Yuba City City Council
September 19, 2023

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

2. The site design shall be designed in conformance with the Site Plan, dated April 14, 2023, as appropriate, and as approved by the Planning Commission.

3. Approval of Development Plan (DP) 23-02 shall be null and void without further action if either 1) the project has not been substantially commenced within two years of the approval date of Development Plan 23-02; or 2) that a request for an extension of time, pursuant to Section 8-5.7106 of the Yuba City Municipal Code has not been submitted to the City.

4. The development and operation of the project shall comply with all local, state, and federal codes (including Building and Fire codes) and local development standards. a. The Developer or Representative shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City prior to performing any work within public right of way.

5. The Developer shall, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy of the first building, construct a 6-foot-high masonry wall along all interior property lines in accordance with Yuba City Municipal Code Sec. 8-5. 5905.

6. The Developer shall, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy of the first building, install landscaping along North Walton Avenue, on all sides of Building 4, and in the parking area for the area required with the development of Phase One, or as approved by the Development Services Director.

7. All exterior lighting shall be decorative in nature. No wall packs are permitted.

8. Decorative window treatment shall be installed, such as an inset of three inches or adding framing or trim around the windows, as approved by the Development Services Director.

9. To help contain fugitive dust, construction sites shall be watered down during the construction phase of the project or as directed by the Public Works Department.

4 10. Paved streets shall be swept frequently (water sweeper with reclaimed water recommended; wet broom) if soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved, public thoroughfares from the project site.

11. The Developer, at their expense, shall be solely responsible for all quality control associated with the project. The quality control shall include, but is not limited to, the following: survey work, potholing existing utilities, all geotechnical testing, soil reports, concrete testing, asphalt testing, and any other required special testing/inspections. The City will only perform necessary testing to insure compliance.

12. Storage of construction material is not allowed in the travel way.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT

13. The improvement plans for the development of the subject property shall include all measures required to ensure that no drainage runoff resulting from the development of the property flow onto the adjacent lands or impede the drainage from those lands.

At first submittal of the improvement plans, provide existing / proposed grades at the perimeter of the proposed development, and existing grades at the adjacent lands.

If retaining walls are required they shall be constructed of concrete or masonry block.

PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENT/BUILDING PLANS

14. The plans shall indicate the locations of all septic and leach field areas, and all wells.

All existing facilities shall be destroyed in accordance with the requirements of the Sutter County Environmental Health and Yuba City Building Departments.

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

5 e. Drainage systems (pipes and street systems) shall be designed to accommodate the runoff from the ultimate development of the entire upstream watershed.
f. Detention Basins - A 100-year, 4-day storm shall be used for sizing detention storage facilities. The detention basin release rate from a 100-year, 24-hour storm after development must be equal to or lower than the runoff rate from the detention basin's tributary area before development. g. The drainage analysis shall be completed and stamped by a Professional Engineer and determined by the City Engineer, if necessary, to be comprehensive, accurate, and adequate.

16. The development shall comply with Yuba City’s stormwater requirements and PostConstruction Standards Plan. The Post Construction information can be found here:
https://www.yubacity.net/city_hall/departments/public_works/engineering/stormwate r_management

17. All development shall be designed to local, state, and federal flood standards.

18. Developer is to construct street lights along the east side of North Walton Avenue.

Placement of the street lights shall be approximately 250 feet apart, or as approved by the Public Works Director.

19. Any street lighting is a public improvement which shall meet the City Standard Details and be included in the Improvement Plans and Specifications for the development when the improvement plans are submitted for the first improvement plan check.

20. The existing power poles along the property on North Walton Avenue shall be placed underground, or addressed in accordance with the City’s Overhead Utility Policy adopted March 17, 2020, or as otherwise determined by the Public Works Director.

The total lineal foot length of overhead lines along North Walton Avenue is determined to be 693 lineal feet.

21. Any proposed drive gates, and associated hardware locks, shall comply with Municipal Code Section 4-5.02 – Revisions to the 2021 International Fire Code; Security Gates; and be approved by the Fire Department. Said drive gates shall be placed at a distance from North Walton Avenue that allows for safe ingress/egress, as approved by the Public Works Director.

22. Required Improvement Plan Notes:
a. "Any excess materials shall be considered the property of the contractor/owner and shall be disposed of away from the job site in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations." b. "During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for controlling noise, odors, dust and debris to minimize impacts on surrounding properties and roadways. The Contractor shall be responsible for all construction equipment to be equipped with manufacturers approved muffler baffles. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an order to stop work.”
c. “If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Sutter County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City

6 Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.”
d. "The Contractor(s) shall be required to maintain traffic flow on affected roadways during non-working hours, and to minimize traffic restriction during construction. The Contractor shall be required to follow traffic safety measures in accordance with the CalTrans “Manual of Traffic Safety Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones.” The City of Yuba City emergency service providers shall be notified, at least two working days in advance, of proposed construction scheduled by the contractor(s).” e. “Soil shall not be treated with lime or other cementitious material without prior express permission by the Public Works Department.”
f. “Where an excavation for a trench and/or structure is five (5) feet deep or more, the contractor shall conform to O.S.H.A. requirements. The contractor shall provide a copy of the approved O.S.H.A. permit, and shoring details and calculations prepared by California licensed structural engineer to the Public Works Department.”
g. “Should any field conditions, conflicts, errors, and/or omissions be overlooked during the design review process, or during construction of the development, then any additional work identified during construction shall be implemented by the Developer at the Developer’s expense.”

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT

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

24. All applicable fees associated with using the Gilsizer District drainage system shall be paid, or as otherwise determined by the Public Works Director.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

25. All street lighting shall be constructed in accordance with the improvement plans, dedicated to the City of Yuba City, and energized prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.

26. All sidewalks along the City right-of-way shall be free of any non-control joint cracking. In addition, any concrete with cracks, chips, blemishes, and spalling greater than an inch in diameter shall be replaced from control joint to control joint.

27. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, all underground utilities, public improvements, and site improvements, including rough grading, shall be completed in accordance with City requirements.

ATTACHMENT 3

Agenda Item 12

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: September 19, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Consideration of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-01 and Rezone (RZ) 22-02 associated with Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01 for the Ratliff Duplex Development
Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing, and;
B. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Environmental Assessment 22-04, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contingently approving General Plan Amendment 22-01 for the Ratliff Duplex Development located on approximately 0.31 acres at the southwest corner of Cooper Avenue and Frederick Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 52-283-012 and -013); and
C. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to adopt Rezone 22-02 for the Ratliff Duplex Development located on approximately 0.31 acres at the southwest corner of Cooper Avenue and Frederick Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 52-283-012 and -013).

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

Purpose:

To consider General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-01 and Rezone (RZ) 22-02 associated with Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01 for the Ratliff Duplex Development.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item meets the City Council’s strategic goal of business friendly.

Background:

The applicant, James Ratliff, filed an application for GPA 22-01, RZ 22-02, and TPM 22-01 for the development of three duplexes on the existing two parcels (0.31 acres).

On May 31, 2023, the Yuba City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, and the Planning Commission unanimously:

1. Adopted Resolution PC 23-10 recommending approval of GPA 22-01 and RZ 22-02 to the City Council together with Environmental Assessment 22-04; and

2. Adopted Resolution PC 23-11 contingently approving TPM 22-01.

Analysis:

If approved as proposed, the applicant proposes to construct a two-story duplex on each of three smaller lots, as compared to a duplex on two lots under the existing zoning. In order to accomplish this the applicant has requested the following:
• GPA 22-01: The existing LDR General Plan land use designation has a maximum allowable residential density of eight residences per acre. With the existing two R-2 zoned lots, a duplex is permitted on each lot. The resulting four residences would be at a residential density of almost 13 residences/acre (as this is a pre-existing situation, the added density over the allowed eight units per acre is permitted). With the proposed GPA the project will have a density of approximately 19 residences per acre. The proposed designation of HDR will allow up to 36 residences per acre, but the X30 ordinance would limit the density for this proposal to the proposed 19 residences per acre.
• RZ 22-02: The existing R-2 Zone District is primarily designed for duplexes. However, this proposal is for smaller lots than allowed in the R-2 Zone District. To accommodate this, the property will be rezoned to the Multiple-Family Residential District (R-3) and an X30 Combining Zone District is requested to allow smaller lots with reduced rear yards and increased lot coverage. The X30 Combining Zone District is designed to custom fit this project onto the three proposed lots.

Compatibility with neighboring uses:

The project is located in an older residential neighborhood with a mix of residential types. There remain single-family residences in all directions but there are also apartments across the street to the northwest and northeast. There is also a small apartment complex to the rear of this property on the south side. This proposal to add duplexes fits between the existing residential types.

Mixing housing types in a neighborhood encourages economic diversity but still maintains compatibility Table 2: Bordering Information and Uses
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Zoning Existing Land Use
Project
Site
Low Density
Residential (LDR)
Two-Family
Residential (R-2)
Vacant
North LDR R-2 Frederick Street with multi-family
and single-family uses across the
street.

East LDR, & Medium
Density Residential
(MDR)
Single-Family
Residential (R-1)
and R-2
Cooper Street with single-family &
multi-family across the street.

West LDR R-2 Single-family residence.

South LDR R-2 Single Family and multi-family.

from a standpoint of maintaining a residential neighborhood. Thus, adding three duplexes to an existing neighborhood mix of single-family and multiple-family uses should not cause incompatibility issues.

Community Benefit:

In order to utilize the X Combining Zone District there should be a community benefit as a result of reducing City development standards. In this case, the project will generate additional moderateincome type housing that is highly encouraged by the City’s updated 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element in an existing neighborhood that provides a range of housing types.

Traffic:

Assuming eight vehicle trips per day per residence, this project will not add more than approximately 48 vehicle trips per day. When compared to the current zoning, which would be two duplexes on the two existing parcels, which would generate approximately 32 trips per day, the difference is considered minimal.

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 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 finding of the mitigated negative declaration is that, with the proposed mitigations for Greenhouse Gases and Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources, this GPA/RZ/TPM will not create any significant environmental impacts. As a result, the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The proposed mitigations are included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Alternatives:

1. Deny the application to approve General Plan Amendment 22-01 and Rezone 22-01.

2. Provide staff with alternate direction.

Recommendations:

A. Conduct a Public Hearing, and;
B. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Environmental Assessment 22-04, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contingently approving General Plan Amendment 22-01 for the Ratliff Duplex Development located on approximately 0.31 acres at the southwest corner of Cooper Avenue and Frederick Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 52- 283-012 and -013); and
C. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to adopt Rezone 22-02 for

the Ratliff Duplex Development located on approximately 0.31 acres at the southwest corner of Cooper Avenue and Frederick Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 52-283-012 and -013).

Attachments:

1. City Council Resolution

2. City Council Ordinance

3. Planning Commission Staff Report Packet, dated May 31, 2023 Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ashley Potočnik
Development Liaison
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

1 RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 22-04, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND CONTINGENTLY APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22-01 FOR THE RATLIFF DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 0.31 ACRES AT

THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOPER AVENUE AND FREDERICK STREET (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 52-283-012 AND -013)
WHEREAS, the City received an application from James Ratliff for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from an LDR land use designation to a HDR designation (GPA 22-01), and a Rezoning for this property revising the zoning from a R-2 Zone District to the R-3X30 Zone District (RZ 22-02) in order to reduce minimum lot sizes, increase lot coverage and reduce rear yard sizes in order to accommodate Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01 that divides two parcels into three parcels for the 0.31 acre site (collectively “Project”).

Development that will result from this action will be provided full City services; and WHEREAS the X30 Combining Zone District will modify certain development standards in an effort to increase project densities. Proposed development standard modifications include allowing for reduced minimum lot sizes yard setbacks, garage setbacks and minimum required distances between buildings on the same lot. The purpose of these modifications is to accommodate a more compact project design; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared an Initial Study proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 22-04) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applications, GPA 22-01, RZ-22-02, and TPM 22-01, as well as EA 22-04, at which time it received input from City Staff, the applicant; public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed all associated documents prepared for the Project, including that related to the applications, 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 of the City of Yuba City adopt a resolution adopting Environmental Assessment 22-04, approve GPA 22-01, and adopt an ordinance approving RZ 22-02.

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider the GPA 22-01, RZ-22-02, and EA 22-04, and received both oral testimony and written information presented at the hearing regarding the same; 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 approve the project; and

2 WHEREAS, due to the limitations of State law that limit the number of General Plan amendments that can occur each year, and to comply with this requirement, individual projects proposing amendments to the General Plan may be contingently approved based on a final consolidated approval of all such project by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt EA 22-04 and contigently approve GPA 22-01, with RZ 22-02 to be adopted by separate ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Yuba City resolves as follows:

1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein.

2. CEQA Finding. The City Council finds and determines that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared for Environmental Assessment 22-04.

Additionally, the City Council finds and determines as follows:
a. An 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. The process included the distribution of requests for comments from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. Preparation of Environmental Assessment 22-04 necessitated a thorough review of the proposed Project and relevant environmental issues and considered previously prepared environmental and technical studies. While the proposed Project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, based on its independent judgement and analysis the City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur, 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 or adverse. The proposed Project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the “Mandatory Findings of Significance” contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project-specific mitigation measures included in the Project to avoid potentially significant effects are set forth in the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With the project-specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this Project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment. As such, the City Council also finds and determines 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 22-04.

3. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based on the foregoing, the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project, including the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as the Project will not result in any significant, adverse environmental impacts with the mitigations proposed. The Yuba City Development Services Department located at 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, CA 95993, is designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decision is based. The City Council 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 that complies with the CEQA Guidelines.

3 4. General Plan Findings. The City Council finds that the public necessity, general welfare, good planning practices, public interest, and convenience warrant approval of General Plan Amendment 22-01, including the following:
a. The proposed HDR land use designation, when used in conjunction with the proposed rezoning, will limit the residential density to be compatible with existing neighboring higher density residential uses.
b. The Project will not generate significant amounts of new traffic that would cause a decrease in levels of service for nearby General Plan streets including Bridge Street, B Street, Clark Avenue, and Gray Avenue, and any new residences that result from this Project will pay their fair share of traffic development impact fees, making the Project consistent with the Transportation Element.
c. Increasing the allowable residential density is consistent with the Housing Element’s goals and policies that are intended to expand housing opportunities within the City. d. The environmental document prepared for the Project (EA 22-04) found that the Project will not create significant environmental impacts on water quality, air quality, biological resources, agricultural lands, open space, and archaeological resources, making the Project consistent with the Environmental Conservation Element of the General Plan. e. The Project will connect to all City services including water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage, making it consistent with the Public Utilities Element, and the Police and Fire Departments determined that the Project will not cause any safety or emergency response issues. As such the Project will be consistent with the Noise and Safety Element. f. Any new residences that will be constructed as a result of this Project will pay all applicable park and school development impact fees, making it consistent with the Parks, Schools, and Community Facilities Element.

5. Approval of General Plan Amendment 22-01. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City approves General Plan Amendment 22-01, per the attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference. This approval is contingent upon the following:
a. The approval of General Plan Amendment 22-01 shall become final and effective immediately only after the City Council of the City of Yuba City approves a final resolution authorizing amendment of the General Plan and identifying General Plan Amendment 22-01 as a component of the same. If suchapproval is not made by the City Council within 45 days of the adoption of this Resolution, then this matter shall be returned to the City Council for further consideration and a final decision.

6. Effective: This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

4 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 19th day of September, 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
_________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit A: General Plan Map, GPA 22-01

5 EXHIBIT A

6

ATTACHMENT 2

1 ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY TO ADOPT REZONE 22-02 FOR THE RATLIFF DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 0.31 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF COOPER AVENUE AND FREDERICK STREET (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 52-283-012 AND -013).

WHEREAS, the City received an application from James Ratliff for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from an LDR land use designation to a HDR designation (GPA 22-01), and a Rezoning for this property revising the zoning from a R-2 Zone District to the R-3X30 Zone District (RZ 22-02) in order to reduce minimum lot sizes, increase lot coverage and reduce rear yard sizes in order to accommodate Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01 that divides two parcels into three parcels for the 0.31 acre site (collectively “Project”).

Development that will result from this action will be provided full City services; and WHEREAS the X30 Combining Zone District will modify certain development standards in an effort to increase project densities. Proposed development standard modifications include allowing for reduced minimum lot sizes yard setbacks, garage setbacks and minimum required distances between buildings on the same lot. The purpose of these modifications is to accommodate a more compact project design; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared an Initial Study proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 22-04) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applications, GPA 22-01, RZ-22-02, and TPM 22-01, as well as EA 22-04, at which time it received input from City Staff, the applicant; public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed all associated documents prepared for the Project, including that related to the applications, and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopt a resolution adopting Environmental Assessment 22-04, approve GPA 22-01, and adopt an ordinance approving RZ 22-02.

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider the GPA 22-01, RZ-22-02, and EA 22-04, and received both oral testimony and written information presented at the hearing regarding the same; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve RZ 22-02.

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

2 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- 04 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 22-02 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 22-01. The City Council finds that Rezone 22-02 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 22-01; 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 22-02. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City adopts an Ordinance approving RZ 22-02 and reclassify the zone districts for those districts as depicted in Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference.

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

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

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced by the City Council after waiving reading, except by Title, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of September 2023, and adopted the Ordinance after the second reading at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of October 2023, by the following roll call vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recused:

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

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
_________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit A: Rezone Map, RZ 22-02
Exhibit B: X30 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.

4 EXHIBIT A

5

6 EXHIBIT B

7

ATTACHMENT 3

CITY OF YUBA CITY

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 31, 2023
To: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Development Services Department
Presentation by: Ashley Potočnik, Development Liaison
Subject: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-01, Rezone (RZ) 22-02, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01, Ratliff Duplex Development
Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing and make the necessary findings to:

B. Adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council approve Environmental Assessment 22-04 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to Mitigation Measures, approve General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-01) and adopt an Ordinance approving Rezone 22-02 for the Ratliff Duplex Development located on approximately 0.31 acres located at the southwest corner of Cooper Avenue and Fredrick Street (Assessor’s Parcels 52-283-012 and -013); and
C. Adopt a Resolution contingently approving Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, on approximately 0.31 acres located at the southwest corner of Cooper Avenue and Fredrick street (Assessor’s Parcels 52-283-012 and -013).

Applicant/Owner: James Ratliff
Project Location: The 0.31-acre site is located on the southwest corner of Frederick Street and Cooper Avenue. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 52-283-012 and -013.

General Plan: Existing: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Proposed: Medium-High Density Residential (HDR)
Zoning: Existing: Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District Proposed: Multiple-Family Residential Zone District (R-3) combined with the X30Zone District (R-3X30). The X30 Combining Zone District will revise the R-3 development standards allowing smaller lots with reduced rear yards and increased lot coverage limits but limit the permitted uses to a duplex on each of the three lots. ____________________________________________________________________________

Planning Commission
May 31, 2023
Item 5
2 Purpose:

Consideration of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-01, Rezone (RZ) 22-02, and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01 for the proposed Ratliff Duplex Development.

Project Description:

The intent of the project is to construct a two-story duplex on each of three smaller lots, as compared to a duplex on two lots under the existing zoning. In order to accomplish this the applicant has requested the following:
• GPA 22-01: will re-designate two parcels consisting of O.31 acre (13,416 square feet) from the LDR land use designation to the HDR designation. This GPA is needed to increase the allowable residential density from a maximum of eight residences per acre under the LDR designation to a range of 12-36 residences per acre in the HDR designated areas. The proposed density will be approximately 19 residences per acre. • RZ 22-02: rezones the same 0.31 acre from the R-2 Zone District to the R-3X30 Zone District. The X30 Combining Zone District is requested to allow smaller lots with reduced rear yards and increased lot coverage (See Table 1 below) and limit the use of each of the three small lots to a duplex.

Table 1: Proposed X30 Use and Development Standards
Standard Existing R-2 Standard Proposed R-3X30 Standard Permitted Uses All uses allowed in the R-2 Zone
District.

A duplex (on each of the three lots)
and permitted accessory uses. Any
other use requires a use permit.

Minimum Lot
Size for a duplex
6,000 square feet, except that a
corner lot is 7,000 square feet.
3,900 square feet, except that a
corner lot is 4,400 square feet.

Maximum
percentage lot
coverage
For a two-story duplex – 40%. For a two-story duplex - 50%.

Minimum Rear
Yard Depth
25 feet or 20% of the total lot
depth, whichever is less. 9 feet.
• TPM 22-01 subdivides the two existing parcels totaling 0.31 acre (13,416 sq. ft.) into three parcels consisting of 0.12 acre (5,037 sq. ft.), 0.09 acre (3,906 sq. ft.), and 0.10 acre (4,473 sq. ft.).

Background
Since at least the adoption of the 2004 General Plan, the two lots on 0.31 acre have been designated for low density residential development. A duplex could be constructed on each of the two parcels. The property owner proposes to intensify what is permitted. Instead of building

Planning Commission
May 31, 2023
Item 5
3 a duplex on each of the two existing lots, the proposed project will establish three lots and allow for the construction of a duplex on each of the three parcels. To accomplish this, several entitlements are required:
• Amend the General Plan Land Use designation allow increased residential density (LDR to HDR).
• Amend the zoning from a Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District to an R-3X30 Zone District. *
• Approve a tentative parcel map to create three parcels from two. *The Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District, which is typically utilized for duplex development, does not work for this proposal as the proposed lots will be smaller than allowed by the R-2 Zone District. The X Combining Zone District is designed to be applied in cases were modified standards are needed to accommodate a specific development project that my not meet the overall standards, but that results in a development that is beneficial to the community.

The net difference from what is currently allowed to this proposal is the ability to build one additional duplex (three total) instead of two. As there is other urban development around this property, all City services have been available to this property for many years.

Analysis:

GPA 22-01: The existing LDR General Plan land use designation has a maximum allowable residential density of eight residences per acre. With the existing two R-2 zoned lots, a duplex is permitted on each lot. The resulting four residences would be at a residential density of almost 13 residences/acre (as this is a pre-existing situation, the added density over the allowed eight units per acre is permitted). With the proposed GPA the project will have a density of approximately 19 residences per acre. The proposed designation of HDR will allow up to 36 residences per acre, but the X30 ordinance would limit the density for this proposal to the proposed 19 residences per acre.

RZ 22-02: The existing R-2 Zone District is primarily designed for duplexes. However, this proposal is for smaller lots than allowed in the R-2 Zone District. To accommodate this, the property will be rezoned to the Multiple-Family Residential District (R-3) and an X30 Combining Zone District is requested to allow smaller lots with reduced rear yards and increased lot coverage. The X30 Combining Zone District is designed to custom fit this project onto the three proposed lots.

TPM 22-01: As the applicant proposes three duplexes, the applicant also proposes to create three lots so each proposed duplex can be built on its own lot.

Compatibility with neighboring uses:

The project is located in an older residential neighborhood with a mix of residential types.

There remain single-family residences in all directions but there are also apartments across the street to the northwest and northeast. There is also a small apartment complex to the rear of this property on the south side. This proposal to add duplexes fits between the existing

Planning Commission
May 31, 2023
Item 5
4 residential types. While newer neighborhoods usually do not mix housing types due to perceived differences, the result is still residences with other residences, which does not introduce any true land use incompatibilities. Mixing housing types in a neighborhood encourages economic diversity but still maintains compatibility from a standpoint of maintaining a residential neighborhood. Thus, adding three duplexes to an existing neighborhood mix of single-family and multiple-family uses should not cause incompatibility issues.

In Yuba City there is also a tradition of not mixing single-story and two-story residences. In this case, however, that mix already exists, so adding two story residences to the neighborhood is not expected to generate compatibility concerns.

Community Benefit:

In order to utilize the X Combining Zone District there should be a community benefit as a result of reducing City development standards. In this case, the project will generate additional moderate income type housing that is highly encouraged by the General Plan Housing Element in an existing neighborhood that provides a range of housing types.

Spot Zoning:

Adding the X30 Combining Zone District might be considered a spot zoning as it will differ from the surrounding R-2 Zone District. However, the actual proposed uses are duplexes for which the surrounding R-2 District is designed to accommodate. The proposed smaller lot sizes are also not considered to be an issue as the proposed density of approximately 19 residences per acre is consistent with the densities of the existing neighboring multiple-family residences.

Traffic:

Assuming eight vehicle trips per day per residence, this project will not add more than approximately 48 vehicle trips per day. When compared to the current zoning, which would Table 2: Bordering Information and Uses
General Plan Land Use
Designation Zoning Existing Land Use
Project
Site
Low Density Residential
(LDR)
Two-Family
Residential (R-2) Vacant
North LDR R-2
Frederick Street with multi-family
and single-family uses across
the street.

East LDR, & Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
Single-Family
Residential (R-1)
and R-2
Cooper Street with single-family
& multi-family across the street.

West LDR R-2 Single-family residence.

South LDR R-2 Single Family and multi-family.

Planning Commission
May 31, 2023
Item 5
5 be two duplexes on the two existing parcels, which would generate approximately 32 trips per day, the difference is considered minimal.

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 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 finding of the mitigated negative declaration is that, with the proposed mitigations for Greenhouse Gases and Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources, this GPA/RZ/TPM will not create any significant environmental impacts. As a result, the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The proposed mitigations are included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program.

Recommended Actions:

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

B. Adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council approve Environmental Assessment 22-04 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to Mitigation Measures, approve General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-01) and adopt an Ordinance approving Rezone 22-02 for the Ratliff Duplex Development located on approximately

0.31 acres located at the southwest corner of Cooper Avenue and Fredrick Street (Assessor’s Parcels 52-283-012 and -013); and
C. Adopt a Resolution contingently approving Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, on approximately 0.31 acres located at the southwest corner of Cooper Avenue and Fredrick street (Assessor’s Parcels 52- 283-012 and -013).

