone District, six parcels in a Two-Family Residence (R-2) Zone District, and three parcels in a Commercial Office (C-O) Zone District. All are proposed to be rezoned to a Multiple-Family (R-3) Zone District in order to be consistent with the HDR General Plan designation described above. Twenty-three of the properties were previously zoned R-3, and a rezoning is not required.

Item 9
4 • X29 Combining District: In addition, three of the 35 properties, totaling 14.95 acres will have an X29 Combining District added to the R-3 zoning. The X29 Combining District will require new residential development to occur at a minimum of 20 units per acre as compared to the standard R-3 zoned properties that could be developed at a minimum of 12 units per acre. Applying the X29 Combining District to 14.95 acres exceeds the Program H-C-7 requirement to rezone 10.4-acres with an increased residential density.

Analysis:

The project will provide an additional 75.89 acres within the City for multiple-family residential housing, primarily on underutilized or vacant infill sites. The sites are appropriately located along or near major transportation corridors within the City. The sites will provide more opportunities for future development to build at higher densities. Support for multifamily housing will enhance the community by providing a balance of housing types within the City.

General Property Characteristics:

Per the Environmental Study prepared for the project, the proposed sites have been previously disturbed and do not contain any environmental constraints such as riparian habitat, water features, sensitive natural communities, or hazardous materials. The sites have adequate access to major roadways as well as the utility infrastructure necessary to support multiple-family development. The areas surrounding the 35 sites contain urban levels of development with low density residential, commercial, office, and light industrial uses that are generally compatible with multiple-family residential uses. The overall characteristics for each area where the General Plan amendments are proposed are described in further detail below. The properties are generally located within four areas of the City:

1. Butte House Road Corridor – There are several parcels consisting of approximately 14.6 acres along the north side of Butte House Road between Tharp Road and Romero Street.

This area is primarily a residential area that is transitioning between homes on larger lots that were built prior to the area incorporating into the City, to larger properties developing into more urban and suburban type development. Butte House Road is designated in the General Plan Circulation Element as a four-lane major arterial designed to accommodate high traffic volumes from urban development.

2. Walton Avenue Corridor – Five infill type properties consisting of approximately 9.73 acres fronting along Walton Avenue, north and south of Franklin Road. This is primarily a singlefamily residential area with some smaller locally serving commercial uses. This proposal will allow for development of a wider mix of different residential densities and uses. Walton Avenue is designated as a four-lane major arterial having capacity to accommodate traffic from urban development. One of the properties (7.38 acres) is proposed to be rezoned to the X29 Combining District is located within this area.

3. Regional Housing Authority (RHA) – Twenty-two of the properties consisting of approximately 50.34 acres are located within the area owned and managed by the Regional Housing Authority. The developed portion of the RHA properties primarily consist of multiple-family development. As such, any new multiple-family development would be

Item 9
5 compatible with the existing uses. Two of the properties (7.57 acres) proposed to be rezoned to the X29 Combining District are located within this area.

4. Market Street Area – There are two adjoining properties, consisting of approximately 1.22 acres on Market Street just north of downtown. The site is vacant and is located at the northwest corner of Perkins Way and Market Street. The site exhibits flat topography that was previously disturbed. Historical aerials indicate the site was previously used as a vehicle and material storage yard.

Attachment 2 provides the location and details for all properties involved.

Compatibility with Surrounding Uses:

While no development accompanies this project, the subject sites were reviewed to ensure future multiple-family development at the prescribed density would be compatible with neighboring uses and the existing physical build-out surrounding each site. The sites are located within the developed portion of the City, which consists of a suburban level of development supported by a large grid roadway network. Existing development within these areas of the City include a mix of single-family residential, commercial, and to a lesser extent, offices, multiple-family, and vacant lands. Overall, the larger suburban context featuring a robust roadway network, utility infrastructure, emergency services, local parks, and a large commercial development presence supports the concept of additional multiple-family residences.

The sites would have direct access to public roads and would not require a connection to an existing single-family neighborhood that would impact traffic on a roadway currently experiencing low traffic volumes. The sites are sized to accommodate multiple-family development including necessary site improvements such as private driveways, pedestrian connectivity, onsite parking spaces, landscaping, and recreational amenities such as clubhouses, pools, private patios, balconies, and/or play equipment. Orientation of multiple-family buildings can also be designed to minimize intrusion to adjacent uses, as well as height reduction, locating buildings closer to public street frontages, landscape buffering, location of solid waste enclosures, balcony placement, and lighting considerations. Additional City review and permitting will be required for any subsequent development proposals for the project sites to review for compliance with R-3 Zone District development standards and to ensure design compatibility with the existing neighboring uses.

General Plan Compliance:

The proposed GPA and RZ is consistent with the guiding goals and policies contained within the City of Yuba City General Plan. The project supports and forwards the following highlighted goals contained within the General Plan:
• 3.4-I-5: Provide a variety of housing in all neighborhoods and reserve sites, where appropriate, for housing types that ensures that Yuba City remains an inclusive, affordable community.
• 2.5-G-7: Enhance aspects of the community that help economic development and draw residents to Yuba City, including small-town ambience, educational, cultural, environmental, and recreational resources, and affordable housing.

Item 9
6 • 3.4-I-7: Promote infill development that maintains the scale and character of established neighborhoods.
• 3.5-G-6: Encourage and provide incentives for infill development, including affordable housing for low and very low-income residents, within existing residential areas at a density not less than surrounding development, subject to appropriate standards to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.

The project will allow for future development of multiple-family housing within the urbanized area of the City on underutilized or vacant infill sites. The sites range in size from 1-acre to 8.21 acres, which are sized to support a small multiple-family complex to a medium or large-scale multiplefamily development. The parcel sizes would accommodate the various aspects of a multiplefamily development including the minimum number of dwellings required of the HDR designation and R-3 zoning (12-36 units/acre), vehicular and emergency vehicle access, off-street parking, landscaping, water quality treatment, onsite amenities, and utilities. The sites are appropriately located along major transportation corridors within the City that provide an appropriate transition area from low density residential development, office, or vacant land uses to higher intensity uses such as multiple-family residences.

Support for affordable housing will increase the City’s economic vitality in attracting new residents and enhancing the community with a balance of housing types within the City.

Zoning Compliance:

Although the project does not propose any physical development. The candidate sites have been selected based on a number of factors, including suitability to support high density residential development, and ability to meet objective standards of the R-3 zone and Title 8 of the City Code.

All new development that may follow this action will be reviewed for compliance with all City development and design standards.

Traffic:

The project was evaluated for resulting traffic related impacts associated with the proposed GPA and RZ and impacts were determined to be less than significant. Although no physical development is proposed as part of this project, the future development of the subject sites would result in construction activities and the occupation of new residences that would result in vehicle trips being generated, potentially beyond those which could be anticipated under the existing general plan and zoning. The City’s circulation system has been designed and sized for the ultimate build-out of the City’s land uses per the General Plan, and potential circulation impacts from build-out have been analyzed and disclosed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Significant impacts to capacity or level of service from future multiple-family residential development that may occur from the project are not anticipated given that the project sites front or are adjacent to major arterial streets (Butte House Road, Walton Avenue, and Garden Highway). These arterial streets are anticipated to be major traffic carriers and are within all level of service standards provided in the General Plan. The project sites all have nearby access to public transportation routes. Additionally, any project in excess of 25 units is required to have a Development Plan review by the Planning Commission and possibly the City Council to address project specific requirements, including traffic.

Item 9
7 Future development that could occur on these sites would trigger improvements such as new driveways, internal circulation, solid waste servicing, frontage improvements, and/or other offsite public improvements. Additionally, a proposed development would be required to improve public street frontages and other facilities such as pedestrian infrastructure, public transportation improvements, and roadway improvements as needed. This review would ensure the site is adequate to serve the project and the anticipated traffic volumes produced from the development could be properly accommodated. Future residential development projects will also be conditioned to contribute their fair share to the cost of circulation improvements via the existing citywide traffic impact fees that would be assessed.

Availability of City Services:

City design standards require new development to be connected to City services and project sites are near or within previously developed areas of the City; therefore water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage infrastructure is available to serve multiple-family development at each of the sites. Additional studies to determine capacity for existing infrastructure may be required based on a project specific development application. The GPA and RZ proposal do not conflict with any adopted plan or policy with regard to City utility infrastructure development or maintenance.

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

Based upon the attached environmental assessment and the list of identified mitigation measures, staff has determined that there is no evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for this project. The findings of the mitigated negative declaration are that, with the proposed mitigations for Air Quality, the project will not create any significant impacts to nearby neighborhoods. As a result, the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA.

Recommended Action:

A. Conduct a Public Hearing, and;
B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council of the City of Yuba City approve Environmental Assessment 22-07 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the Mitigation Measures, and adopt an Ordinance approving General Plan Amendment 22- 03 and Rezone 22-04, on 75.89 acres, which includes an X29 Combining District on 14.95 acres, located throughout the City (Assessor’s Parcel Number 59-020-017, 59-020-015, 61- 120-004, 59-530-034, 59-020-018, 59-020-016, 51-393-003, 51-393-002, 57-150-078, 57- 150-004, 57-150-050, 58-120-001, 57-220-065, 53-470-088, 53-470-079, 53-470-083, 53- 470-087, 53-470-076, 53-470-085, 53-470-078, 53-470-077, 53-470-081, 53-470-086, 53- 470-095, 53-470-082, 53-470-092, 53-470-080, 53-470-090, 53-470-096, 53-470-089, 53- 470-093, 53-470-084, 53-470-094, 53-470-098, and 53-470-097).