Attachments:

1. Planning Commission Resolution (GPA 22-01, RZ 22-02) Exhibit A: General Plan Map, GPA 22-01
Exhibit B: Zoning Map, RZ 22-02
Exhibit C: X30 Zone District Development and Use Criteria

2. Planning Commission Resolution (TPM 22-01)
Exhibit A: Tentative Parcel Map 22-01
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval for TPM 22-01

3. Location Map

4. Environmental Assessment 22-04 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATTACHMENT 1

1 PC 23-10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 23-10

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 22-04 BY ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, SUBJECT TO THE MITIGATE MEASURES, APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22-01 AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR APPROVING REZONE 22-02 FOR THE RATLIFF DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY

0.31 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOPER AVENUE AND FREDRICK STREET (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 52-283-012, -013) WHEREAS, the City received an application from James Ratliff for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from an LDR land use designation to a HDR designation (GPA 22-01), and a Rezoning for this property revising the zoning from a R-2 Zone District to the R-3X30 Zone District (RZ 22-02) in order to reduce minimum lot sizes, increase lot coverage and reduce rear yard sizes in order to accommodate Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01 that divides two parcels into three parcels for the 0.31 acre site (collectively “Project”).

Development that will result from this action will be provided full City services; and WHEREAS the X30 Combining Zone District will modify certain development standards in an effort to increase project densities. Proposed development standard modifications include allowing for reduced minimum lot sizes yard setbacks, garage setbacks and minimum required distances between buildings on the same lot. The purpose of these modifications is to accommodate a more compact project design; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared an Initial Study proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 22-04) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applications, GPA 22-01, RZ-22-02, and TPM 22-01, at which time it received input from City Staff, the applicant; public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all associated documents prepared for the Project, including that related to the applications, and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopt a resolution adopting Environmental Assessment 22-04, approving GPA 22-01, and adopting an ordinance approving RZ 22-02.

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

1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein.

2 PC 23-10

2. CEQA Finding. 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 22-01 or Rezone 22-02, may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the MND prepared in Environmental Assessment 22-04.

Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and determine as follows:
a. That an 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. The process included the distribution of requests for comments from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. Preparation of Environmental Assessment 22-04 necessitated a thorough review of the proposed project and relevant environmental issues and considered previously prepared environmental and technical studies. While the proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, based on its independent judgement and analysis the Planning Commission recommends the City Council find that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur, 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 or 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 attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment. 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 22-04.

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

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 22-01, including the following:
a. The proposed HDR land use designation, when used in conjunction with the proposed rezoning, will limit the residential density to be compatible with existing neighboring higher density residential uses.

3 PC 23-10
b. The Project will not generate significant amounts of new traffic that would cause a decrease in levels of service for nearby General Plan streets including Bridge Street, B Street, Clark Avenue, and Gray Avenue, and any new residences that result from this Project will pay their fair share of traffic development impact fees, making the Project consistent with the Transportation Element.
c. Increasing the allowable residential density is consistent with the Housing Element’s goals and policies that are intended to expand housing opportunities within the City. d. The environmental document prepared for the Project (EA 22-04) found that the Project will not create significant environmental impacts on water quality, air quality, biological resources, agricultural lands, open space, and archaeological resources, making the Project consistent with the Environmernal Conservation Element of the General Plan. e. The Project will connect to all City services including water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage, making it consistent with the Public Utilities Element, and the Police and Fire Departments determined that the Project will not cause any safety or emergency response issues. As such the Project will be consistent with the Noise and Safety Element. f. Any new residences that will be constructed as a result of this Project will pay all applicable park and school development impact fees, making it consistent with the Parks, Schools, and Community Facilities Element.

5. Recommendation of Approval of the General Plan Amendment. Based on the information provided above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of Yuba City adoption of General Plan Amendment 22-01, per the attached Exhibit “A”.

6. Rezone Findings. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find and determine, that Rezone 22-02 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 22-01. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that Rezone 22-02 i) is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as amended and as further described above; ii) is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to promote and protect the public’s health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare; iii) the project would provide open space, light, air, privacy, convenience, access, aesthetic values, protection of environmental values, and protection of public and private improvements; and iv) the project will allow for the creation of quality balanced neighborhoods that provide housing options for the City.

7. Recommendation of Approval of the Rezoning. Based on the information provided above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of Yuba City adoption of an ordinance approving RZ 22-02 and reclassify the zone districts as depicted in Exhibit “B” and “C” shown on the zoning map for the City of Yuba City.

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

4 PC 23-10
The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on May 31, 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 22-01
Exhibit B: Rezone 22-02
Exhibit C: X30 Zone District Development and Use Criteria

EXHIBIT A

B ST
C
L
A
R
K
AV
E

FREDERICK ST
C
O
O
P
E
R
AV
E
B ST

FREDERICK ST
C
L
A
R
K
AV
E
C
O
O
P
E
R
AV
E
Ratliff Duplex Development
Project Site
I!
Land Use Map | GPA 22-01, RZ 22-02, TPM 22-01, EA 22-04 Project Site
Existing Land Use
Proposed Land Use
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

EXHIBIT B

R-2
R-1
R-1
B ST

FREDERICK ST
C
L
A
R
K
AV
E
C
O
O
P
E
R
AV
E
Ratliff Duplex Development
Project Site
I!
Zoning Map | GPA 22-01, RZ 22-02, TPM 22-01, EA 22-04
R-2
R-1
R-1
B ST
C
L
A
R
K
AV
E

FREDERICK ST
C
O
O
P
E
R
AV
E
Project Site
Existing Zoning
Proposed Zoning
R-3 X30
R-2

EXHIBIT C

X30 Combining Zone District
Purpose.

To provide specific land use and development standards for the 0.31-acre property located at the southeast corner of Cooper Avenue and Frederick Street. This combining zone district is consistent with the Medium/High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan Designation.

Applicability:

This X30 Combining Zone District shall apply to Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 52-283-012 and -013, as revised by TPM 22-01.

Permitted Uses.

A duplex or single-family residence and related accessory uses are permitted on each of the three parcels, provided the duplexes are in general compliance with the approved site plan and building elevations, as provided in the attached Exhibit A. Any other proposed use is limited to the R-2 Zone District permitted uses and uses permitted with a use permit , provided a use permit is first approved for both. A use permit or a revision to this X30 Combining Zone District must be found consistent with the General Plan.

Development and Design Standards.

All development standards in the R-2 Zone District, as amended, apply to these properties, except as provided below:

X30Development & Design Standards
Minimum Lot Size 3,900 square feet, except that a corner lot is 4,400 square feet.

Maximum percentage lot
coverage
50 percent.

Minimum Rear Yard Depth 9 feet.

Landscaping
Each lot shall have a completed front yard landscaping that is approved by the Development Services Director, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Building Design
Each new duplex shall be designed to match the approved site plan and building elevations shown in Exhibit A, or better, as determined by the Development Services Director.

EXHIBIT "A"
Ratliff Duplex Development
(GPA 22-01, RZ 22-02, TPM 22-01)
Site Plan and Building Elevations

ATTACHMENT 2

PC 23-11 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 23-11

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY (PLANNING COMMISSION) CONTINGENTLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) 22-01, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MESURES, ON APPROXIMATELY 0.31 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOPER AVENUE AND FREDRICK STREET (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 52-283-012 and -013).

WHEREAS, the City received an application from James Ratliff for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-01) to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from a LDR land use designation to a HDR designation, and a Rezoning (RZ 22-02) for this property revising the zoning from a R-2 Zone District to a R-3X30 Zone District in order to reduce minimum lot sizes, increase lot coverage and reduce rear yard sizes in order to accommodate TPM 22-01 that divides two parcels into three parcels for the 0.31 acre site. Development that will result from this action will be provided full City services; and
WHEREAS, this property is within Yuba City’s city limits and the property owner wished to develop their property to urban levels; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed related Environmental Assessment 22- 04 considering a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project, which provided mitigations that reduce significant impacts to less than significant; and WHEREAS, the City on May 10, 2023, published a legal notice and a public hearing notice was mailed to each property owner within at least 300 feet of the project site in compliance with State law concerning the Planning Commission’s consideration on May 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, on May 31, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Environmental Assessment 22-04, Rezone 22-02, and Tentative Parcel Map 22-01, at which time it received input from City staff and public comment, both written and oral; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission now desires to contingently approve TPM 22-01 such that no decision of approval of TPM 22-01 becomes final and effective until immediately after the City Council adopts the MND (EA 22-04) and adopts RZ 22-02; and if no such approval occurs within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution, then the Planning Commission intends that TPM 22-01 be set for further consideration and a final decision by the Planning Commission.

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

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

2. CEQA Findings. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project. The Planning Commission has fully considered the MD and has concurrently recommended it to the City Council for adoption. The Planning Commission finds

PC 23-11 2
that TPM 22-01 is consistent with, and has been fully assessed by, the MND, and that TPM 22- 01 is an entitlement specifically anticipated for the proposed Project in the MND, and is consistent with the purposes and intent of the MND.

3. Tentative Parcel Map Findings. None of the findings required by Yuba City Municipal Code Section 8-2.609, and the California Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 that require that the City to deny approval of a tentative map apply to this Project (the required findings are in italics):
i. The proposed tentative subdivision map is not consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plan:

Evidence: The proposal includes a general plan amendment from LDR to HDR that will increase the allowable residential density range to 12-36 residences per acres that will accommodate the proposal of approximately 19 residences per acre. The density of the proposed duplexes is consistent this the proposed general plan designation. The General Plan Housing Element encourages affordable housing which these duplexes would typically represent. The project is not within a specific plan. ii. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans or adopted City standards.

Evidence: As discussed above, this proposal meets all General Plan consistency requirements, and it meets all adopted City standards. The proposed X30 Combining Zone District revises the development standards to accommodate this project. Further, the project is required to meet all other City development and improvement standards including connections to City water, wastewater, and the City and Gilsizer stormwater drainage system.
iii. That the site is not physically suited for the density of development:

Evidence: The site is flat and has all City services to it, and, if the GPA and RZ are approved, the development will meet all City standards. The proposed duplexes will be located in a residential neighborhood where the nearby uses are a mix of residential types some of which are built to similar residential densities. iv. That the site is not physically suited for the type of development.

Evidence: The project will connect to all City services and meet all City development standards. Per the environmental document prepared for the project the duplexes are not expected to generate any significant environmental impacts. There are no known property shortcomings that would generate concerns for its development. v. That the design of the subdivision or likely improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat:

Evidence: Based on the analysis provided in this report and the environmental document, including its mitigation measures, prepared for this project (EA 22-04), the project will not create any significant environmental impacts, including adverse impacts on fish and wildlife.

PC 23-11 3
vi. That the design of the subdivision map or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:

Evidence: Every new lot will be connected to City water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems, all of which will avoid public health problems. vii. That none of the findings in Section 6-9.601 of the Municipal Code is satisfied:

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

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

4. Approval of TPM 22-01 with Conditions. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map 22-01, Ratliff Duplexes, as shown in Exhibit A, subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto, which approvals are contingent upon the following:
a. The approval of TPM 22-01 shall become final and effective immediately only after the City Council of the City of Yuba City i) adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 22-04), iii) approves General Plan Amendment 22-01, and iii) adopts Rezone 22-02 (collectively “Council Approvals”). If all of the Council Approvals are not made within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution, then TPM 22-01 shall be returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration and a final decision. If Council Approvals are made within 180 days of the adoption of this Resolution, but any change is made by the Council to any of the Council Approvals in a manner that could reasonably affect the findings of the Planning Commission hearing, or require a modification or addition of a condition of approval to be consistent with a Council Approval, then TPM 22-01 shall be returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration and a final decision.

5. Final Action and Appeals. This action shall become final and effective 10 days after, and only upon, the Council Approvals including the MND and adoption of RZ 22-02, unless within such 10 days an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of the Yuba City Zoning Ordinance.

PC 23-11 4
The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on May 31, 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:
________________________________________
Ben Moody, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Tentative Parcel Map 22-01
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval & Mitigation Measures for TPM 22-01

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

1 CITY OF YUBA CITY

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22-01
May 31, 2023

RATLIFF DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
APNs: 52-283-012 AND 52-283-013

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

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
Please note that this project is subject to a variety of discretionary conditions of approval.

These include conditions based on adopted City plans and policies, those determined through tentative parcel map review and environmental assessment essential to mitigate adverse effects on the environment including the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and recommended conditions for development that are not essential to health, safety, and welfare, but would on the whole enhance the project and its relationship to the neighborhood and environment.

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

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

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

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. To the furthest extent allowed by law, applicant/property owner shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, damages and costs (including attorney's fees, litigation expenses and administrative record preparation costs) arising from, resulting from, or in connection with any Third-Party Action (as

2 hereinafter defined). The term “Third Party Action” collectively means any legal action or other proceeding instituted by (i) a third party or parties, or (ii) a governmental body, agency or official other than the City, that: (a) challenges or contests any or all of these Conditions of Approval or any approval associated with entitlements associated with the project (collectively “Approvals”); or (b) claims or alleges a violation of CEQA or another law in connection with the Approvals by the City, or the grant, issuance or approval by the City of any or all Approvals. Applicant’s/property owner’s obligations under this paragraph shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents or volunteers are actively or passively negligent, but shall not apply to any loss, liability, fines, penalties forfeitures, costs or damages caused solely by the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. The provisions of this section shall survive any termination, revocation, overturn, or expiration of an approval.