Item 9
8 Attachments:

1. Planning Commission Resolution
Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment 22-03
Exhibit B: Rezone 22-04
Exhibit C: X29 Combining District

2. Location Map and Information Table

3. Property Owner Support Letters

4. Environmental Assessment 22-07 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program

ATTACHMENT 1

PC 23-09
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 23-09

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 22-07 BY ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, SUBJECT TO THE MITIGATION MEASURES, AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22-03 AND REZONE 22- 04, ON 75.89 ACRES, WHICH INCLUDES AN X29 COMBINING DISTRICT ON 14.95 ACRES, LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 59-020-017, 59-020-015, 61-120-004, 59-530-034, 59-020-018, 59-020-016, 51-393- 003, 51-393-002, 57-150-078, 57-150-004, 57-150-050, 58-120-001, 57-220-065, 53- 470-088, 53-470-079, 53-470-083, 53-470-087, 53-470-076, 53-470-085, 53-470-078, 53-470-077, 53-470-081, 53-470-086, 53-470-095, 53-470-082, 53-470-092, 53-470- 080, 53-470-090, 53-470-096, 53-470-089, 53-470-093, 53-470-084, 53-470-094, 53- 470-098, and 53-470-097).

WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City Council adopted the 2021-2029 City of Yuba City General Plan Housing Element and Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2001072105, which identified a lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) shortfall of 208 units and requires the City to rezone a minimum of 10.3 acres to MultipleFamily Residence (R-3) to alleviate that shortfall; and WHEREAS, The City of Yuba City is required to implement Program H-C-7 of the 2021- 2029 City of Yuba City General Plan Housing Element by a date certain; and WHEREAS, The City of Yuba City has identified 35 sites totaling 75.89 acres that meet the criteria identified under Program H-C-7 to alleviate the City’s lower income RHNA shortfall; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated an effort to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) fair share assessment for lower income residents as identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element and consistent with Program H-C-7 adopted on March 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, as a result the following entitlements are being considered for approval:
• Environmental Assessment (EA) 22-07
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-03
• Rezone (RZ) 22-04 with an X29 Combining District
(collectively “Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2023020503) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Environmental Assessment 22-08, General Plan Amendment 22-03, and Rezone 22-04, at which time it received input from City Staff, public comment portion was

PC 23-09
opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Environmental Assessment and all associated documents prepared for the project, the staff report pertaining to the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Environmental Assessment, and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission now desires to recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting Environmental Assessment 22-07, approving General Plan Amendment 22-03, and adopting an ordinance approving Rezone 22-04.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City 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 General Plan Amendment 22-03 or Rezone 22-04, may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the MND prepared in Environmental Assessment 22-07.

Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and determine as follows:
a. The Environmental Assessment / Initial Study was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis. This process included the distribution of requests for comment from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. Preparation of Environmental Assessment 22-07 necessitated a thorough review of the proposed project and relevant environmental issues and considered previously prepared environmental and technical studies. While the proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, based on its independent judgment and analysis, the Commission recommends the City Council find that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effect on the environment will occur, and there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are potentially significant and adverse. The proposed project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the “Mandatory Findings of Significance” contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The projectspecific mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects are set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment. As such, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council also find and determine that in light of the entire administrative record and the substantial evidence before it, the project has been adequately environmentally assessed as required by CEQA per Environmental Assessment 22-07.

3. Adoption of MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated

PC 23-09
Negative Declaration for the project, including the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as the project will not result in any significant, adverse, environmental impacts with the mitigation imposed. The Yuba City Development Services Department located at 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA 95993, is designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision is based. The Planning Commission authorizes the Director, or designee, to execute and file with the Sutter County Clerk, as appropriate, a Notice of Determination for approval of the project.

4. General Plan Findings. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find that the public necessity, general welfare, good planning practices, public interest, and convenience warrant approval of General Plan Amendment 22-03, including the following:
a. The project is consistent with the objectives of Program H-C-7 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element which requires the City to amend the zoning to R-3 on at least 10.3 acres within the City to alleviate the existing 208-unit shortfall for lower income RHNA. The project will forward the goals of the Housing Element to provide for additional affordable housing opportunities within the City. The project sites are appropriately sited to support high-density residential development permitted under the Medium-High Density Residential designation as the sites are infill parcels where supporting infrastructure is already in place such as a robust roadway network operating at acceptable levels of service, utility infrastructure, emergency services such as municipal police and fire protection facilities, local parks, and nearby commercial businesses to support resident needs. The sites are also compatible in terms of land use and provide natural transitions between major arterial roadway segments and low-density residential development and will have independent access that does not conflict with low volume residential streets surrounding the sites.

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

3.4-I-5: Provide a variety of housing in all neighborhoods and reserve sites, where appropriate, for housing types that ensures that Yuba City remains an inclusive, affordable community.

2.5-G-7: Enhance aspects of the community that help economic development and draw residents to Yuba City, including small-town ambience, educational, cultural, environmental and recreational resources, and affordable housing.

3.4-I-7: Promote infill development that maintains the scale and character of established neighborhoods.

3.5-G-6: Encourage and provide incentives for infill development, including affordable housing for low and very low-income residents, within existing residential areas at a density not less than surrounding development, subject to appropriate standards to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.

The project will allow for future development of multi-family housing within the urbanized area of the City on underutilized or vacant infill sites. The sites are appropriately located along major transportation corridors within the City that provide an appropriate transition area from low density residential development to higher intensity uses such as multi-family. The sites will be utilized for future development of multi-family units intended for lower income residents to maintain affordable housing within the City. Support for affordable housing will increase the

PC 23-09
City’s economic vitality in attracting new residents and enhancing the community with a balance of housing types within the City. The project sites are not located within a specific plan area.

The sites have all City services available to them, which have capacity to serve the density range of 12-36 units per acre allowed under the Medium-High Density Residential designation. The existing public roadway network adjacent to the sites and within the larger surrounding areas is adequate to support the anticipated vehicle and pedestrian traffic associated with the planned residential use with feasible improvements imposed upon a future development plan. The sites are sized to accommodate the anticipated density and will allow for adequate onsite circulation to occur with a proposed development plan. The environmental document prepared for the project did not find any inadequacies of the property that would provide concerns for the development of the property.

The project sites are located along major transportation corridors which are appropriate for siting multi-family residential development envisioned with the proposed GPA and Rezone.

The existing roadways will support the anticipated vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The sites are sized to accommodate multi-family residential development and their associated improvements such as parking, drive aisles, landscaping, pedestrian corridors and amenities, and waste enclosures. As previously discussed, all City services will be brought to the property that are adequate to serve the proposed residential use of the property. There are no known environmental hazards associated with the project site that would render the site unsuitable for residential development.

Based on the Environmental Assessment (EA 22-07) and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for the project, any potential environmental impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

The project does not result in any physical development of any of the sites, however the project will allow future residential development to occur at a higher density than previously permitted under the previous General Plan land use designation. Development of the sites will require connection to public utility infrastructure such as water, sewer, stormwater, electric, gas, and telecommunications. Future development of the sites will be evaluated for potential impacts to ensure proposed development is not detrimental to public health and safety.

5. Recommendation of Approval of GPA 22-03. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 22-03, per the attached Exhibit “A” made a part hereof by this reference, be designated to the General Plan land use designations, as depicted in Exhibit “A”.

6. Rezone Findings. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find and determine, that Rezone 22-04 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 22-03. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that Rezone 22-04 i) is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as amended and as further described above; ii) is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to promote and protect the public’s health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare; iii) the project would provide open space, light, air, privacy, convenience, access, aesthetic values, protection of environmental values, and protection of public and private improvements; and iv) the project will allow for the creation of quality balanced neighborhoods that provide housing options for the City.

PC 23-09

7. Recommendation of Approval of RZ 22-04. Based on the information provided above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of Yuba City that it adopt an ordinance approving RZ 22-04 and reclassify the zone districts for those districts as depicted in Exhibit “B” and “C” shown on the zoning map of the City of Yuba City.

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

The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on March 22, 2023, 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.

Jackie Sillman, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

Benjamin Moody, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Attachments:

Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment 22-03
Exhibit B: Rezone 22-04
Exhibit C: X29 Combining District

EXHIBIT A

61-120-004
59-530-034
59-020-017
59-020-018
59-020-016
59-020-015

BUTTE HOUSE RD

QUEENS AVE
HARTER
PKWY
T
H
A
R
P
R
D
61-120-004
59-530-034
59-020-017
59-020-018
59-020-016
59-020-015

BUTTE HOUSE RD

QUEENS AVE
T
H
A
R
P
R
D
Butte House Road Corridor
Land Use Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07
I!
Legend
Project Sites

DESIGNATION
Agricultural/Rural
Business, Technology & Light Industry
Community Commercial
Low Density Residential
Manufacturing, Processing & Warehousing
Medium/High Density Residential
Medium/Low Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Office & Office Park
Parks, Recreation & Open Space
Public & Semi-Public
Regional Commercial
Existing Land Use Designation
Proposed Land Use Designation

58-120-001
57-150-050
57-150-078
57-150-004
T

FRANKLIN RD H
A
R
P
R
D
N
WALT
O
N
AV
E
S
WA
LT
O
N
AV
E
58-120-001
57-150-050
57-150-078
57-150-004
T

FRANKLIN RD H
A
R
P
R
D
N
WALT
O
N
AV
E
S
WA
LT
O
N
AV
E
Walton Avenue Corridor
Land Use Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07
I!
Legend
X29 Overlay Sites
Project Sites
SDE.DBO.GeneralPlan

DESIGNATION
Agricultural/Rural
Business, Technology & Light Industry
Community Commercial
Low Density Residential
Manufacturing, Processing & Warehousing
Medium/High Density Residential
Medium/Low Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Office & Office Park
Parks, Recreation & Open Space
Public & Semi-Public
Regional Commercial
Existing Land Use Designation
Proposed Land Use Designation