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

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

2. Standard Cultural Resource: The following cultural resource COA are applicable to all approved applications associated with TPM 22-01.
• Prior to and during construction of each phase or individual construction activity undertaken as part of the project and to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources, the following steps shall be taken:
• Prior to excavation and construction on the project site, the prime construction contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall be cautioned on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying historic or prehistoric cultural resources or removing artifacts such as, but not limited to, prehistoric ground stone, projectile points, shell middens, or debitage, human remains, historic materials such as, but not limited to, bottles or cans and other cultural materials from the project site.

Responsibility: Project Applicant, Prime Construction Contractor, Subcontractors

3 Timing: Prior to excavation and construction
Funding: Project Applicant
• Prior to any demolition, excavation, or construction, the project applicant shall identify a qualified archaeologist to be on call if any cultural resources are identified, or if required by the City. The City shall approve the selected archaeologist prior to issuance of the any permit that includes soil disturbance, if any cultural resources are identified and/or required by the City. When excavation of greater than four (4’) feet is anticipated, a Tribal Monitor may be required.

Responsibility: Project Applicant, City
Timing: Prior to any demolition, excavation or construction.

Funding: Project Applicant
• In the event of a find, reasonable time shall be allowed for the qualified archaeologist to conduct additional subsurface testing, analysis, and reporting, if warranted. During this time, excavation and construction shall not be allowed in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 50-meter radius, or approximately 164- feet, or within a larger area as determined by the qualified archaeologist), However, activities may continue in other areas of the project site if so, determined by the qualified archaeologist.
• If any find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, representatives of the project developer or construction contractor and the City, and the qualified archaeologist, shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action.

Responsibility: Project Archaeologist, Project Applicant, Construction Contractor, City
Timing: Prior to any work within a 50-meter radius, or approximately 164-feet, of the find
Funding: Project Applicant
• All cultural materials recovered as part of the testing or monitoring program shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and reporting prepared according to current professional standards. A copy of the report and analysis shall be provided to the California Historical Resources Information System Northwest Information Center for recordation.

Responsibility: Project Archaeologist, City
Timing: After Report and Analyses is completed
Funding: Project Applicant
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 (e)(1)(A)(B), in the event of the discovery or recognition of any human remains on the project site during development, the following steps shall be taken:
• There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Monterey County coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. Possible indications of burials could include a layer of shells placed over the burial. • If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (“Commission”) within twentyPage 296 of 677 4 four (24) hours. The Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (“MLD”) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Responsibility: Project Contract, Project Applicant, City Timing: In Event of Discovery or Recognition of any Human Remains Funding: Project Applicant
• Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or their authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if the:
a) Commission is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within forty-eight (48) hours after being notified by the Commission;
b) Descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) Landowner or their authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Responsibility: Project Applicant, NAHC, MLD, City
Timing: After Discovery of Human Remains
Funding: Project Applicant

3. The lot design on the parcel maps shall be designed in conformance with the TPM 22-01, as appropriate, and as approved by the Planning Commission.

4. The development and operation of the project shall comply with all CEQA mitigation measures identified in Environmental Assessment 22-04, dated April 2023.

5. The development and operation of the project shall comply with all local, state, and federal codes (including Building and Fire codes) and local development standards. a. The Developer or Representative shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City prior to performing any work within public rights of way.

6. To limit visibility and conflicting views at the westerly two-story residence, any window sills on the upper floor, along the west wall, are to be a minimum of 6.0 feet above the floor, or as otherwise approved by the Development Services Director.

7. To help contain fugitive dust, construction sites shall be watered down during the construction phase of the project or as directed by the Public Works Department.

8. Paved streets shall be swept frequently (water sweeper with reclaimed water recommended; wet broom) if soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved, public thoroughfares from the project site.

5 9. The Developer, at their expense, shall be solely responsible for all quality control associated with the project. The quality control shall include, but is not limited to, the following: survey work, potholing existing utilities, all geotechnical testing, soil reports, concrete testing, asphalt testing, and any other required special testing/inspections. The City will only perform necessary testing to assure compliance.

10. Storage of construction material is not allowed in the travel way.

11. The only hard surface (concrete or pavers) that can be placed in the street planter area other than the standard driveway, and not in front of the residence, is 18” wide strips to accommodate the wheel path of vehicles unless otherwise authorized/approved by the Public Works Director.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT

12. The improvement plans for the development of the subject property shall include all measures required to ensure that no increased drainage runoff resulting from the development of the property flow onto the adjacent lands or that the development will not impede the drainage from those properties. The rear yards and/or side yards of the lots that are created by this division that are adjacent to existing residential development shall have the same finish grade elevation as those lots within tolerances as approved by the Public Works Department. If retaining walls are required they shall be constructed of concrete or masonry block.

PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS

13. Obtain all necessary approvals from City, State, and Federal agencies, utilities and other effected parties that are required for the project including, but not limited to, the preparation of drawings, studies, reports and permit applications, and payment of fees.

Prior to City approval of Improvement Plans the Developer shall provide evidence, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, that all such obligations have been met.

14. The contractor shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City prior to performing any work within public rights of way.

15. All driveways giving access to the parcel shall be updated to meet current City and ADA codes.

16. The Developer shall provide:
a. At a minimum, one City approved tree shall be planted in the front yard of each lot.

Any variation as to location of tree and/or type of tree shall be approved by the Development Services Director.
b. The landscape plan for the front yard shall be handled by each individual lot improvement.

17. The Developer shall comply with all City requirements related to drainage, including submittal of a drainage plan for any drainage improvements for the proposed development.

18. Development shall comply with Yuba City’s stormwater requirements and PostConstruction Standards Plan. The Post Construction information can be found here:

6 https://www.yubacity.net/city_hall/departments/public_works/engineering/stormwater_ma nagement

19. Striping, pavement markings and traffic signage shall be provided on all streets as necessary and as required by the Public Works Department. Signage restricting parking and red painted curbing shall be installed where appropriate.

20. Required Improvement Plan Notes:
a. "Any excess materials shall be considered the property of the contractor/owner and shall be disposed of away from the job site in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations."
b. "During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for controlling noise, odors, dust and debris to minimize impacts on surrounding properties and roadways. The Contractor shall be responsible for all construction equipment to be equipped with manufacturers approved muffler baffles. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an order to stop work.”
c. “If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Sutter County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.”
d. "The Contractor(s) shall be required to maintain traffic flow on affected roadways during non-working hours, and to minimize traffic restriction during construction. The Contractor shall be required to follow traffic safety measures in accordance with the “California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, latest edition.” The City of Yuba City emergency service providers shall be notified, at least two working days in advance, of proposed construction scheduled by the contractor(s).” e. “Soil shall not be treated with lime or other cementitious material without prior express permission by the Public Works Department.”
f. “Where an excavation for a trench and/or structure is five (5) feet deep or more, the contractor shall conform to O.S.H.A. requirements. The contractor shall provide a copy of the approved O.S.H.A. permit, and shoring details and calculations prepared by a California licensed structural engineer to the Public Works Department, prior to beginning construction.”
g. “Should any field conditions, conflicts, errors, and/or omissions be overlooked during the design review process, or during construction of the development, then any additional work identified during construction shall be implemented by the Developer at the Developer’s expense.”

PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

21. The contractor shall maintain record drawings of the improvements in the right-of-way and keep them on site at all times. When the project is complete, the contractor shall deliver a marked set of plans to the Engineer of Record. The Engineer of Record shall update the improvement plans with the record information. Once the changes have been added to the plans, the Engineer of Record shall submit both an electronic copy (Civil 3D version 2017 or newer) and a hard copy to the City. The City will not accept the completion of the improvements until the electronic copy and hard copy have been submitted.

7 22. The existing power poles along the property on Cooper Avenue shall be placed underground, or addressed in accordance with the City’s Overhead Utility Policy adopted March 17, 2020. The total lineal foot length of overhead lines along Cooper Avenue is determined to be 62 lineal feet or as otherwise determined by the Public Works Director.

PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION

23. The development shall pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs. This condition may be satisfied through participation in a Mello-Roos CFD, by payment of cash in an amount agreed to by the City, by another secure funding mechanism acceptable to the City, or by some combination of those mechanisms. The City shall be reimbursed actual costs associated with the formation of, or annexation to, the district. The property shall annex in to an existing CFD.

24. A 10.0-foot-wide public utility easement shall be provided along the street frontages.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT

25. The Developer’s Superintendent/Representative shall submit three (3) sets of Pacific Gas and Electric approved utility plans showing joint trench locations and distribution lines prior to issuance of first building permit for each phase of construction.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

26. The curb, gutter, sidewalk, and lot drainage shall be inspected and approved by the City.

Any curb, gutter and sidewalk which is not in accord with City standards or is damaged before or during construction, shall be replaced. All sidewalks along the City right-of-way shall be free of any non-control joint cracking. In addition, any concrete with cracks, chips, blemishes, and spalling greater than an inch in diameter shall be replaced from control joint to control joint.

27. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, all underground utilities, public improvements, and site improvements, including rough grading, shall be completed in accordance with City requirements.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

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

Mitigation shall be conducted as
follows:

Developer Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services
Dept.

During
grading
phase

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

2. Assess effects on
identified sites;

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

4. Obtain comments from the
researchers;

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

In considering any suggested
mitigation proposed by the
consulting paleontologist, the
City’s Community Development
Department Staff shall determine
whether avoidance is necessary
and feasible in light of factors
such as the nature of the find,
project design, costs, Specific or
General Plan policies and land
use assumptions, and other
considerations. If avoidance is
unnecessary or infeasible, other
appropriate measures (e.g., data
recovery) shall be instituted.

Work may proceed on other parts
of the project site while mitigation
for paleontological resources is
carried out.

3.8. Greenhouse
Gases
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
1: The site grading and
construction of the self-storage
facility shall comply with the
GHG Reduction Measures
provided in the adopted Yuba
City Resource Efficiency Plan.

Developer Development
Services
Dept.

Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.

3.5. Cultural
Resources;

3.18. Tribal
Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation 1: If potential tribal
cultural resources (TCRs) are
Developer Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
During
construction
phase

9 Cultural
Resources
discovered during ground
disturbing construction activities,
all work shall cease within 100
feet of the find (or an appropriate
distance based on the apparent
distribution of the TCR). A
qualified cultural resources
specialist meeting the Secretary
of Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for
Archaeology, as well as Native
American Representatives from
traditionally and culturally
affiliated Native American Tribes
that have engaged in
consultation for the project will
be invited to assess the
significance of the find and make
recommendations for further
evaluation and treatment as
necessary. Culturally
appropriate treatment may
include, but is not limited to,
processing materials for reburial,
minimizing handling of cultural
objects, leaving objects in place
within the landscape, or
returning objects to a location
within the project area where
they will not be subject to future
impacts. The United Auburn
Indian Community of the Auburn
Rancheria (Tribe) does not
consider curation of TCR’s to be
appropriate or respectful and
request that materials not be
permanently curated, unless
requested by the Tribe.

The types of treatment preferred
by UAIC that protects,
preserves, or restores the
integrity of a TCR may include
Tribal Monitoring, or recovery of
cultural objects, and reburial of
cultural objects or cultural soil
that is done in a culturally
appropriate manner.

Recommendations of the
treatment of a TCR will be
documented in the project
record. For any
recommendations made by
traditionally and culturally
affiliated Native American Tribes
Development
Services
Dept.

10 that are not implemented, a
justification for why the
recommendation was not
followed will be provided in the
project record.

If articulated or disarticulated
human remains are discovered
during ground disturbing
construction activities or ground
disturbing activities, all work
shall cease within 100 feet of the
find, and the provisions provided
in the Health and Safety Code
Section 7054 shall apply. If the
remains are determined by the
County Coroner to be human
and that of a Native American,
then Public Resources Code
5097.98, 5097.99. 5097.991,
and compliance with the
provisions of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(e)(1) and (2)
shall be implemented.

ATTACHMENT 3

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the
GIS User Community
B ST
A ST
C
O
O
P
E
R
AV
E

FREDERICK ST
A ST
Ratliff Duplex Development
Project Site
I!
GPA 22-01, RZ 22-02, TPM 22-01, EA 22-04

ATTACHMENT 4

Environmental Assessment 22-04
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 22- 01, Rezoning 22-02, Tentative Parcel Map 22-01, Ratliff Duplex Development. A request to construct a duplex on each of three new parcels, resulting in six new residences.