53-470-086
53-470-090
53-470-094
53-470-098
53-470-078
53-470-087
53-470-083
53-470-079
53-470-089 53-470-082
53-470-092
53-470-093
53-470-077
53-470-097
53-470-081
53-470-088
53-470-076
53-470-080
53-470-079
53-470-095 53-470-084
G
53-470-096 ARDEN HWY
53-470-086
53-470-090
53-470-094
53-470-098
53-470-078
53-470-087
53-470-083
53-470-079
53-470-089 53-470-082
53-470-092
53-470-093
53-470-077
53-470-097
53-470-081
53-470-088
53-470-076
53-470-080
53-470-079
53-470-095 53-470-084
G
53-470-096 ARDEN HWY
Regional Housing Authority Area
Land Use Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07
I!
Legend
Project Sites
SDE.DBO.GeneralPlan

DESIGNATION
Agricultural/Rural
Business, Technology & Light Industry
Community Commercial
Low Density Residential
Manufacturing, Processing & Warehousing
Medium/High Density Residential
Medium/Low Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Office & Office Park
Parks, Recreation & Open Space
Public & Semi-Public
Regional Commercial
Existing Land Use Designation
Proposed Land Use Designation

51-393-002
51-393-003
S
H
A
S
TA
S
T
P
L
U
M
A
S
S
T

DEL NORTE AVE
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
SUTTER
ST

AINSLEY AVE
H
A
R
K
E
Y
WAY
ALMOND
ST
HWY 20

PERKINS WAY

BIRD ST

BAPTIST LN

LAMON WAY
20 51-393-002
51-393-003
S
H
A
S
TA
S
T
P
L
U
M
A
S
S
T
SUTTER
ST

DEL NORTE AVE
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
H
A
R
K
E
Y
WAY
HWY 20
ALMOND
ST

AINSLEY AVE

PERKINS WAY

LAMON WAY

BAPTIST LN

ALTURAS ST
20 Market Street Area
Land Use Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07
I!
Legend
Project Sites
SDE.DBO.GeneralPlan

DESIGNATION
Agricultural/Rural
Business, Technology & Light Industry
Community Commercial
Low Density Residential
Manufacturing, Processing & Warehousing
Medium/High Density Residential
Medium/Low Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Office & Office Park
Parks, Recreation & Open Space
Public & Semi-Public
Regional Commercial
Existing Land Use Designation
Proposed Land Use Designation

EXHIBIT B

R-1
R-1
R-1 R-2
R-1
C-M
R-2
R-2
R-3
C-O
C-2
R-3
R-2
R-1
PD
C-2
PD
M-1 C-2

BUTTE HOUSE RD
B
L
E
V
NI R
D
A
D
A
M
S
R
D
E
L
M
E
R
AV
E

QUEENS AVE

HARTER RD
O
R
O
G
R
A
N
D
E
S
T
E
S
P
L
A
N
A
D
E
WAY
R
O
M
E
R
O
S
T

TURIN DR
D
O
M
A
NI WAY

EL VERANO WAY
E
L
ZI A
B
E
T
H
L

GENOA CT N

LA ENTRADA WAY
S
H
AY
WAY
THARP
RD
G
R
A
N
A
D
A
WAY
L
A
G
R
A
N
D
E
WAY

JAYNE CT
R-1
R-1
R-1 R-2
R-1
C-M
R-2
R-2
R-3
C-O
C-2
R-3
R-2
R-1
PD
C-2

BUTTE HOUSE RD
B
L
E
V
NI R
D
A
D
A
M
S
R
D
E
L
M
E
R
AV
E

QUEENS AVE

HARTER RD
O
R
O
G
R
A
N
D
E
S
T
E
S
P
L
A
N
A
D
E
WAY
R
O
M
E
R
O
S
T

TURIN DR
D
O
M
A
NI WAY

EL VERANO WAY
E
L
ZI A
B
E
T
H
L

GENOA CT N

LA ENTRADA WAY
S
H
AY
WAY
THARP
RD
G
R
A
N
A
D
A
WAY
L
A
G
R
A
N
D
E
WAY

JAYNE CT
Butte House Corridor
Zoning Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07
Existing Zoning
C-O
Proposed Zoning
I!
R-3
R-3

R-1
PD C-2
R-2
R-3
C-3
C-1
C-O

FRANKLIN RD

MICHELLE DR

HAYNE AVE
T
H
A
R
P
R
D

CAMINO DEL FLORES
N
E
LI D
R

WHYLER RD
N
WA
LT
O
N
AV
E
LIT
T
L
E
J
O
H
N
R
D

ANNEKA LN

VERNON AVE
O
LIV
E
R
D
R

HARDIAL DR

BARRINGTON DR

NEWPORT DR

BANCROFT AVE
P
E
L
CI A
N
P
L

BERKSHIRE DR

HUNJI DR
N
O
LIV
E
R
D
R

KEAN AVE
B
R
SI T
O
L
WAY

WILDFLOWER CIR
J
E
S
S
CI A
D
R
N
A
N
T
U
C
K
E
T
WAY
Y
O
R
K
S
H
RI E
WAY
R-1
PD C-2
R-2
R-3
C-3
C-1
C-O

FRANKLIN RD

MICHELLE DR

HAYNE AVE
T
H
A
R
P
R
D

CAMINO DEL FLORES
N
E
LI D
R
N
WA
LT
O
N
AV
E

ANNEKA LN

VERNON AVE
LIT
T
L
E
J
O
H
N
R
D
O
LIV
E
R
D
R

HARDIAL DR

BARRINGTON DR

NEWPORT DR

BANCROFT AVE

BERKSHIRE DR
P
E
L
CI A
N
P
L

HUNJI DR
N
O
LIV
E
R
D
R

KEAN AVE
B
R
SI T
O
L
WAY

WILDFLOWER CIR
J
E
S
S
CI A
D
R
N
A
N
T
U
C
K
E
T
WAY
Y
O
R
K
S
H
RI E
WAY
Walton Avenue Corridor
Zoning Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07
Existing Zoning
C-O
Proposed Zoning
I! R-3
R-3X29
R-3

R-3
M-1
R-1
M-2
C-2
C-3
C-M
C-1
R-2

GARDEN HWY

SAMUEL DR

WINSHIP RD

MILES AVE

BELL AVE

BERNARD
DR

MC KEEHAN DR

DORMAN AVE

PERCY AVE

ATWOOD DR

CENTER DR

JAMES LN

WOODBRIDGE AVE
R-3
R-1
M-1
C-2
C-3
M-2
C-M
C-1
R-2

GARDEN HWY

SAMUEL DR

WINSHIP RD

MILES AVE

BELL AVE

BERNARD
DR

MC KEEHAN DR

DORMAN AVE

ATWOOD DR

CENTER DR

JAMES LN

WOODBRIDGE AVE
Regional Housing Authority Area
Zoning Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07
Existing Zoning
C-O
Proposed Zoning
I!
R-3X29
R-3X29

C-O
C-3
C-M
M-2
C-O
C-M
R-2
R-1
M-2
M-2
C-O
R-1
R-3
C-M
R-1
C-3
R-3
C-3
S
H
A
S
TA
S
T
P
L
U
M
A
S
S
T
SUTTER
ST

DEL NORTE AVE
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
H
A
R
K
E
Y
WAY
HWY 20
ALMOND
ST

AINSLEY AVE

PERKINS WAY

LAMON WAY

BAPTIST LN
20 Market Street Area
Zoning Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07
Existing Zoning
C-O
C-O
C-O
C-M
C-3
M-2
R-2
C-O
C-M
R-1
C-O
M-2
R-3
M-2
R-1
C-3
C-M
C-3
R-1
R-3
C-O
S
H
A
S
TA
S
T
P
L
U
M
A
S
S
T

DEL NORTE AVE
SUTTER
ST
HWY 20
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
H
A
R
K
E
Y
WAY
ALMOND
ST

AINSLEY AVE

PERKINS WAY

ALTURAS ST

LAMON WAY

BAPTIST LN
HWY 20
20 R-3
Proposed Zoning

I!

EXHIBIT C

YUBA CITY
X29 Overlay District
Housing Element Rezone (GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07)
X29 Area: This overlay zone encompasses three parcels as outlined below:
1) A 7.38-acre parcel located at 428 N Walton Avenue. The site is identified as Assessor’s parcel number 58-120-001.
2) A 2.86-acre parcel located on McKeehan Drive south of the intersection of McKeehan Drive and Center Drive in the Richland Neighborhood. The site is identified as Assessor’s parcel number 53-470-087.
3) A 4.71-acre parcel located at 470 Bernard Drive, in-between Bernard Drive and the Sutter County Airport. The site is identified as Assessor’s parcel number 53-470-098.

Criteria for Development

1. The subject sites shall be developed at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and must be able to accommodate a minimum of 16 units per parcel in accordance with the 2021-2029 Housing Element (adopted March 1, 2022) that outlines the rezone requirements associated with program H-C-7.