Prepared for:

City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
Prepared By:

Denis Cook
Land Use Planning Consultant
and
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department
Planning Division
April 2023

1 This page intentionally left blank.

2 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................4 Introduction..................................................................................................................................4 Regulatory Information ................................................................................................................4 Document Format.........................................................................................................................5 Purpose of Document...................................................................................................................5 Intended Uses of this Document..................................................................................................6

2. Project Description ....................................................................................................................6 Project Title...................................................................................................................................6 Lead Agency Name and Address ..................................................................................................7 Contact Person and Phone Number.............................................................................................7 Project Location............................................................................................................................7 Project Applicant ..........................................................................................................................7 Property owner.............................................................................................................................7 General Plan Designation .............................................................................................................7 Zoning ...........................................................................................................................................7 Project Description .......................................................................................................................8

2.10 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting………………………………………………………………………………………..12

2.11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required ........................................................14

2.12. Native American Tribe Consultation……………………………………………………………………………………… 12

2.13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:..............................................................................15

2.14. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: .......................................................................................16

3. Environmental Checklist and Impact Evaluation........................................................................17 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................17 Agricultural and Forestry Resources...........................................................................................20 Air Quality...................................................................................................................................24 Biological Resources...................................................................................................................32 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................36

3.6. Energy .........................................................................................................................................39

3.7. Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................41

3.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................................47

3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................................50

3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................................55

3.11. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................59

3 3.12. Mineral Resources......................................................................................................................60

3.13. Noise...........................................................................................................................................62

3.14. Population and Housing .............................................................................................................67

3.15. Public Services............................................................................................................................69

3.16. Recreation...................................................................................................................................71

3.17. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................72

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

3.19. Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................................................79

3.20. Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................83

3.21. Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................................85

4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference..............................................................87

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

1. Introduction
Introduction
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to identify any potential environmental impacts in the City of Yuba City, California (City) from proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-01, Rezoning (RZ) 22-02, and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01 (“Project”). This is a request to construct a two-story duplex on each of three small lots. The resulting density will be approximately 19 residences per acre. To accomplish this the applicant has requested the following:

GPA 22-01 will re-designate two vacant adjoining parcels consisting of 0.31 acres (approximately 13,416 square feet) from the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation to the Medium/High Density Residential (HDR) designation;
RZ 22-02 rezones the same 0.31 acres from the Two-Family (R-2) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Zone District Combined with an X District (R-3X30). The added X30 Combining Zone District will limit the use of the property to a two-story duplex on each parcel, but would have modified development standards, providing for smaller lots, reduced rear yard setbacks and increased lot coverage.

PM 22-01 subdivides two existing parcels into three parcels consisting of 0.12 acre (5,037 sq. ft.), 0.09 acre (3,906 sq. ft.), and 0.10 acre (4,473 sq. ft.).

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

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 and provide an environmental assessment for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. In addition, this document is intended to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public.

Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is an environmental assessment document prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, §15000 et seq.), commonly referred to as the CEQA Guidelines - Section 15064(a)(1) states an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant. A negative declaration may be prepared instead; if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. A negative declaration is a written

5 statement describing the reasons why a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA pursuant to §15300 et seq. of Article 19 of the Guidelines, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a) The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b) The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:
a. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and
b. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If revisions are adopted by the Lead Agency into the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared.

Document Format
This IS/MND contains four chapters, and technical appendices. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the proposed Project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a detailed description of proposed Project objectives and components.

Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible measures. If the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 4, List of Preparers, provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of the IS/MND.

Purpose of Document
The proposed GPA/RZ/TPM will undergo a public review process by the Planning Commission that will result in a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council and a decision by the City Council that, if approved, would result in three small lots designed to accommodate a duplex on each lot.

This public review process is needed to assure that the Project will be compatible with existing or expected neighboring uses and that adequate public facilities are available to serve the project.

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.

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

In reviewing all of the available information for the above referenced Project, the City of Yuba City Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this Project and a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.

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

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

The Draft IS/ND and associated appendices will be available for review on the City of Yuba City website at http://www.yubacity.net. The Draft IS/MND and associated appendixes also will be available for review during regular business hours at the City of Yuba City Development Services Department (1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, California 95993). The 20-day review period will commence on May 4, 2023 and end on May 24, 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
Development Services Department
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
e-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 530.822.4700

2. Project Description
Project Title
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-01, Rezoning (RZ) 22-02, and Tentative Parcel Map 22-01: Ratliff Duplex Development.

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

Yuba City, CA 95993
Contact Person and Phone Number
Doug Libby, AICP
Deputy Director of Development Services
(530) 822-3231
[email protected]
Project Location
The two lots comprising 0.31 acres are located at the southwest corner of Cooper Avenue and Frederick Street. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 52-283-012 and -013.

Project Applicant
James M. Ratliff
P.O. Box 790
Marysville, CA 95661
Property owner
James M. Ratliff
P.O. Box 790
Marysville, CA 95661
General Plan Designation
Existing: Low Density Residential LDR) Land Use Designation (2-6 residences per acre).

Proposed: Medium-High Density (HDR) Lan Use Designation (12-36 residences per acre).

Zoning
Existing: Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District.

Proposed: Multiple-Family Residential Zone District with the X30 Combining Zone District (R-3X30). The X30 Combining Zone District will limit the permitted uses to a duplex on three lots. The proposed development standards will permit smaller lots with reduced rear yards and increased lot coverage.

8 Project Description
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-01, Rezoning (RZ) 22-02, and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01 (“Project”): Proposed are General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22-01, Rezoning (RZ) 22-02, and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 22-01 (“Project”). This is a request to construct a two-story duplex on each of three small lots. The resulting density will be approximately 19 residences per acre. To accomplish this the applicant has requested the following:

GPA 22-01 will re-designate two vacant adjoining parcels consisting of 0.31 acres (approximately 13,416 square feet) from the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation to the Medium/High Density Residential (HDR) designation;
RZ 22-02 rezones the same 0.31 acres from the Two-Family (R-2) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Zone District Combined with an X District (R-3X30). The added X30 Combining Zone District will limit the use of the property to a two-story duplex on each parcel, but would have modified development standards, providing for smaller lots, reduced rear yard setbacks and increased lot coverage.

PM 22-01 subdivides two existing parcels into three parcels consisting of 0.12 acre (5,037 sq. ft.), 0.09 acre (3,906 sq. ft.), and 0.10 acre (4,473 sq. ft.).

Table 1: Proposed X30 Use and Development Standards
Existing Standard (R-2 Zone) Proposed PD Standard
Permitted Uses All uses allowed in the R-2 Zone
District.

A duplex (on each of the three lots)
and permitted accessory uses. Other
uses are permitted with a use permit.

Minimum Duplex Lot Size 6,000 square feet, except that a corner lot is 7,000 square feet.
3,900 square feet, except that a
corner lot is 4,400 square feet.

Maximum percentage lot
coverage
For a two-story duplex – 40%. For a two-story duplex - 50%.

Minimum Rear Yard
Depth
25 feet or 20% of the total lot depth,
whichever is less. 9 feet.

9 Figure 1: Location Map

10 Figure 2: General Plan Amendment 22-01

11 Figure 3: RZ 22-02

12 Figure 4: Tentative Parcel Map 22-01

13 FIGURE 5: X30 COMBINING ZONE DISTRICT
X30 Combining Zone District
Purpose.

To provide specific land use and development standards for the 0.31-acre property located at the southeast corner of Cooper Avenue and Frederick Street. This combining zone district is consistent with the Medium/High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan Designation.

Applicability:

This X30 Combining Zone District shall apply to Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 52-283-012 and -013, as revised by TPM 22-01.

Permitted Uses.

A duplex or single-family residence and related accessory uses are permitted on each of the three parcels, provided the duplexes are in general compliance with the approved site plan and building elevations, as provided in the attached Exhibit A. Any other proposed use is limited to the R-2 Zone District permitted uses and uses permitted with a use permit, provided a use permit is first approved for both. A use permit or a revision to this X30 Combining Zone District must be found consistent with the General Plan.

Development and Design Standards.

All development standards in the R-2 Zone District, as amended, apply to these properties, except as provided below:

X30 Development & Design Standards
Minimum Lot Size 3,900 square feet, except that a corner lot is 4,400 square feet.

Maximum percentage lot
coverage 50 percent.

Minimum Rear Yard Depth 9 feet.

Landscaping
Each lot shall have a completed front yard landscaping that is approved by the Development Services Director, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Building Design
Each new duplex shall be designed to match the approved site plan and building elevations shown in Exhibit A, or better, as determined by the Development Services Director.

EXHIBIT A: Add Ratliff duplex site plan and building elevation.

14 2.10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Setting: The two properties consisting of 0.31-acre are flat and vacant. The neighborhood around these two vacant parcels is a built-out eclectic residential neighborhood consisting of single-family residences that appear to be original to the neighborhood, and several apartment complexes that appear to be of a 1970’s style design.

2.11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required  Feather River Air Quality Management District, Dust Control Plan, Indirect Source Review.  Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

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

Table 1: Bordering Uses
North: Frederick Street with multi-family and single-family uses across the street.

South: Single-family and multi-family residences.

East: Cooper Street with single-family and multiple-family residences across the street.

West: Single-family residence.

15 2.13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

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

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

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

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
________________________________________________ ________________________ Signature Date
Doug Libby, AICP, Deputy Director of Development Services April 28, 2023

16 2.14. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:

A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analysis,” as described below, may be cross referenced). A Mitigated Negative Declaration also requires preparation and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

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

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

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

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

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

Aesthetics
Table 3-1: Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In 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 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 several miles northwest of the project site, are visibly prominent throughout Yuba City and Sutter County. The Sutter Buttes comprise the long-range views to the northwest and are visible from the much of the City, except in areas where trees or intervening structures block views of the mountain range.

The City’s General Plan, more specifically the Community Design Element “establishes policies to ensure the creation of public and private improvements that will maintain and enhance the image, livability, and aesthetics of Yuba City in the years to come.”
The following principles and policies are applicable:
 Maintain the identity of Yuba City as a small-town community, commercial hub, and residential community, surrounded by agricultural land and convey, through land uses and design amenities, Yuba City’s character and place in the Sacramento Valley.

18  Recognizing the livability and beauty of peer communities with highly designed visual landscapes, commit to a focus on the visual landscape of Yuba City.  Maintain, develop, and enhance connections between existing and planned neighborhoods.  Create and build upon a structured open space and parks network, centered on two large urban parks and the Feather River Corridor.
 Strive for lush, landscaped public areas marked by extensive tree plantings.  Design commercial and industrial centers to be visually appealing, to serve both pedestrians and automobiles, and to integrate into the adjacent urban fabric.

In addition to the City’s General Plan, the City provides Design Guidelines. The goal of the City’s design guidelines is to ensure the highest quality of building design: designs that are aesthetically pleasing; designs that are compatible with the surroundings in terms of scale, mass, detailing, and building patterns; designs that accommodate the pedestrian, automobile, bicycle, and transit circulation; and designs that consider public safety, public interaction, and historic resources. The design guidelines typically do not apply to duplexes.

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.

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 vicinity of the project site.

19 California Building Code Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards: The requirements vary according to which “Lighting Zone” the equipment is in. The Standards contain lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment and specific alterations that are dependent on which Lighting Zone the project is located in.

Existing outdoor lighting systems are not required to meet these lighting power allowances. However, alterations that increase the connected load, or replace more than 50 percent of the existing luminaires, for each outdoor lighting application that is regulated by the Standards, must meet the lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment.

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

3.1.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? There are no designated scenic areas within the vicinity, so there would not be impacts on a designated vista.

The area surrounding the Project consists of one- and two-story residences. The two-story residences are generally a similar height as the proposed buildings. There are also mature trees in the vicinity. As such there are not scenic vistas associated with the Project beyond the immediate neighborhood. As such, the impact on scenic vistas will 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 vacant properties are unremarkable in that they are flat with no topographic features, rock outcroppings, large heritage type trees or buildings. Therefore, damage to the scenic resources associated with this property would be less than significant.
c) In non-urbanized areas substantially degrade the existing visual character of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The site is within the urbanized area. The proposed duplexes, currently permitted uses on the two existing lots, will meet all General Plan and Zoning standards with amendment to the General Plan and the addition of the X30 Combining Zone District. With these changes there will be no conflicts with the General Plan or Zoning, thus the impacts will be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

20 The site is within the urban area where street lighting and exterior lighting is prevalent. Development of these properties will add residential lighting and potentially a new streetlight to this area. As the new lighting will be similar to what already exists, the impacts from Project lighting will be less than significant.

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

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

21 3.2.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Farmland Protection Policy Act: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the agency primarily responsible for implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The FPPA was enacted after the 1981 Congressional report, Compact Cities: Energy-Saving Strategies for the Eighties indicated that a great deal of urban sprawl was the result of programs funded by the federal government. The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize federal programs’ contribution to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. Federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and procures to implement the FPPA every two years (USDA-NRCS, 2011). 2014 Farm Bill: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the Act), also known as the 2014 Farm Bill, was signed by President Obama on Feb. 7, 2014. The Act repeals certain programs, continues some programs with modifications, and authorizes several new programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA).

Most of these programs are authorized and funded through 2018.

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

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

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

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.

22  Prime Farmland. Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long‐term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.  Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
 Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
 Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.  Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

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

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

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

23 landowner, provided that the proposed immediate cancellation application is consistent with the cancellation criteria stated in the California Land Conservation Act and those adopted by the affected county or city. Non‐renewal or immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property.

Participation in the Williamson Act program is dependent on county adoption and implementation of the program and is voluntary for landowners.

Farmland Security Zone Act: The Farmland Security Zone Act is similar to the Williamson Act and was passed by the California State Legislature in 1999 to ensure that long-term farmland preservation is part of public policy. Farmland Security Zone Act contracts are sometimes referred to as “Super Williamson Act Contracts.” Under the provisions of this act, a landowner already under a Williamson Act contract can apply for Farmland Security Zone status by entering into a contract with the county. Farmland Security Zone classification automatically renews each year for an additional 20 years. In return for a further 35% reduction in the taxable value of land and growing improvements (in addition to Williamson Act tax benefits), the owner of the property promises not to develop the property into nonagricultural uses.

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

3.2.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The approximately 0.31-acre vacant site is located on land that the 2018 Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map for Sutter County identifies the Project site as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” As such the Project site is not considered to have Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland. The site is within the boundaries of the Yuba City urban area, surrounded by residential uses. The property is also very small, likely making it unviable for agricultural use. Therefore, there will be no loss of agricultural land.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The proposed Project site is currently zoned for urban type uses and is not under a Williamson Act contract. There will therefore be no impact related to a Williamson Act contract. See discussion above under item 3.2.4.a.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4256), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? The proposed Project is located in the Sacramento Valley in a relatively flat area that may have at one time been utilized for agriculture but was developed many years ago for urban uses. There is no timberland located on the Project site or within the vicinity of the Project. There will be no impact on existing zoning of forestland and the proposed Project will not cause the rezoning of any forestlands.

24 d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? There is no forested land on the Project site or within the vicinity of the Project; therefore, there will be no impact on forest land.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The proposed Project is within an area already served by City services and developed with residences on all sides. There are no forestlands on the Project site or in the vicinity. No properties within the area are under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, there will be no impacts on agricultural lands from this proposal.

Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Table 3-3: Air Quality
Would the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X

3.3.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Yuba City is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), which consists of the northern half of the Central Valley and approximates the drainage basin for the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The SVAB is bounded on the west by the Coast Range, on the north by the Cascade Range, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the south by the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The intervening terrain is flat, and approximately 70 feet above sea level. The SVAB consists of the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba and portions of Placer and Solano Counties.

Hot dry summers and mild rainy winters characterize the Mediterranean climate of the Sacramento Valley. The climate of the SVAB is dominated by the strength and position of the semi-permanent highpressure cell over the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii. In summer, when the high-pressure cell is strongest and farthest north, temperatures are high and humidity is low, although the incursion of the sea breeze

25 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.

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

26 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.

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

27 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 an MEI scenario.

3.3.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Clean Air Act: The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended in 1990) required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health or the environment. Two types of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established. Primary standards protect public health, while secondary standards protect public welfare, by including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, landscaping and vegetation, or buildings.

NAAQS have been established for six “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb).

3.3.3. State Regulatory Setting
California Air Resources Board: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state agency responsible for implementing the federal and state Clean Air Acts. CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which include all criteria pollutants established by the NAAQS, but with additional regulations for Visibility Reducing Particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The proposed Project is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, which includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Shasta, Yolo, Sacramento, Yuba Sutter and portions of Placer, El Dorado and Solano counties. Air basins are classified as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified. The FRAQMD is comprised Sutter and Yuba Counties. Attainment is achieved when monitored ambient air quality data is in compliance with the standards for a specified pollutant. Non-compliance with an established standard will result in a nonattainment designation and an unclassified designation indicates insufficient data is available to determine compliance for that pollutant.

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

28 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 beginning in 2012. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to monitor global warming emissions level.

3.3.4. Regional Regulatory Setting
Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD): The FRAQMD is a bi-county district formed in 1991 to administer local, state, and federal air quality management programs for Yuba and Sutter Counties within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The goal of the FRAQMD is to improve air quality in the region through monitoring, evaluation, education and implementing control measures to reduce emissions from stationary sources, permitting and inspection of pollution sources, enforcement of air quality regulations and by supporting and implementing measures to reduce emissions from motor vehicles.

The FRAQMD adopted its Indirect Source Review guidelines document for assessment and mitigation of air quality impacts under CEQA in 1998. The guide contains criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality, and methods available to mitigate impacts on air quality. FRAQMD updated its Indirect Source Review Guidelines to reflect the most recent methods recommended to evaluate air quality impacts and mitigation measures for land use development projects in June 2010. This analysis uses guidance and thresholds of significance from the 2010 FRAQMD Indirect Source Review Guidelines to evaluate the proposed project’s air quality impacts.

According to FRAQMD’s 2010 Indirect Source Review Guidelines, a project would be considered to have a significant impact on air quality if it would:
 Generate daily construction or operational emissions that would exceed 25 pounds per day for reactive organic gases (ROG), 25 pounds per day for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), or 80 pounds per day for PM10; or generate annual construction or operational emissions of ROG or NOX that exceed 4.5 tons per year.

Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2015 Air Quality Attainment Plan: As specified in the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA), Chapters 1568-1588, it is the responsibility of each air district in California to attain and maintain the state’s ambient air quality standards. The CCAA requires that an Attainment Plan be developed by all nonattainment districts for O3, CO, SOx, and NOx that are either receptors or

29 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.
 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.

30 3.3.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Site grading will briefly create equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. Ongoing air quality impacts will be from exhaust generated by vehicle traffic from the residences. Standards set by FRQAMD, CARB, and Federal agencies relating to the proposed Project will apply. Prior to the initiation of construction, 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. Since the developer must prepare an air quality analysis and incorporate all of the resulting conditions into the Project and that a fugitive dust control plan be submitted prior to beginning work on the Project, any potential significant environmental impacts are expected to be reduced to less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The Project would result in limited generation of criteria pollutants during Project construction and on an ongoing basis from vehicle traffic generated by new residents. This is a small project (net change of two additional residences) and FRAQMD did not comment that the standards would be exceeded by this Project. Therefore, the impacts on air quality are considered to be less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The FRAQMD defines sensitive receptors as: facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. FRAQMD states that if a project is located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor location, the impact of diesel particulate matter shall be evaluated. According to the FRAQMD’s Indirect Source Review Guidelines, “Construction activity can result in emissions of particulate matter from the diesel exhaust (diesel PM) of construction equipment.

Yuba City High School, which is located about 200 feet south of the proposal is a nearby sensitive receptor.

The proposed Project will generate some criteria pollutants during the limited period of site grading and construction. As such FRAQMD adopted criteria must be satisfied.

The Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to reduce the impact from off-road diesel equipment include:
 Install diesel particulate filters or implement other ARB-verifies diesel emission control strategies on all construction equipment to further reduce diesel PM emissions beyond the 45% reduction required by the Districts Best Available Mitigation Measure for Construction Phase;  Use equipment during times when receptors are not present (e.g., when school is not in session or during non-school hours; or when office buildings are unoccupied);  Establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from off-site receptors;
 Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible;

31  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.

Assuming all FRAQMD standards and BMP requirements are met and considering the small size of the Project and the short duration of site grading, air quality impacts from this Project will be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Site grading and construction of the six new residences typically do not generate objectionable odors.

Ongoing residential uses typically also do not generate odors. As such, the impact of the Project towards creating local offensive odors will be less than significant.

32 Biological Resources
Table 3.4: Biological Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on states or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X

3.4.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The approximately 0.31 acres are level, vacant, and within the Yuba City urbanized area. The small property is surrounded by single-family and multiple-family residential development. There are no riparian areas or known critical habitat areas on-site or in the vicinity.

3.4.2. Federal & State Regulatory Setting
Threatened and Endangered Species: State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal endangered species acts, candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society are collectively referred to as

33 “species of special status.” Permits may be required from both the CDFW and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the “take” of a listed species.. “Take” is defined by the state of California as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Furthermore, the CDFW and the USFWS are responding agencies under CEQA. Both agencies review CEQA documents in order to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species issues and to make projectspecific recommendations for their conservation.

Migratory Birds: State and federal laws also protect most birds. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

Birds of Prey: Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW.

Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters: Natural drainage channels and adjacent wetlands may be considered “Waters of the United States” subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE. The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations but has also been subject to interpretation of the federal courts.

Waters of the U.S. generally include:
 All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters, which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
 All interstate waters including interstate wetlands.
 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

34 Waters of the U.S. are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that result in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or waiver of such certification) verifying that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15380: Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specific criteria that define “endangered” and “rare” as specified in CEQA Guidelines section 15380(b).

3.4.3. Local Regulatory Setting
The General Plan provides the following policies for the protection of biological resources within the project area:

8.4-G-1 Protect special status species, in accordance with State regulatory requirements.

8.4-G-2 Protect and enhance the natural habitat features of the Feather River and new open space corridors within and around the urban growth area.

8.4-G-3 Preserve and enhance heritage oaks in the Planning Area.

8.4-G-4 Where appropriate, incorporate natural wildlife habitat features into public landscapes, parks, and other public facilities

8.4-I-1 Require protection of sensitive habitat area and special status species in new development site designs in the following order: 1) avoidance; 2) onsite mitigation; 3) offsite mitigation. Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any development within 300 feet of any creeks, sensitive habitat areas, or areas of potential sensitive status species.

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

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.

See b) below.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
There have been no special status species identified on the Project site or within the vicinity of the site.

According to the Yuba City General Plan EIR, the only designated special status vegetation species within

35 Yuba City and its Sphere of Influence is the Golden Sunburst, a flowering plant that occurs primarily in the non-native grasslands and is threatened mostly by the conversion of habitat to urban uses. The habitat area for this species occurs at the extreme eastern boundary of the Planning Area at the confluence of the Feather and Yuba Rivers. As these properties do not fall within this area, the impacts to special status species from this Project will be less than significant. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on states or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No wetlands or federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present within the proposed Project area or general vicinity. There would be no impact on any wetland areas or waterways. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed Project would not disturb any waterways, as the nearest waterway is the Feather River several miles to the east. Therefore, migratory fish would not be affected. Nor are there any significant native trees proposed to be removed that could be potential nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds that may choose to nest in the vicinity of the Project. As such the impacts on fish or wildlife habitats will be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No trees or other known biological resources that would be protected by local policies or ordinances remain on the proposed Project site. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on biological resources caused by this Project.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans in the vicinity of this Project.

36 Cultural Resources
Table 3.5: Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5.

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

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

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

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

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

3.5.2. State Regulatory Setting
CEQA requires consideration of project impacts on archaeological or historical sites deemed to be "historical resources." Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource is considered a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, a "historical resource" is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of 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]).

37 The eligibility criteria for the California Register are the definitive criteria for assessing the significance of historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (Office of Historic Preservation). Generally, a resource is considered "historically significant" if it meets one or more of the following criteria for listing on the California Register:
 Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
 Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.  Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.  Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1[c])
In addition, the resource must retain integrity. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, § 4852(c)).

Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5: Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

3.5.3. Native American Consultation
In September of 2014, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which added provisions to the PRC regarding the evaluation of impacts on tribal cultural resources under CEQA, and consultation requirements with California Native American tribes. In particular, AB 52 now requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on “tribal cultural resources” separately from archaeological resources (PRC § 21074; 21083.09). AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (PRC § 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).

Effective March 2005, Senate Bill 18 requires city and county governments to consult with California Native American tribes early in the planning process with the intent of protecting traditional tribal cultural places. The purpose of involving the tribes at the early stage of planning efforts is to allow consideration of tribal cultural places in context of broad local land use policy before project-level land use decisions are made by a local government. As such, SB 18 applies to the adoption or substantial amendment of general or specific plans. As the later adopted AB 52 provides for a similar review process for all discretionary reviews including general plan amendments and specific plan amendments, the provisions of SB 18 fall within the SB 52 review process for purposes of this document.

38 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
 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 pursuant to §15064.5.

There are no structures on the property. Therefore, the potential significant impacts on any historical resources, directly or indirectly, are less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.

See c) below.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The approximately 0.31-acre properties are vacant. The site has been previously disturbed, as it is surrounded by older buildings. No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the proposed Project site. However, there still remains the potential for previously unknown subsurface resources to be present. In order to avoid potential impacts to unknown remains, a mitigation measure is provided in Section 3.18 to ensure impacts are less than significant.

39 3.6. Energy
Table 3-6: Energy
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X

3.6.1 State Regulatory Setting
California has implemented numerous energy efficiency and conservation programs that have resulted in substantial energy savings. The State has adopted comprehensive energy efficiency standards as part of its Building Standards Code, California Codes of Regulations, Title 24. In 2009, the California Building Standards Commission adopted a voluntary Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen, which became mandatory in 2011. Both Title 24 and CALGreen are implemented by the City of Yuba City in conjunction with its processing of building permits.

CALGreen sets forth mandatory measures, applicable to new residential and nonresidential structures as well as additions and alterations, on water efficiency and conservation, building material conservation, interior environmental quality, and energy efficiency. California has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard, which requires electricity retailers in the state to generate 33% of electricity they sell from renewable energy sources (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric from small generators, etc.) by the end of 2020. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which increases the electricity generation requirement from renewable sources to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

3.6.2. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? Project construction involves 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

40 similar character; therefore, the use of electricity in construction activities would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption would be reduced.

Moreover, under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard, a greater share of electricity would be provided from renewable energy sources over time, so less fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity would occur.