ATTACHMENT 2

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community GRAY AVE CLARK AVE

BRIDGE ST

FRANKLIN RD

STABLER LN

LINCOLN RD

GARDEN HWY

THARP RD

LIVE OAK BLVD

PLUMAS ST

QUEENS AVE

BUTTE HOUSE RD

OHLEYER RD

S WALTON AVE

HARTER PKWY

RICHLAND RD

BUNCE RD

FRANKLIN AVE

RAILROAD AVE

N WALTON AVE
SUNSWEET BLVD 99
20 Housing Element Rezone Sites Housing Element Rezone Sites Location Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07 Location Map - GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07 I!
Legend
X29 Overlay Sites
Rezone Sites

Site APN Acreage Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Current General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation 1 59-020-017 1835 BUTTE HOUSE RD 0.9 R-2 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 2 59-020-015 1851 BUTTE HOUSE RD 0.39 R-2 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 3 61-120-004 0 BUTTE HOUSE RD 7.88 R-2 x20 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 4 59-530-034 0 BUTTE HOUSE RD 3.98 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 5 59-020-018 1821 BUTTE HOUSE RD 1 R-2 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 6 59-020-016 1851 BUTTE HOUSE RD 0.45 R-2 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 7 51-393-003 0 MARKET ST 0.48 C-O R-3 Office and Office Park (O&OP) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 8 51-393-002 0 MARKET ST 0.74 C-O R-3 Office and Office Park (O&OP) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 9 57-150-078 247 S WALTON AVE 0.77 R-1 R-3 Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 10 57-150-004 217 S WALTON AVE 0.47 R-1 R-3 Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 11 57-150-050 211 S WALTON AVE 1 C-O R-3 Public and Semi-Public (P&SP) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 12 58-120-001 428 N WALTON AVE 7.38 R-2 R-3 X29 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 13 57-220-065 0 WALTON AVE 0.11 R-1 R-3 Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 14 53-470-088 0 MILES AVE 1.41 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 15 53-470-079 344 SAMUEL DR 2.05 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 16 53-470-083 0 JAMES LN 2.43 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 17 53-470-087 0 MC KEEHAN 2.86 R-3 R-3 X29 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 18 53-470-076 448 GARDEN HWY 0.67 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 19 53-470-085 0 MILES AVE 0.2 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 20 53-470-078 363 MILES AVE 3.25 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 21 53-470-077 363 ATWOOD DR 1.55 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 22 53-470-081 0 SAMUEL DR 1.05 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 23 53-470-086 420 MILES AVE 8.21 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 24 53-470-095 0 MILES AVE 0.41 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 25 53-470-082 456 GARDEN HWY 1.91 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 26 53-470-092 380 MC KEEHAN DR 1.88 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 27 53-470-080 334 SAMUEL DR 0.63 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 28 53-470-090 352 BERNARD DR 6.14 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 29 53-470-096 479 BERNARD DR 0.3 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 30 53-470-089 0 BERNARD DR 1.95 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 31 53-470-093 0 MC KEEHAN DR 1.64 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 32 53-470-084 415 MILES AVE 0.37 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 33 53-470-094 479 BERNARD DR 5.19 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 34 53-470-098 470 BERNARD DR 4.71 R-3 R-3 X29 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 35 53-470-097 470 BERNARD DR 1.53 R-3 R-3 Medium-Low Density Residential (MLDR) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) TOTAL ACREAGE 75.89
TOTAL X29 OVERLAY ACREAGE 14.95
*X29District Overlay Zone requires a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre.

The City of Yuba City Housing Element currently allows a density range of 12 – 36 dwelling units per acre (DUA) for the Medium/High Density Residential Zone. The Housing Element certified by the State requires that 10.4 acres of land is to be rezoned with a minimum density of 20 DUA. This proposal will include an X-Overlay zone for parcels one and two to account for that requirement.

Address
Housing Element General Plan Amendment Rezone Sites
GPA 22-03, RZ 22-04, EA 22-07

ATTACHMENT 3

“Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.” Habitat for Humanity Yuba/Sutter is a non-profit 501(C)(3), Tax ID: 68-0301692 202 D Street Marysville, CA 95901 530-742-2727
September 16, 2022
City of Yuba City
Attn: Doug Libby, AICP | Deputy Director of Development Services 1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
RE: Support of the City of Yuba City Rezoning Certain Properties to Establish Additional Multi-Family Land To who this may concern:

Habitat for Humanity Yuba/Sutter offers its support to the City of Yuba City in undertaking a project to rezone certain properties to establish additional multi-family land to comply with the City’s new 2021-2029 Housing Element and specifically Program H-C-7.

In addition, we would like to provide support by requesting that the property located at 428 North Walton Avenue, APN: 58-120-001, which is 7.47 acres in size, be added to this effort.

It is further, our understanding that the City must include a provision that some of the properties being considered, would be developed at a minimum density of 20 or more units to the acre, and that we support including this requirement on the above mentioned property.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me by email at [email protected] or by phone at 530-742-2727, Ext. 211.

Sincerely,
Joseph Hale, CEO
Habitat for Humanity Yuba/Sutter

October 21, 2022 SENT VIA EMAIL TO [email protected], [email protected] To: City of Yuba City
Attn: Benjamin Moody
Re: Notice of property rezone and general plan land use amendment 428 Walton Ave
Please accept this letter as my desire to have the process described in your letter dated September 30, 2022 move forward on our property named above.

I am in full support of this process to change the zoning to R-3.

If you have anything you need from me to facilitate this process, feel free to reach out to me anytime.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Kal S. Takhar
President, Crowne Development, Inc.
(530)870-3172

Regional Housing Authority is an equal opportunity employer and housing provider

September 19, 2022
Mr. Ben Moody
Public Works and Development Services Director
1201 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City, CA 95993
Mr. Moody,
The Regional Housing Authority (RHA) would be happy to participate in the City of Yuba City’s General Plan Amendment and Rezone application in compliance with the 2021-2029 Housing Element, program H-C-7. The update to align the General Plan land use classification with the existing Zone District of the Richland Housing area aligns with RHA’s long term development plans for the area. RHA concurs with the proposed changes to the General Plan as it relates to the zoning clarifications in the R-3 Zone, specific to the Richland Community in Yuba City.

RHA understands that the zoning alignment affects the parcels referenced in the attached Exhibit A, and Exhibit B records of survey. In addition, RHA is in support of the additional overlay density requirements per program H-C-7 of 20 dwelling units per acre (DUA) for parcels 53-470-087 and 53-470-098.

RHA appreciates the partnership with the City of Yuba City in its support of affordable housing development for our citizens.

Sincerely,
Gustavo Becerra
Executive Director

ATTACHMENT 4

Environmental Assessment 22-07
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
General Plan Amendment 22-03 and Rezone 22-04:

Implementing Policies of the 2021-2029 Housing Element
Prepared for:

City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
Prepared By:

Brian Millar & Robby Thacker, Contract Planners
and
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Updated by:

Denis Cook
Land Use Planning Consultant
February 2023

1 This page intentionally left blank.

2 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction........................................................................................................................6 Regulatory Information .......................................................................................................7 Document Format...............................................................................................................7 Purpose of Document..........................................................................................................8 Intended Uses of this Document..........................................................................................8

2. Project Description ......................................................................................................... 9 Project Title ........................................................................................................................9 Lead Agency Name and Address ..........................................................................................9 Contact Person and Phone Number .....................................................................................9 Project Location/Existing Use ..............................................................................................9 Project Applicant.................................................................................................................9 Property Owner ................................................................................................................10 General Plan/Specific Plan Designations ............................................................................10 Zoning...............................................................................................................................10 Project Description............................................................................................................11 Surrounding Land Uses & Setting .......................................................................................14 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required...................................................15 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................................15 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.................................................................................16

2.14. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? .............................................17

3. Environmental Checklist and Impact Evaluation ............................................................ 18 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................18

3.1.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................18

3.1.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................18

3.1.3. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................19

3.1.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................19 Agricultural and Forestry Resources...................................................................................22

3.2.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................22

3.2.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................22

3.2.3. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................23

3.2.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................25

3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................26

3.3.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................26

3.3.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................29

3.3.3. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................29

3.3.4. Regional Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................................................30

3.3.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................32

3.3.6 Air Quality Mitigation Measure ........................................................................................................33 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................34

3.4.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................34

3.4.2. Federal & State Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................35

3.4.3. Local Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................36

3.4.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................37 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................39

3.5.1. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................39

3.5.2. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................39

3.5.3. Native American Consultation...........................................................................................................40

3.5.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:..........................................................................41 Energy ..............................................................................................................................42

3.6.1 State Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................................42

3.6.2 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences..............................................................................43

3.7. Geology and Soils................................................................................................................44

3.7.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................45

3.7.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................47

3.7.3. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................48

3.7.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:..........................................................................48

3.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................50

3.8.1. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................50

3.8.2. State & Local Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................51

3.8.3. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................51

3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................................53

3.9.1. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................53

3.9.2. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................55

3.9.3. Local Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................56

3.9.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................56

3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................59

3.10.1. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................59

3.10.2. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................60

3.10.3. Local Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................61

3.10.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................61

3.11. Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................63

3.11.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................63

3.11.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................63

3.11.3. Local Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................64

3.11.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................64

3.12. Mineral Resources.............................................................................................................65

3.12.1. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................65

3.12.2. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................65

4 3.12.3. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................66

3.13. Noise ................................................................................................................................67

3.13.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment for Noise ..................................................................67

3.12.2. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment for Groundbourne Vibration....................................68

3.12.3. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................68

3.12.4. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................68

3.12.5. Local Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................69

3.12.6. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................70

3.14. Population and Housing ....................................................................................................72

3.14.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................72

3.14.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................72

3.14.3. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................72

3.14.4. Regional Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................................................72

3.14.5. Local Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................73

3.14.6. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................73

3.15. Public Services ..................................................................................................................74

3.15.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................74

3.15.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................74

3.15.3. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................74

3.15.4. Local Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................75

3.15.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................75

3.16. Recreation ........................................................................................................................76

3.16.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................76

3.16.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................76

3.16.3. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................76

3.16.4. Local Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................76

3.16.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................77

3.17. Transportation ..................................................................................................................78

3.17.1. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................78

3.17.2. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................78

3.17.3. Local Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................79

3.17.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................79

3.18. Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................................................................81

3.18.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................81

3.18.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................81

3.18.3. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................82

3.18.4. Cultural Setting..................................................................................................................................83

3.18.5. Summary of Native American Consultation ......................................................................................84

3.18.6. Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................................84

3.18.7. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................85

3.19. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................86

3.19.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................86

3.19.2. Federal Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................................87

3.19.3. State Regulatory Setting....................................................................................................................87

3.19.4. Local Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................88

3.19.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................88

3.20. Wildfire.............................................................................................................................89

3.20.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment..................................................................................89

5 3.20.2. Impact Assessment/ Environmental Consequences .........................................................................90

3.21. Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................91

3.21.1. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences: .........................................................................91

4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference.................................................. 93

6 CITY OF YUBA CITY
Development Services Department
Planning Division
1201 Civic Center Blvd. Yuba City, CA 95993 Phone (530) 822-4700

1. Introduction
Introduction
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to identify any potential environmental impacts from General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-03 and Rezone (RZ) 22-04 consisting of 35 parcels (“Project”) to implement the requirements of Program H-C-7 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element that was adopted March 1, 2022. This program established the lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), in which the City is required to provide land for the development of at least 1,544 lower income residences. The City’s vacant land inventory identified capacity to accommodate only 1,336 dwelling units, resulting in a shortfall of 208 units. This GPA and RZ is intended to add land to the available housing inventory at densities favorable to accommodating the additional 208 lower income housing units.