The Project would be required to comply with CALGreen and with the building energy efficiency standards of California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 in effect at the time of project approval. Compliance with these standards would reduce energy consumption associated with project operations, although reductions from compliance cannot be readily quantified. Overall, project construction would typically not consume energy resources in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Following construction of the duplexes, the main sources of energy consumption would be ongoing residential activities and vehicle usage. However, as FRAQMD did not comment on this Project, the new uses and associated vehicle traffic from the six residences is not a large enough impact on air quality to be considered significant.

Project impacts related to energy consumption are considered to be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The Project will be required to be consistent with applicable state and local plans to increase energy efficiency. Thus, the Project’s impacts on energy usage will be less than significant.

41 3.7. Geology and Soils
Table 3.7: Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly create potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the
California Building Code creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resources or site or unique
geologic feature?
X

3.7.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Topography and Geology: According to the Sutter County General Plan, Sutter County is located in the flat surface of the Great Valley geomorphic province of California. The Great Valley is an alluvial plain approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central portion of California. The Great Valley’s northern portion is the Sacramento Valley, drained by the Sacramento River, and its southern portion is the San Joaquin Valley, drained by the San Joaquin River. The geology of the Great Valley is typified by thick sequences of alluvial sediments derived primarily from erosion of the mountains of the Sierra Nevada to the east, and to a lesser extent, erosion of the Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range to the

42 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 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,

43 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.

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

44 Clear Lake soils are generally present in the western and southern parts of the county. The Conejo soils occur in the eastern part closer to the incorporated areas of the county. Oswald and Olashes soils are located in the central portion of the county extending north to south, with scattered areas along the southeastern edge of the county. Soil descriptions for the principal soil units in the county are provided below. These descriptions, which were developed by the NRCS, are for native, undisturbed soils and are primarily associated with agricultural suitability. Soil characteristics may vary considerably from the mapped locations and descriptions due to development and other uses. Geotechnical studies are required to identify actual engineering properties of soils at specific locations to determine whether there are specific soil characteristics that could affect foundations, drainage, infrastructure, or other structural features.

3.7.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
Historic Sites Act of 1935: This Act became law on August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) and has been amended eight times. This Act establishes as a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects, including geologic formations.

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which was first authorized by Congress in 1977, coordinates the earthquake-related activities of the Federal Government. The goal of NEHRP is to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States through basic and directed research and implementation activities in the fields of earthquake science and engineering. Under NEHRP, FEMA is responsible for developing effective earthquake risk reduction tools and promoting their implementation, as well as supporting the development of disaster-resistant building codes and standards. FEMA's NEHRP activities are led by the FEMA Headquarters (HQ), Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Risk Reduction Division, Building Science Branch, in strong partnership with other FEMA HQ Directorates, and in coordination with the FEMA Regions, the States, the earthquake consortia, and other public and private partners.

3.7.3 State Regulatory Setting
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (originally enacted in 1972 and renamed in 1994) is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The statute prohibits the location of mot types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and regulates construction in the corridors along active faults.

California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act: The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones.

Uniform Building Code: The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the Uniform Building Code with necessary California amendments. The Uniform Building Code is a widely adopted model building code in the United States published by the International Conference of Building Officials. About one-third of the text within the California Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions.

45 Paleontological Resources: Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals and associated deposits. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has identified vertebrate fossils, their taphonomic and associated environmental indicators, and fossiliferous deposits as significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be considered significant resources. CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature (CEQA Appendix G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) Section 15126.4 (a)(1)). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 (see above) also applies to paleontological resources.

3.7.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a. Directly or indirectly create potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

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. Considering that the Building Code incorporates construction standards for minimizing earthquake damage to buildings, and the low potential for a significant earthquake activity in the vicinity, the potential for adverse impacts from an earthquake is less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
In the event of a major regional earthquake, fault rupture or seismic ground shaking could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. Ground shaking could potentially expose people and property to seismic-related hazards, including localized liquefaction and ground failure. However, all new structures are required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction, and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards. General Plan Implementing Policies 9.2-I-1 through 9.2-I-8 and the building codes reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The proposed Project is not located within a liquefaction zone according to the California Department of Conservation’s California Geologic Survey regulatory maps. Regardless, all new structures are required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction, and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards. Therefore, the potential impact from ground failure is less than significant.

46 iv. Landslides?
According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan, due to the flat topography, erosion, landslides, and mudflows are not considered to be a risk in the City limits or within the City’s Sphere of Influence.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As a result of this GPA/RZ/TPM development of the property would result in approximately 0.31 acres of ground being disturbed during site grading. Even though the area is relatively flat, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the City/Gilsizer drainage system. However, as part of the grading and construction of the Project area, the applicant will be required to follow Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and provide erosion control measures to minimize soil runoff during the construction process. Therefore, impacts from soil erosion are less than significant. c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
See d) below.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The extreme southwest corner of the Yuba City Sphere of Influence is the only known area with expansive soils. The Project area is not located within that area and therefore will not be impacted by the presence of expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The new residences will be connected to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. No new septic systems will be utilized. As such, there will be no new impacts from septic systems. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature? Due to prior ground disturbances from previous development it is unlikely that any paleontological resources exist on the site. However, the following mitigation measure shall apply if any paleontological resources are discovered:

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

Mitigation shall be conducted as follows:

47 1. Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by intense field survey in the vicinity that potential paleontological resource was found, as determined by the paleontologist;

2. Assess effects on identified sites;

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

4. Obtain comments from the researchers;

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

In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by a consulting paleontologist, the City’s Community Development Department Staff shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, General Plan policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the Project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out.

With application of this mitigation any impacts on paleontological resources will be less than significant.

3.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 3.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X

3.8.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98), which became effective December 29, 2009, requires that all facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent per year beginning in 2010, report their emissions on an annual basis. On May 13, 2010, the USEPA issued a final rule that established an approach to addressing GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA) permitting programs. The final rule set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In addition, the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) found that the USEPA has the authority to list GHGs as pollutants and to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) under the CAA. On April 17, 2009, the USEPA found that CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride may contribute to air pollution and may

48 endanger public health and welfare. This finding may result in the USEPA regulating GHG emissions; however, to date the USEPA has not proposed regulations based on this finding.

3.8.2 State & Local Regulatory Setting
The City’s Resource Efficiency Plan as designed under the premise that the City, and the community it represents, is uniquely capable of addressing emissions associated with sources under the City’s jurisdiction and that the City’s emission reduction efforts should coordinate with the state strategies of reducing emissions in order to accomplish these reductions in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The City developed this document with the following purposes in mind:
 Local Control: The Yuba City Efficiency Plan allows the City to identify strategies to reduce resource consumption, costs, and GHG emissions in all economic sectors in a way that maintains local control over the issues and fits the character of the community. It also may position the City for funding to implement programs tied to climate goals.  Energy and Resource Efficiency: The Efficiency Plan identifies opportunities for the City to increase energy efficiency and lower GHG emissions in a manner that is most feasible within the community. Reducing energy consumption through increasing the efficiency of energy technologies, reducing energy use, and using renewable sources of energy are effective ways to reduce GHG emissions. Energy efficiency also provides opportunities for cost‐savings.  Improved Public Health: Many of the GHG reduction strategies identified in the Efficiency Plan also have local public health benefits. Benefits include local air quality improvements; creating a more active community through implementing resource‐efficient living practices; and reducing health risks, such as heat stroke, that would be otherwise elevated by climate change impacts such as increased extreme heat days.

Demonstrating Consistency with State GHG Reduction Goals—A GHG reduction plan may be used as GHG mitigation in a General Plan to demonstrate that the City is aligned with State goals for reducing GHG emissions to a level considered less than cumulatively considerable.

3.8.3 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
See b) below.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving force for Global Climate Change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. Global Climate Change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as

49 to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased emission of GHGs and long-term global temperature. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.

GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA).

The proposed construction of the duplexes will create GHG emissions due to the use of motorized construction equipment. Once completed, vehicle traffic generated by residential auto use will contribute GHG gases. Due to the small size of the Project, it is not expected to create significant greenhouse gas emissions. However, on a cumulative scale, possible reasonable reductions could be applied to the project in order to further minimize those impacts. Specifically addressing this proposal, the City’s Resource Efficiency Plan addresses greenhouse gas concerns and provides a description of greenhouse gas reduction measures. A mitigation measure is included that requires the project incorporate the relevant greenhouse gas reduction measures. With this mitigation the impacts from greenhouse gases will be less than significant.

3.8.4 Greenhouse Mitigation Measure
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measure 1: The site grading process shall comply with the GHG Reduction Measures provided in the adopted Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan.

50 3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Table 3.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires.

X

3.9.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): The USEPA was established in 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard setting, and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. USEPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment — air, water, and land — upon which life depends. USEPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress, is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance. Where national standards are not met, USEPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states and tribes in reaching the desired levels of environmental quality.

Federal Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act: The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery

51 Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (U.S.

Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List (NPL).

CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) on October 17, 1986.

Clean Water Act/SPCC Rule: The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. As part of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. EPA oversees and enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation contained in Title 40 of the CFR, Part 112 (Title 40 CFR, Part 112) which is often referred to as the “SPCC rule” because the regulations describe the requirements for facilities to prepare, amend and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans: A facility is subject to SPCC regulations if a single oil storage tank has a capacity greater than 660 gallons, or the total above ground oil storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons, or the underground oil storage capacity exceeds 42,000 gallons, and if, due to its location, the facility could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into or upon the “Navigable Waters” of the United States.

Other federal regulations overseen by the U.S. EPA relevant to hazardous materials and environmental contamination include Title 40, CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter D – Water Programs and Subchapter I – Solid Wastes. Title 40, CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Parts 116 and 117 designate hazardous substances under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act: Title 40, CFR, Part 116 sets forth a determination of the reportable quantity for each substance that is designated as hazardous. Title 40, CFR, Part 117 applies to quantities of designated substances equal to or greater than the reportable quantities that may be discharged into waters of the United States.

The NFPA 70®: National Electrical Code® is adopted in all 50 states. Any electrical work associated with the proposed Project is required to comply with the standards set forth in this code. Several federal regulations govern hazards as they are related to transportation issues. They include:

Title 49, CFR, Sections 171-177 (49 CFR 171-177), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles. 49 CFR 350-399, and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways. 49 CFR 397.9, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish criteria and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials.

52 3.9.2 State Regulatory Setting
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA): The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991 by Governor’s Executive Order. The six boards, departments, and office were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of State resources. The mission of CalEPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC): DTSC is a department of Cal/EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans-up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Government Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, DHS lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and which have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.

Unified Program: The Unified Program (codified CCR Title 27, Division 1, Subdivision 4, Chapter 1, Sections 15100- 15620) consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of the following six environmental and emergency response programs:
 Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) program and Hazardous Waste On-site Treatment activities;  Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) program Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan requirements;
 Underground Storage Tank (UST) program;
 Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (HMRRP) program;  California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program;  Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMMP/HMIS) requirements.

The Secretary of CalEPA is directly responsible for coordinating the administration of the Unified Program.

The Unified Program requires all counties to apply to the CalEPA Secretary for the certification of a local unified program agency. Qualified cities are also permitted to apply for certification. The local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is required to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, fee structures, and inspection and enforcement activities for these six program elements in the county. Most CUPAs have been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department.

Hazardous Waste Management Program: The Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) regulates hazardous waste through its permitting, enforcement, and Unified Program activities in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 25135 et seq. The main focus of HWMP is to ensure the safe storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was created by the California legislature in 1967. The mission of SWRCB is to ensure the highest reasonable

53 quality for waters of the State, while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters.

California Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA): In California, every employer has a legal obligation to provide and maintain a safe and healthful workplace for employees, according to the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (per Title 8 of the CCR). The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) program is responsible for enforcing California laws and regulations pertaining to workplace safety and health and for providing assistance to employers and workers about workplace safety and health issues. Cal/OSHA regulations are administered through Title 8 of the CCR. The regulations require all manufacturers or importers to assess the hazards of substances that they produce or import and all employers to provide information to their employees about the hazardous substances to which they may be exposed.

California Fire Code: The California Fire Code is Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code. The California Fire Code incorporates the Uniform Fire Code with necessary California amendments. This Code prescribes regulations consistent with nationally recognized good practice for the safeguarding to a reasonable degree of life and property from the hazards of fire explosion, and dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the use or occupancy of buildings or premises and provisions to assist emergency response personnel.

3.9.3 Local Regulatory Setting
Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The SCACLUP was adopted in April 1994 by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). SACOG is the designated Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties under the provisions of the California Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670.1 Airport Land Use Commission Law. The purpose of the ALUC law is to (1) protect public health, safety, and welfare through the adoption of land use standards that minimize the public’s exposure to safety hazards and excessive levels of noise, and (2) Prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses around public-use airports, thereby preserving the utilities of these airports into the future.

3.9.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
See b) below.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The hazardous materials associated with this GPA/RZ/TPM that could occur will be those materials associated with grading and construction equipment, which typically includes solvents, oil, and fuel.

Provided that these materials are legally and properly used and stored, the proposed Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. On an ongoing basis the only anticipated hazardous waste would be household hazardous waste. Assuming proper and legal disposal of those wastes there should not be a significant impact from household hazardous materials.