This General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of 35 parcels, covering 75.89 acres, implements the requirements of the 2021-2029 Housing Element by increasing minimum residential densities to 12 residences per acre for new development. The rezoning will also include an X29 Combining Zone District for three of the 35 parcels, totaling 14.95 acres. This will require new residential construction on these properties to be a minimum of 20 residences per acre.

More specifically:

The Project will amend the General Plan Land Use Element by re-designating the 35 parcels from Medium/Low Density Residential (29 parcels), Low Density Residential (3 parcels), Office and Office Park (2 parcels), and Public Facility (1 parcel), all to a Medium/High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan Designation.

The Project also Rezones some of those same properties to be consistent with the GPA discussed above. This includes three parcels currently in a One-Family Residential (R-1) Zone District, six parcels in a Two-Family Residence (R-2) Zone District, and three parcels in a Commercial Office (C-0) Zone District, all of which would be rezoned to a Multiple-Family (R-3) Zone District which is consistent with the HDR General Plan designation described above. Twenty-three of the properties were previously zoned R-3, so are not in need of a rezoning. Three of the 35 properties, totaling 14.95, acres will also have an X29 Combining Zone District added to the R-3 Zone District. The X29 Combining Zone District requires new residential development to be a minimum of 20 dwellings per acre (vs. a minimum of 12 dwellings per acre for the other parcels).

No physical development is proposed as part of this application, as this Project is strictly an amendment to the existing General Plan and Zoning.

This GPA/RZ is considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the City has discretionary authority over the project. The Project requires review and recommendation by the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City and review and approval by the City Council.

7 This IS/MND has been prepared in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. The purpose of the IS/MND is to determine the potential significant impacts associated with the proposed Project. In addition, this document is intended to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public.

Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is an environmental assessment document prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, §15000 et seq.), commonly referred to as the CEQA Guidelines - Section 15064(a)(1) states an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant. A mitigated negative declaration may be prepared if the lead agency finds that, with mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. A mitigated negative declaration is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA pursuant to §15300 et seq. of Article 19 of the Guidelines, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration (or mitigated negative declaration) shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:

A. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or B. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:
a. Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and
b. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If revisions are adopted by the Lead Agency into the proposed Project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared.

Document Format
This IS/MND contains four chapters. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the proposed Project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a detailed description of proposed Project objectives and components. Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible measures. If the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected.

If the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit

8 requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 4, List of Preparers, provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of the IS/MND.

Purpose of Document
This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res.

Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 CCR §15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects.

The initial study is a public document used by the decision-making lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the lead agency finds substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may have a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency is required to use a previously prepared EIR and supplement that EIR, or prepare a subsequent EIR to analyze at hand. If the agency finds no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration shall be prepared. If in the course of the analysis, it is recognized that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, but that with specific recommended mitigation measures incorporated into the project, these impacts shall be reduced to less than significant, a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared.

In reviewing all of the available information for the above referenced Project, the City of Yuba City Development Services Department has analyzed the potential environmental impacts which may be created by this Project, and a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.

Intended Uses of this Document
In accordance with CEQA, a good-faith effort has been made during preparation of this IS/MND to contact affected public agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in the proposed Project.

In reviewing the Draft IS/MND, affected and interested parties should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the effects of the proposed Project would be avoided or mitigated.

The Draft IS/MND and associated appendices will be available for review on the City of Yuba City website at www.yubacity.net/environmental. The Draft IS/MND and associated appendixes also will be available for review during regular business hours at the City of Yuba City Development Services Department (1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, CA 95993). The 30-day review period will commence on February 21, 2023, and end on March 22, 2023 at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing.

Written comments on the Draft IS/MND should be sent to the following address:

City of Yuba City
Attn: Doug Libby, Deputy Development Services Director
Development Services Department
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95991
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (530) 822-3231

9 2. Project Description
Project Title
General Plan Amendment 22-03 and Rezone 22-04 to implement Program H-C-7 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department, Planning Division
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
Contact Person and Phone Number
Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services
Ph: (530) 822-3231
[email protected]
Project Location/Existing Use
The Project includes 35 sites all of which are within the incorporated city limits of Yuba City, have been previously disturbed, and are currently vacant or under-utilized. The parcels are located in four general areas of the City:

Butte House Road corridor – several parcels consisting of approximately 14.6 acres along the north side of Butte House Road between Tharpe Road and Romero Street.

Walton Avenue corridor – These are five infill type properties consisting of about 9.73 acres fronting along Walton Avenue on both sides of Franklin Road.

Regional Housing Authority (RHA) – Twenty-two of the properties consisting of approximately 50.34 acres are located within the properties owned and managed by the Regional Housing Authority located east of Garden Highway along Miles Avenue.

Market Street area – There are two adjoining properties, consisting of approximately 1.22 acres on Market Street just north of downtown.

Project Applicant
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
(530) 822-3231

10 Property Owner
Various property owners
General Plan/Specific Plan Designations
Existing: The properties are in various general plan designations:

Low-Medium Density Residential (MDR): 29 of the 35 parcels (72.32 acres). Approximately 95 percent of the area being considered are currently designated MDR, which provides for a residential density range of 6 to 14 residences per acre.

Low Density Residential (LDR): Three of the parcels (1.35 acres). Approximately 1.8 percent of the area is designated LDR, which provides for a residential density range of 2 to 8 residences per acre.

Office and Office Park (O): Two parcels (1.22 acres). Approximately 1.6 percent of the area is designated O. This designation does not provide for a residential use except when in conjunction with an office development.

Public & Semipublic (P): One parcel (1 acre). Approximately 1.3 percent of the area is designated P.

This designation does not provide for residential development.

None of the properties are located within a specific plan.

Proposed:

Medium-High Density Residential (HDR). All 35 properties (75.89 acres) are proposed to be redesignated HDR. This designation provides for a residential density of 12 to 36 residences per acre.

Zoning
Existing:

One-Family Residence (R-1): Three parcels (1.35 acres). Approximately 2 percent of the area is zoned R-1.

Two-Family Residential (R-2): Six parcels (18 acres). Approximately 23.7 percent of the Project area is zoned R-2.

Multiple-Family Residence (R-3): Twenty-three parcels (54.32 acres). Almost 72 percent of the properties are zoned R-3. These properties do not need rezoning, even though the corresponding general plan designation is being modified.

Office Commercial (C-O): Three parcels (2.22 acres). Approximately 3 percent of the Project area is zoned C-O.

Proposed:

Multiple-Family (R-3): The 12 parcels (21.57 acres) currently zoned R-1, R-2, and C-O are proposed to be rezoned to an R-3 Zone District. The other 23 parcels are already zoned R-3.

11 and
X29 Combining Zone District: There are three properties (14.95 acres) proposed to have an X29 Combining Zone District added to the R-3 zoning. The X29 District will require any residential development to be built to a minimum of 20 residences/acre, as compared with the standard R-3 zoned properties within the HDR General Plan designation could be developed at a minimum of 12 residences/acre.

Project Description
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-03 and Rezone (RZ) 22-04, involving 35 parcels (“Project”) is proposed to implement the requirements of Program H-C-7 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element that was adopted by the City Council March 1, 2022. This program established the lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), in which the City is required to provide properly planned and zoned land for at least 1,544 lower income residences. The City’s vacant land inventory identified capacity for existing properly planned and zoned land to accommodate only 1,336 dwelling units, resulting in a shortfall of 208 units.

This GPA and RZ is intended to make available adequate land capable of accommodating the additional 208 needed lower income housing units in compliance with RHNA and State Housing law.

This General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the 35 parcels, covering 75.89 acres, implements the 2021- 2029 Housing Element by increasing the minimum residential development densities to 12 residences per acre. The rezoning will also include an X29 Combining Zone District for three of the 35 parcels, totaling

14.95 acres which will require new residential construction to be a minimum of 20 residences per acre.

More specifically:
• The Project will amend the General Plan Land Use Element by re-designating the 35 parcels from Medium/Low Density Residential, (29 parcels) Low Density Residential (3 parcels), Office and Office Park (2 parcels), and Public Facility (1 parcel), all to a Medium/High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan Designation.
• This Project will rezone some of those same properties to be consistent with the GPA discussed above. This includes three parcels currently in a One-Family Residential (R-1) Zone District, six parcels in a Two-Family Residence (R-2) Zone District, and three parcels in a Commercial Office (C-0) Zone District. All are proposed to be rezoned to a Multiple-Family (R-3) Zone District which is consistent with the HDR General Plan designation described above. Twenty-three of the properties were previously zoned R-3, and a rezoning is not required. Also, three of the 35 properties, totaling 14.95, acres will have an X29 Combining Zone District added to the R-3 Zone District. The X29 Combining Zone District requires new residential development to be a minimum of 20 residences per acre (vs. a minimum of 12 dwellings per acre for the other HDR designated properties). No physical development is proposed as part of this Project.

The sites are or can be served by City water, sewer, and storm drainage systems.

Figure 1 on the following page along with Table 1 that follows provide the location and detail about the properties involved.

12 Figure 1: Location Map

13 Table 2: Project Site List

14 General Property Characteristics
The proposed sites have been previously disturbed and do not contain any environmental constraints such as riparian habitat, water features, sensitive natural communities, or hazardous materials. The sites have adequate access and roadway segments as well as utility infrastructure necessary to support multifamily development. The areas surrounding the 35 sites contain urban levels of development with low density residential, commercial, office, and light industrial uses that, with proper design of the new residences, are generally compatible with a potential use of multi-family residential. There are existing water, sewer, drainage, and dry utilities to serve future development of the sites.

The 35 properties are generally located within four areas of the City:

Butte House Road corridor – There are several infill parcels consisting of approximately 14.6 acres on the north side of Butte House Road between Tharpe Road and Romero Street. This side of Butte House Road is primarily a residential area that is transitioning between homes on larger lots that were built prior to the area incorporating into the City to larger properties developing into more urban and suburban type development. Butte House Road is designated in the General Plan Circulation Element as a four-lane major arterial, designed to accommodate high traffic volumes from urban development, such as is proposed.

Walton Avenue corridor – These are five infill properties consisting of about 9.73 acres fronting along Walton Avenue on both sides of Franklin Road. This is primarily a single-family residential area with some smaller local commercial uses. The sites all front on Walton Avenue, so impacts on single-family residences are anticipated to be minimal. Walton Avenue is designated as a four-lane major arterial, having capacity to accommodate traffic from urban development. One of the properties (7.38 acres) to be rezoned to the X29 combining Zone District is located within this area.

Regional Housing Authority (RHA) – Twenty-two of the properties, consisting of approximately 50.34 acres, are located within the Regional Housing Authority owned and managed complex. The developed portion of the RHA properties primarily consist of multiple-family development. As such any new multiple-family development would be compatible with the existing uses. Two of the properties (7.57 acres) that will be combined with the X29 Zone District are within this area.

Market Street area – There are two adjoining properties, consisting of approximately 1.22 acres on Market Street just north of downtown. The vacant site is located at the northwest corner of Perkins Way and Market Street. The properties exhibit flat topography that was previously disturbed.

Historical aerials indicate the site was previously used as a vehicle and material storage yard.

Surrounding Land Uses & Setting
Table 2: Bordering Uses - Butte House Road corridor properties North: Low Density Single-Family Residential
South: Vacant/Office
East: Low Density Single-Family Residential
West: Low Density Single-Family Residential
Table 3: Bordering Uses - Walton Avenue corridor properties North: Quasi-public, Low Density Single-Family Residential South: Vacant commercial property and single-family residential East: Low Density Single-Family Residential
West: K-8 school, single-family residential

15 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required None.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist and subsequent discussion on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry
Resources
X Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazard & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities/Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

Table 4: Bordering Uses - Regional Housing Authority properties North: LightIndustrial
South: Vacant, Light industrial
East: Airport
West: Commercial
Table 5: Bordering Uses -Market Street properties
North: Office
South: Office
East: Light Industrial
West: Office

17 Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case, a brief discussion should identify and state where earlier analysis is available for review.

Impacts Adequately Addressed. The IS/MND should identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” the IS/MND should describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.

Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Supporting Information Sources: A source list is attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.

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

18 3. Environmental Checklist and Impact Evaluation
The following section presents the initial study checklist recommended by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Appendix G) to determine potential impacts of a project. Explanations of all answers are provided following each question, as necessary.

Aesthetics
Table 3-1: Aesthetics
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality.

X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
X

3.1.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Background views are generally considered to be long-range views in excess of 3 to 5 miles from a public vantage point. Background views surrounding the project site are limited due to the flat nature of the site and the surrounding urban landscape. Overall, the vast majority of Sutter County is relatively flat, with the Sutter Buttes being the exception. The Sutter Buttes, located approximately 9 miles northwest of the City, are visibly prominent throughout and can be seen from multiple locations in Yuba City and Sutter County. The Sutter Buttes comprise the long-range views to the northwest and are visible on a clear day from the majority of the City, except in areas where trees or intervening structures block views of the mountain range.

3.1.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal regulations relating to aesthetics include Organic Administration Act (1897), Multiple Use – Sustained Yield Act (1960), Wilderness Act (1964), Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (1976), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The proposed project is not subject to these regulations since there are no federally designated lands or rivers in the vicinity.

19 3.1.3. State Regulatory Setting
The California State Scenic Highway Program was created by the California Legislature in 1963 to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The state laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. These highways are identified in Section 263 of the Streets and Highways Code.

A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it must identify and define the scenic corridor of the highway. A scenic corridor is the land generally adjacent to and visible from the highway. A scenic corridor is identified using a motorist’s line of vision. A reasonable boundary is selected when the view extends to the distant horizon. The corridor protection program does not preclude development but seeks to encourage quality development that does not degrade the scenic value of the corridor. Jurisdictional boundaries of the nominating agency are also considered. The agency must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in various portions of local codes. These ordinances make up the scenic corridor protection program. County roads can also become part of the Scenic Highway System. To receive official designation, the county must follow the same process required for official designation of state scenic highways. There are no designated state scenic highways in the view shed of the project site.

California Building Code Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards: Requirements vary according to which “Lighting Zone” the equipment is located within. The Standards contain lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment and specific alterations that are dependent on which Lighting Zone the project is located in. Existing outdoor lighting systems are not required to meet these lighting power allowances.

However, alterations that increase the connected load, or replace more than 50 percent of the existing luminaires, for each outdoor lighting application that is regulated by the Standards, must meet the lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment.

An important part of the Standards is to base the lighting power that is allowed on how bright the surrounding conditions are. The eyes adapt to darker surrounding conditions, and less light is needed to properly see; when the surrounding conditions get brighter, more light is needed to see. The least power is allowed in Lighting Zone 1 and increasingly more power is allowed in Lighting Zones 2, 3, and 4. By default, government designated parks, recreation areas and wildlife preserves are Lighting Zone 1; rural areas are Lighting Zone 2; and urban areas are Lighting Zone 3. Lighting Zone 4 is a special use district that may be adopted by a local government. The proposed Project is located in an urban area; thereby, it is in Lighting Zone 3.

3.1.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? There are no designated scenic vistas within the vicinity of the Project sites, nor is any new physical development proposed as part of the proposed project. Future development of the housing sites could lead to the construction of several multi-story residential buildings that would have the potential of obscuring views of the horizon from adjacent public views. The aesthetics associated with new development that may result from this Project are expected to be complementary to surrounding uses as

20 new development must be consistent with the general design goals, policies, and objectives of the City regarding aesthetics.

The Sutter Buttes are more distant and, to some extent, can be seen over existing development from various perspectives from several of the Project parcels. If and when future development occurs, the height of the new buildings will be limited by the R-3 zoning standard of fourstories not to exceed 48 feet, however any buildings within 35 feet of an R-1 zone are limited to 40 feet and if within 25 feet buildings are limited to 30 feet in height. Layout and configuration of multi-story residential buildings will determine the extent to which views of these resources would be obscured. Realistic build-out of the parcels will likely be limited to two or three-story residential buildings with surface parking and landscaping improvements throughout the site including amenity areas. This form of development would likely allow partial visibility to the Sutter Buttes to continue with respect to all candidate sites. The likely impact on the view of the Sutter Buttes will be less than significant.

The City’s existing adopted design objectives are intended to achieve a cohesive design that would complement existing development both adjacent to the project boundaries, as well as within the Project area itself. These design objectives will be applied during subsequent design review entitlement processing in the form of Development Permits. These reviews will include proposed architectural styles, building massing, and materials. Potential impacts associated with this are anticipated to be less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
The sites are not located near a designated state scenic highway. The candidate sites do not contain any scenic resources such as significant trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The vacant sites contain flat topography and lack any unique scenic resources onsite. Some sites contain some level of tree coverage however none of the sites contain unique, character defining examples that, with removal, would cause damage to a scenic resource.

While some sites contain existing structures, none of them have been determined to be historically significant nor are any of them recognized in the General Plan EIR as historically significant. Therefore, their demolition to accommodate future development envisioned with the proposed GPA/RZ is considered a less than significant impact. Properties in the general vicinity of the proposed sites are mostly developed with residential and commercial/office and light industrial uses. Moreover, there is not a designated scenic highway near the sites. Therefore,there will be a less than significant impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

As noted above, the Project is not anticipated to result in degradation of the visual quality or character of the areas in which they are located. New residential development, built consistent with the City’s existing adopted development standards of the R-3 Zone District and the Yuba City Design Guidelines, will be compatible in terms of character and scale of surrounding development located along the candidate site street frontages including the Butte House Road, Walton Avenue corridors and the Regional Housing Authority and Market Street properties. Further, no development is currently proposed as part of this Project and any future development is required to comply with the development standards of the R-3

21 Zone District and Yuba City Design Guidelines. Future development of the vacant or underutilized parcels may even improve the visual quality of the sites from public viewpoints given the infill nature of the sites and the likelihood future development would create a cohesive plan that employs best design practices of building siting, architecture, and landscaping treatments. Therefore, this GPA/RZ will not result in negative visual impacts to any of the sites from public perspectives; and any future development such as high-density residential development is not anticipated to degrade the existing visual quality of public views to the sites. Distant views to the Sutter Buttes will not be adversely impacted and would continue to be preserved resulting in a less than significant impact. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Existing adopted City standards are in place to minimize potential impacts with respect to the creation of new light and glare impacts. Future development of multi-family residential on the subject sites will likely include the use of a combination of public street lighting, building and pole mounted onsite private lighting fixtures, or pedestrian level lighting (bollards). Any new public street lighting will be required to be shielded. New onsite lighting associated with new development, including multi-family residential buildings and associated improvements, would be evaluated against the City’s adopted development and design standards as part of the building permit process, including use of shielded lighting and limited height of light poles. Such lighting will not be allowed to create a public nuisance to surrounding properties due to light intensities. Further, multi-family residential development within the urban area is not typically a source of heavy light emittance or glare when mixed with neighboring urban uses. All multifamily development is required to establish a solid wall between it and adjacent to single-family residential uses and this will minimize light and glare from autos in parking areas and onsite lighting.

Therefore, any impacts from new outdoor lighting are expected to be less than significant with respect to the proposed re-designation of the sites.

22 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared (1997) by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

Table 3-2: Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X

3.2.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Sutter County is located within the northern portion of California’s Central Valley, known as the Sacramento Valley. It contains some of the richest soils in the State. These soils, combined with abundant surface and subsurface water supplies and a long, warm growing season, make Sutter County’s agricultural resources very productive. Sutter County is one of California’s leading agricultural counties, with 83 percent of the County’s total land acreage currently being used for agricultural purposes.

However, while Sutter County provides rich agricultural opportunities, the subject site is in an urban area and has been designated for urban uses for several years.

3.2.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Farmland Protection Policy Act: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the agency primarily responsible for implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The FPPA was enacted after the 1981 Congressional report, Compact Cities: Energy-Saving Strategies for the Eighties indicated that a great deal of urban sprawl was

23 the result of programs funded by the federal government. The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize federal programs’ contribution to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. Federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and procures to implement the FPPA every two years (USDA-NRCS, 2011). 2014 Farm Bill: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the Act), also known as the 2014 Farm Bill, repeals certain programs, continues some programs with modifications, and authorizes several new programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). Most of these programs are authorized and funded through 2018.

The Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for the taxpayer. It allows USDA to continue record accomplishments on behalf of the American people, while providing new opportunity and creating jobs across rural America. Additionally, it enables the USDA to further expand markets for agricultural products at home and abroad, strengthen conservation efforts, create new opportunities for local and regional food systems and grow the bio-based economy. It provides a dependable safety net for America's farmers, ranchers and growers and maintains important agricultural research, and ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Americans.

Forestry Resources: Federal regulations regarding forestry resources are not relevant to the proposed project because no forestry resources exist on the project site or in the vicinity.

3.2.3. State Regulatory Setting
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Definition of Agricultural Lands: Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 defines “agricultural land” for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts using the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection: The California Department of Conservation (DOC) applies the NRCS soil classifications to identify agricultural lands, and these agricultural designations are used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural land resources. Pursuant to the DOC’s FMMP, these designated agricultural lands are included in the Important Farmland Maps (IFM) used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural land resources. The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. The DOC has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications.

The list below provides a comprehensive description of all the categories mapped by the DOC. Collectively, lands classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland is referred to as Farmland.
▪ Prime Farmland. Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long‐term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. ▪ Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been

24 used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
▪ Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
▪ Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. ▪ Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
▪ Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to

1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10‐acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. ▪ Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act): The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is promulgated in California Government Code Section 51200‐51297.4, and therefore is applicable only to specific land parcels within the State of California. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose 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.

25 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 Project properties are located within the Yuba City urbanized area, adjoining a mix of residential, commercial/office, and light industrial development. None of the candidate sites are designated prime or unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. The proposed rezoning to a R-3 Zone District would still permit agricultural use of the sites. However, based on the small size and urban locations of the candidate sites, future agricultural use of any of the sites is unlikely. The properties have been planned for and designated by the City for urban uses, as provided in the General Plan and for which overriding considerations regarding the loss of agricultural land were previously made in the City’s certification of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the impact on agriculture land loss is considered a less than significant impact.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The candidate sites currently comprise four individual zoning districts and including the R-1, R-2, R-3, and C-O Zone Districts, which are not agricultural zone districts nor are the properties in agricultural use nor are they under Williamson contracts. There also are no nearby properties that are zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract. There will therefore be no impact related to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. See discussion above under item 3.2.4.a. Therefore, any conflicts with agricultural uses or zoning are less than significant, and there is no impact on any properties under a Williamson Act contract.
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 candidate sites are located in the Sacramento Valley in a relatively flat area for which most of the properties were formerly used for agriculture but designated years ago for urban use. There are no forests or timberlands located on the Project sites or within the vicinity. Even though the Project will redesignate and rezone the land use for more intensive residential development, this action will not impact any existing forestland zoning and the proposed Project will not cause the rezoning of any forestlands.

26 d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? There is no forestland on any of the Project sites nor within the vicinity of the sites; therefore, there will be no impact.
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? While the underlying soils of the properties have agriculture qualities, the area has been planned for and designated by the City for urban development as part of the General Plan, and which were previously addressed in the City’s certification of the General Plan EIR. There are no nearby agricultural uses that are anticipated to be adversely impacted by this Project. The Project sites consist of lands surrounded by previously developed residential and commercial uses, or vacant lands planned for urban use. As there is no actual development proposed, the Project does not propose any changes to the existing public infrastructure such as utilities or roadways that would potentially impact any existing agricultural lands.

The intended development of multiple-family residential associated with the proposed redesignation and rezoning will not cause any surrounding farmlands or forestlands to be converted. The Project will not impact roadway segments or modify infrastructure that would result in the conversion of these lands in the vicinity of the Project. There are no forestlands on any Project sites or in their vicinity. No properties within the areas are within the Williamson Act. For these reasons, there should be no significant impacts.

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

27 SVAB is bounded on the west by the Coast Range, on the north by the Cascade Range, on the east by the Sierra Nevada range, 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 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.

28 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 surfacebased 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.

29 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 lifetime risk that between 50 and 500 people in 1 million may contract cancer from inhalation of toxic compounds at current ambient concentrations under a 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 of Sutter

30 and Yuba Counties. Attainment is achieved when monitored ambient air quality data is following the standards for a specified pollutant. Non-compliance with an established standard will result in a nonattainment designation and an unclassified designation indicates insufficient data is available to determine compliance for that pollutant.

California Clean Air Act: The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for Ozone, CO, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a five percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each non-attainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements.

CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program: This program was designed to allow owners and operators of portable engines and other common construction or farming equipment to register their equipment under a statewide program so they may operate it statewide without the need to obtain a permit from the local air district.

U.S. EPA/CARB Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program: The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires CARB to achieve a maximum degree of emissions reductions from off-road mobile sources to attain State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS); off- road mobile sources include most construction equipment. Tier 1 standards for large compression-ignition engines used in off-road mobile sources went into effect in California in 1996. These standards, along with ongoing rulemaking, address emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and toxic particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB is currently developing a control measure to reduce diesel PM and NOX emissions from existing off-road diesel equipment throughout the state.

California Global Warming Solutions Act: Established in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) requires that California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This will be implemented through a statewide cap on GHG emissions, which will be phased in, having begun 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.

31 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 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.

32 ▪ 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? Standards set by FRQAMD, CARB, and Federal agencies will apply to the Project. Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance (such as grading) of any future development that may result from this proposed GPA and Rezone, a Fugitive Dust Control Plan will 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. FRAQMD’s 2010 Screening Criteria for Air Quality Operational Impacts indicates that the threshold for significant daily emissions of criteria pollutants for multi-family residential projects is 25-lbs/day or a project size exceeding 160 units.

This GPA/RZ does not propose physical development on any of the 35 Project parcels. However, it is expected that the subject sites will eventually develop with multiple-family residential uses. Therefore, individual development of multi-family residential units of one or more of the proposed sites could result in a potential significant effect for criteria pollutant emissions. Because of this the mitigation measure provided below shall be implemented to reduce the potential impact of criteria pollutant emissions to a less than significant level.
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? The development of multiple-family housing proximate to other existing residential uses will not likely expose nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential) to substantial pollutant concentrations because multiple-family housing typically does not emit significant amounts of said pollutants. But to assure that development of housing does not create significant amounts of criteria pollutants they will be required to receive approval by FRAQMD of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan through the development process. As a result, the impacts for this section are considered 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. The sensitive receptor located adjacent or within 1,000 feet to the proposed Project is Andros Karperos Middle School.

The impacts would typically occur during construction of the multiple-family residences, as ongoing residential uses typically do not generate significant pollutants. 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.” Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be addressed as a project condition of approval, and used to reduce the potential impacts to sensitive receptors from off-road diesel equipment, and can include:

33 ▪ 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 building 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.

Any development that could result from this GPA/RZ would result in the limited generation of criteria pollutants during construction and maintenance. However, due to the relatively temporary nature of construction, the criteria provided above, and the proposed mitigation measures, sensitive receptors in the vicinity of a development that could result from this GPA/RZ would not be subjected to long-term exposure to diesel particulate matter. As such any exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations are expected to be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The proposed Project will allow high density residential development and other related, compatible uses as defined by the R-3 Zone District. It is not anticipated that any of these uses will create any objectionable odors for surrounding residents. Future proposed development will be reviewed and analyzed for potential odor emissions that would be subject to additional review and mitigation if necessary. As such, the impact of the Project creating local offensive odors would be less than significant.

3.3.6 Air Quality Mitigation Measure
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 then-current screening criteria established by the FRAQMD.

34 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 state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X

3.4.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The Project sites are located within urbanized areas of the City and are generally vacant or underutilized lands. No demotion is proposed as part of the Project, however future multiple-family development would likely require demolition of remaining structures.

Biological resources were evaluated in the General Plan EIR addressing plant communities, wildlife habitats, and special-status (i.e., rare, threatened, or endangered) species. Wildlife species associated land such as the subject property are, by and large, opportunistic species that have adapted to exploiting resources associated with anthropogenic (human-caused) activities within the local environment. The special-status plant species generated by the CNDDB, USFWS, and CNPS electronic inventories occur in habitats not present anywhere within the Project sites.

35 No wetland features or “other waters” of the U.S. were identified within the Project boundaries during reconnaissance-level surveys. A review of aerial photographs of areas not accessible in the field also did not identify any wetland resources. The entire urban area has historically been used for agricultural crop production, and it unlikely that seasonal wetlands would occur in these areas due to the intensive land use activities and more recent residential development.

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a California Threatened species and federal species of concern found throughout the Central Valley where suitable nesting and foraging habitat is available. Swainson's hawks often nest within, or on the edge of riparian areas adjacent to suitable foraging habitat, as well as in single or stands of trees in agricultural fields. They are open-country birds that forage in large, open grasslands and agricultural fields, especially after the fields have been disked or harvested. Swainson’s hawks can forage as much as 10 miles from the nest.

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:

36 ▪ All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters, which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
▪ All interstate waters including interstate wetlands.
▪ All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. ▪ All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition.
▪ Tributaries of waters identified in the bulleted items above.

As determined by the United States Supreme Court in its 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision, channels and wetlands isolated from other jurisdictional waters cannot be considered jurisdictional on the basis of their use, hypothetical or observed, by migratory birds. Similarly, in its 2006 consolidated Carabell/Rapanos decision, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that a significant nexus between a wetland and other navigable waters must exist for the wetland itself to be considered a navigable, and therefore, jurisdictional water.

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 that could be relevant to this project:

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

37 assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any development within 300 feet of any creeks, sensitive habitat areas, or areas of potential sensitive status species.

8.4-I-2 Require preservation of oak trees and other native trees that are of a significant size, by requiring site designs to incorporate these trees to the maximum extent feasible.

8.4-I-3 Require to the extent feasible, use of drought tolerant plants in landscaping for new development, including private and public projects.

3.4.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of the proposed sites are surrounded by urban development and contain some improvements or otherwise have had prior site disturbances that have reduced suitability for these species. Some of the properties owned by the Regional Housing Authority have several large trees located on them. Prior to any specific project being constructed a biological inventory of the sites should be conducted with the results incorporated into the project. With that exception, per the General Plan EIR, there are no sensitive habitat or riparian areas located on the Project sites. A less than significant impact would occur with respect to candidate, sensitive, or special status species.

According to the Yuba City General Plan EIR, the only designated special status vegetation species within Yuba City and its Sphere of Influence is the Golden Sunburst, a flowering plant that occurs primarily in non-native grasslands and is threatened mostly by the conversion of habitat to urban uses. The habitat area for this particular species occurs at the extreme eastern boundary of the Planning Area at the confluence of the Feather and Yuba Rivers. As the Project sites do not fall within this area, there would a less than significant impact to special status species as a result of this project. 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?
See section a) above.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Per the General Plan EIR no wetlands or federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present within the proposed Project sites or in the general vicinity, and development that could result from the proposed Project would not disturb any waterways falling under this category. No impact would occur. 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?
There are no known wildlife movement corridors associated with the Project sites nor resident wildlife populations. Further, the Project sites are located within an urban area and surrounded by existing

38 residential, commercial/office or light industrial development. This would be a less than significant impact.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Section 8.4 (Biological Resources) of the Yuba City General Plan contains guiding measures and implementing policies with regard to biological resources. The Projectsites are not located within an area identified in the General Plan as being habitat for special-status species for Hartweg’s Golden Sunburst.

Other relevant implementing policies identified in the General Plan include the requirement for biological assessment for any proposed development within 300 feet of any creeks, sensitive habitat areas, or areas of potential sensitive status species and the preservation of oak trees and other native trees that are of a significant size by requiring development to minimize impact to these resources. The sites are not adjacent to any creeks or other sensitive habitat area and no oak trees are present. This would be a less than significant impact.
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? There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans affecting the Project sites or in the vicinity.

There would be no impact.

39 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 as defined in
§15064.5.

X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5.

X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X

3.5.1. Federal Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), Section 106: The significance of cultural resources is evaluated under the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 are as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
▪ That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
▪ That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or ▪ That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ▪ That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

Sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP are considered to be historic properties. Sites younger than 50 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP.

3.5.2. State Regulatory Setting
CEQA requires consideration of project impacts on archaeological or historical sites deemed to be "historical resources." Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource is considered a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, a "historical resource" is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14 CCR §15064.5[a][1]-[3]). Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).

40 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])
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).

Senate Bill 18, which became effective March 2005, 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 encompass the AB 52 review process for purposes of this document.

In response to AB 52, and SB 18 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

41 ▪ Mechoopda Indian Tribe
▪ Pakan’yani Maidu of Strawberry Valley
▪ Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians
▪ Ione Band of Miwok 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 as defined in §15064.5? 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])
A review of aerial photography for the 35 properties indicate that all of the sites have been previously disturbed. Most of the properties are vacant. The exceptions are two residences on a Butte House Road corridor property and on a Walton Avenue property, and several trailers, abandoned vehicles and trash on the easterly Regional Housing Authority properties. None of these appear to have any historical significance nor did the General Plan EIR identify any of them as having historical significance. Therefore, the potential for impacts on any historical resources are less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
According to Chapter 8.3 (Historic and Archaeological Resources) of the Yuba City General Plan, the region within which Yuba City lies is part of a valley that was formerly composed of extensive wetlands and broad, shallow lakes. Because of this location and availability of resources, it is believed that different tribes occupied the area on a year-round basis, for about ten thousand years. However, due to siltation of the area over the years, prehistoric sites have been buried at such depths that very little, if any, evidence remains at the surface. Original land clearing and a hundred years of farming have further diminished any likely archaeological sites.

As new development occurs within the Planning Area, there is the potential to uncover archeological sites.

But this proposal involves only a general plan amendment and rezoning, with no physical development proposed. As such, this Project will not impact any archeological resources that may exist on any of the 35 parcels included in this review. Therefore, there will be no impact on archeological resources from this Project.

42 Although actual development projects may result from this action, it is not possible to know which properties and what types of projects may be proposed. As such, it is premature and speculative at this time to determine what the impacts would be. Since the City’s review process of actual development proposals would likely trigger its own CEQA review, including archeological resources, a review of cultural resource impacts will be conducted at the time a development project is proposed. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the Project sites. Due to previous site disturbance from various uses, no evidence of human remains at the Project sites have been documented, and it is unlikely that buried human remains are present. However, there still remains the potential for previously unknown sub-surface resources to be present. But this proposal involves only a general plan amendment and rezoning, and there is no physical development proposed. As such, this Project will not directly impact any cultural resources that may exist on any of the 35 parcels included in this review. Therefore, this Project will have no impact any cultural resources.

Although actual development projects may result from this action, it is not possible to know which properties and what types of projects may be proposed. As such, it would be premature and too speculative at this time to determine what the impacts would be. Since the City’s review process of actual development proposals would likely trigger its own CEQA review, including cultural resources, a review of cultural resource impacts will be conducted at the time a development project is proposed.

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.

43 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? As with air pollutant emissions, the main sources of energy consumption would be construction activities for any development that may occur as a result of this GPA/RZ and ongoing operations from that development.

Construction would involve fuel consumption and use of other non-renewable resources. Construction equipment used for such improvements typically runs on diesel fuel or gasoline. The same fuels typically are used for vehicles that transport equipment and 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 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 allow future development to occur at a higher density than the current General Plan designations for the properties, therefore, build-out and operation of the Project sites would result in a slightly higher demand for natural gas and electricity to serve future development. However, this increase would represent a minimal increase compared to existing demand and supply. Additional long-term energy usage increases in vehicle transportation fuels would result from an increase in density of development of the sites. However, the anticipated multi-family residential development that would potentially occur in the future would result in nominal increases in fuel usage compared to a slightly lower density product.

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, as there is no actual development proposed.

Overall, Project construction and operations would not consume energy resources in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. As such, Project impacts related to energy consumption are considered less than significant.

44 b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? All future high-density residential development that would occur as a result of the GPA and Rezone would be required to be consistent with the energy efficiency goals of CALGreen and Title 24, and similar measures (see Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and all applicable state and local plans to increase energy efficiency. No physical construction is proposed as part of this Project and the future residential development that could result from the Project would not create undue energy consumption with compliance with local and State requirements. A less than significant impact would occur.

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 cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the California Building Code (1994)
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 waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
X

45 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 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

46 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 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.

47 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.

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.

3.7.2. 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 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.

48 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 most 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.

3.7.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Directly or indirectly cause 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, 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. The Project is only a request for a General Plan Amendment and Rezone and does not include a specific development proposal at this time.

Therefore, potential impact from an earthquake is considered to be 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 residential structures including new multi-family residential construction will be required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction, and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of

49 people and structures to major geologic hazards. General Plan Implementing Policies 9.2-I-1 through 9.2- I-8 and City adopted Building Codes reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The proposed Project sites are 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 significant risk in the City limits or within the City’s Sphere of Influence, nor at or adjacent to the Project sites due to the flat terrain. There are no circumstances surrounding the Project site that would likely result in a risk of property damage or loss of life due to a landslide event. There would no impact.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Per Chapter 9.2 (Seismic and Geologic Hazards) of the Yuba City General Plan, potential erosion within the City is considered minimal as land within the region is general flat, with moderate annual precipitation averages (between 15 -21 inches), and generally low wind velocities. Future development of the Project sites resulting from the proposed GPA/RZ would result in the need for mass grading and site disturbance across the majority of the parcels for the installation of infrastructure, creation of building pads, and proper site drainage. Even though the area is relatively flat, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the City drainage system. However, as part of any future construction of the candidate sites, the applicant will be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This triggers the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwaters moving offsite into receiving waters during the construction process. With these standards being met, as applied through standard City conditions of approval that will be attached to any future project specific approval, the impacts would be 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?
There have not been any identified geological soil units considered to be unstable, or that would become unstable from development that may result of this Project. Even though the Project does not propose any physical development, future development that could result from the Project would be required to submit a geotechnical report as part of the building permit process to verify suitable site conditions for construction of multi-family dwellings and associated structures (amenity building, storage, detached garages, carports). This potential impact is therefore considered to be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property?

50 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? Future multiple-family development resulting from this GPA/RZ will be required to connect to the City’s wastewater collection system per the established permitting system in place. No septic systems will be utilized. Impacts with respect to this item are considered to be less than significant. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Although there have been prior ground disturbances for agriculture and other uses, it is possible that paleontological resources exist on any of these 35 parcels. This Project involves only a general plan amendment and rezoning, and there is no physical development proposed. As such, this Project will not directly result in the disturbance of any potential paleontological resource sitesthat may exist. Therefore, there will be no impacts on paleontological resources from this Project.

Although actual development projects may result from this action, it is not possible to know which properties and what types of projects may be proposed. As such, it would be premature and too speculative at this time to determine what the impacts would be. Since the City’s review process of actual development proposals would likely trigger its own CEQA review, including paleontological resources, a review of tribal paleontological resource impacts will be conducted at the time a development project is proposed.

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