54 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Yuba City High School is within one-quarter mile of the Project. Site grading and the construction of the proposed duplexes would likely generate construction equipment emissions. However, the time for operating equipment on the Project site is short. Assuming proper use of the fuels, solvents, and oil for the grading and paving equipment, there should not be any significant impacts to school students.

Similarly, for household hazardous waste generated by new residences, assuming proper and legal use and disposal the impacts to the school will be less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The property is not on any listings of sites that are contaminated by hazardous wastes. Therefore, there is not a potential for significant impacts from a known hazardous materials site. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The Project is not located within the Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, nor is it within two miles of a public use airport.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Yuba City Fire Department and Police Department serve this area. Neither agency has expressed concern over impacts the Project may have on any emergency response plans. Accordingly, there will be no significant impacts on emergency response or evacuations plans. g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The Project site is located in the Yuba City urban area, and the Yuba City urban area is surrounded by irrigated agricultural lands. There are no wildlands on the site or in the immediate vicinity. Accordingly, the impacts from potential wildland fires will be less than significant.

55 3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 3.10: Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impeded sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
iv. impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X

3.10.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act (CWA) is intended to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (33 CFR 1251). The regulations implementing the CWA protect waters of the U.S. including streams and wetlands (33 CFR 328.3). The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality by regulating point source and some non-point source discharges. Under Section 402 of the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process was established to regulate these discharges.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones: The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) makes available federally subsidized flood insurance to owners of flood-prone properties. To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed

56 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that can be used for planning purposes. Flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map are identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA are defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. SFHAs are labeled as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30.

Moderate flood hazard areas, labeled Zone B or Zone X (shaded) are also shown on the FIRM, and are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the

0.2-percent-annual-chance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded).

3.10.2 State Regulatory Setting
State Water Resources Control Board: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the agency with jurisdiction over water quality issues in the State of California. The WRCB is governed by the PorterCologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code), which establishes the legal framework for water quality control activities by the SWRCB. The intent of the Porter-Cologne Act is to regulate factors which may affect the quality of waters of the State to attain the highest quality which is reasonable, considering a full range of demands and values. Much of the implementation of the SWRCB's responsibilities is delegated to its nine Regional Boards. The Project site is located within the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control board.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB): administers the NPDES storm waterpermitting program in the Central Valley region. Construction activities on one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). Additionally, CVRWQCB is responsible for issuing Waste Discharge Requirements Orders under California Water Code Section 13260, Article 4, Waste Discharge Requirements.

State Department of Water Resources: California Water Code (Sections 10004 et seq.) requires that the State Department of Water Resources update the State Water Plan every five years. The 2013 update is the most current review and included (but is not limited to) the following conclusions:
 The total number of wells completed in California between 1977 and 2010 is approximately 432,469 and ranges from a high of 108,346 wells for the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region to a low of 4,069 wells for the North Lahontan Hydrologic Region.  Based on the June 2014 California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) basin prioritization for California’s 515 groundwater basins, 43 basins are identified as high priority, 84 basins as medium priority, 27 basins as low priority, and the remaining 361 basins as very low priority.
 The 127 basins designated as high or medium priority account for 96 percent of the average annual statewide groundwater use and 88 percent of the 2010 population overlying the groundwater basin area.
 Depth-to-groundwater contours were developed for the unconfined aquifer system in the Central Valley. In the Sacramento Valley, the spring 2010 groundwater depths range from less than 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) to approximately 50 feet bgs, with local areas showing maximum depths of as much as 160 feet bgs.

57  The most prevalent groundwater contaminants affecting California’s community drinking water wells are arsenic, nitrate, gross alpha activity, and perchlorate.

California Government Code 65302 (d): The General Plan must contain a Conservation Element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, river and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources.

That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any County-wide water agency and with all district and City agencies which have developed, served, controlled, or conserved water for any purpose for the County or City for which the plan is prepared.

Coordination shall include the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information described in Section 65352.5 if that information has been submitted by the water agency to the City or County. The conservation element may also cover:
 The reclamation of land and waters.
 Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters.  Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan.
 Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores.  Protection of watersheds.
 The location, quantity, and quality of the rock, sand, and gravel resources.  Flood control.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: On September 16, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed historic legislation to strengthen local management and monitoring of groundwater basins most critical to the state’s water needs. The three bills, SB 1168 (Pavley) SB 1319 (Pavley) and AB 1739 (Dickinson) together makeup the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act comprehensively reforms groundwater management in California. The intent of the Act is to place management at the local level, although the state may intervene to manage basins when local agencies fail to take appropriate responsibility. The Act provides authority for local agency management of groundwater and requires creation of groundwater sustainability agencies and implementation of plans to achieve groundwater sustainability within basins of high and medium priority.

3.10.3 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Most of the City’s public water supply comes from the Feather River. The water is pumped from the river to the Water Treatment Plant located in northern Yuba City. The plant also sometimes utilizes a groundwater well in addition to surface water supplies due to recent drought conditions. Since these duplexes will only receive water through the City system, it is unlikely that the project could impact the water quality in the City system.

Wastewater generated by the Project will flow into the City wastewater treatment facility which is in compliance with all state water discharge standards. The wastewater from the Project is not expected to generate any unique type of waste that would cause the system to become out of compliance with state standards.

58 All storm water runoff associated with the Project will drain into the Gilsizer drainage system and ultimately into the Feather River. The water quality of the stormwater runoff is addressed through General Plan Implementing Policies 8.5-I-1 through 8.5-I-10 which require a wide range of developer and City actions involving coordination with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, protecting waterways, and following Yuba City’s adopted Best Management Practices for new construction.

With the level of oversight on the City’s water supply, and enforcement of Best Management Practices at construction sites, there will not be significant impacts on the City’s water and waste-water systems or storm water drainage system from the proposed duplexes. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The duplexes will be connected to the City’s water system. While consumer consumption of City water will increase with the Project, very little, if any, groundwater will be utilized as the City primarily utilizes surface water supplies.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? See iii. Below.
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
See iii. Below.
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? There will be an increased amount of stormwater drainage caused by new impermeable surfaces created by the proposed Project, which will ultimately drain into the Feather River. The Project will be required to connect to the local collection facilities and pay the appropriate fees to the Gilsizer County Drainage District for its fair share of improvements and expansion to the existing drainage system that will be connected too. Also, as noted above, all new construction must involve use of Best Management Practices. Assuming all required standards are met the impacts from additional storm water drainage from the site will be less than significant.
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency this portion of the City is outside of the 100- year flood plain. This is due to the existing levee system that contains seasonally high-water flows from the nearby Feather River from flooding areas outside of the levee system. Additional construction within the City that is outside of the levee system does not impact the levee system and therefore does not increase, impede, or otherwise have any effect on the highwater flows within the levee system.

Therefore, there is no impact on the high-water flows within the Feather River levee system.

59 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this portion of the City is outside of the 100- year flood plain. The City is not close to the ocean or any large lakes so a seiche is unlikely to happen in or near the City. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean, so people or structures in the City would not be exposed to inundation by tsunami. Mudflows and landslides are unlikely to happen due to the relatively flat topography within the Project area. Thus, it is unlikely that the Project site would be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, mudflow or landslide. Therefore, there is not a potential for significant impacts from any of these types of events.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Regarding impacts on a groundwater management plan, the City primarily utilizes surface water, so any impact on groundwater would be less than significant. Regarding water quality, as noted in Part a) above, all new construction is required to utilize of Best Management Practices. Assuming all required standards are met water quality of runoff water from this development will not create any significant impacts. The City primarily utilizes surface water for its water source so there will be no significant impacts on groundwater.

3.11. Land Use and Planning
Table 3:11: Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X

3.11.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The two adjoining properties consisting of 0.31-acres are flat and vacant. The neighborhood around these two vacant parcels is a built-out eclectic neighborhood consisting of single-family residences that appear to be original to the older neighborhood, and several apartment complexes that appear to be of a 1970’s style design.

3.11.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal or state regulations pertaining to land use and planning relevant to the proposed Project.

60 3.11.3 Local Regulatory Setting
Yuba City General Plan, Land Use Element: The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes guidance for the ultimate pattern of growth in the City’s Sphere of Influence. It provides direction regarding how lands are to be used, where growth will occur, the density/intensity and physical form of that growth, and key design considerations.

3.11.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Physically divide an established community?
This Project will not physically divide an established community as the Project will result in the construction of three duplexes within an existing eclectic neighborhood of single-family and multiplefamily residences. As these are currently vacant lots, the addition of these residences to the neighborhood are expected to be compatible with the residential nature of the area. Therefore, the impact of the Project on the local community is expected to be less than significant. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Adding six new residences to a residential area, even though it involves a general plan amendment and rezoning, will be consistent with general plan policies and programs that generally encourage more housing. With the rezoning, the Project will also meet all City development standards. As such, the Project’s impacts due to the revised development standards will be less than significant.

3.12. Mineral Resources
Table 3-12: Mineral Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
X

3.12.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the proposed Project.

3.12.2 State Regulatory Setting
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975: Enacted by the State Legislature in 1975, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq., insures a

61 continuing supply of mineral resources for the State. The act also creates surface mining and reclamation policy to assure that:
 Production and conservation of minerals is encouraged;  Environmental effects are prevented or minimized;
 Consideration is given to recreational activities, watersheds, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment;
 Mined lands are reclaimed to a useable condition once mining is completed; and  Hazards to public safety both now and in the future are eliminated.

Areas in the State (city or county) that do not have their own regulations for mining and reclamation activities rely on the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Office of Mine Reclamation to enforce this law. SMARA contains provisions for the inventory of mineral lands in the State of California.

The State Geologist, in accordance with the State Board’s Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, must classify Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) as designated below:
 MRZ-1. Areas where available geologic information indicates that there is minimal likelihood of significant resources.
 MRZ-2. Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant mineral deposits are located or likely to be located.
 MRZ-3. Areas where mineral deposits are found but the significance of the deposits cannot be evaluated without further exploration.
 MRZ-4. Areas where there is not enough information to assess the zone. These are areas that have unknown mineral resource significance.

SMARA only covers mining activities that impact or disturb the surface of the land. Deep mining (tunnel) or petroleum and gas production is not covered by SMARA.

3.12.3 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
See b) below.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The property contains no known mineral resources and there is little opportunity for mineral resource extraction. The Yuba City General Plan does not recognize any mineral resource zone within the City limits, and no mineral extraction facilities currently exist within the City. Additionally, the site is within an urban residential neighborhood, which generally is considered incompatible with mineral extraction facilities. As such the project will not have an impact on mineral resources.

62 3.13. Noise
Table 3.13: Noise
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X

3.13.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment for Noise Noise can be generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain.

Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the frequency/sound power level spectrum.

The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency midrange. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of Aweighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements.

Noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. Noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a

63 day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual receptor. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts.

3.13.2 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment for Groundbourne Vibration Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV), or root mean squared (RMS), as in RMS vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS (VbA) vibration velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal and is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings.

Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. As it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals, it is more prudent to use vibration velocity when measuring human response. The typical background vibration velocity level in residential areas is approximately 50 VdB. Groundborne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels.

Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. The approximate threshold of vibration perception is 65 VdB, while 85 VdB is the vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.

3.13.3 Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal Vibration Policies: The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FRA, fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 90 VdB without experiencing structural damage. The FTA has identified the human annoyance response to vibration levels as 75 VdB.

3.13.4 State Regulatory Setting
California Noise Control Act: The California Noise Control Act was enacted in 1973 (Health and Safety Code §46010 et seq.), and states that the Office of Noise Control (ONC) should provide assistance to local communities in developing local noise control programs. It also indicates that ONC staff would work with the Department of Resources Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to provide guidance for the preparation of the required noise elements in city and county General Plans, pursuant to Government Code § 65302(f). California Government Code § 65302(f) requires city and county general plans to include a noise element. The purpose of a noise element is to guide future development to enhance future land use compatibility.

Title 24 – Sound Transmission Control: Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) codifies Sound Transmission Control requirements, which establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards for new hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached

64 single-family dwellings. Specifically, Title 24 states that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room of new dwellings Title 24, Part 2 requires an acoustical report that demonstrates the achievements of the required 45 dBA CNEL. Dwellings are designed so that interior noise levels will meet this standard for at least ten years from the time of building permit application.

3.13.5 Local Regulatory Setting
The City of Yuba City General Plan presents the vision for the future of Yuba City and outlines several guiding policies and policies relevant to noise.

The following goals and policies from the City of Yuba City General Plan are relevant to noise.

Guiding Policies
 9.1-G-1 Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the present and future residences of Yuba City.
 9.1-G-2 Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses.  Implementing Policies
 9.1-I-1 Require a noise study and mitigation for all projects that have noise exposure greater than “normally acceptable” levels. Noise mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
 Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment,
 Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings,  Retain fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers,  Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows, and  Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.  9.1-I-3 In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consider an increase of four or more dBA to be "significant" if the resulting noise level would exceed that described as normally acceptable for the affected land use in Figure 5.  9.1-I-4 Protect especially sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise, by enforcing “normally acceptable” noise level standards for these uses.  9.1-I-5 Discourage the use of sound walls. As a last resort, construct sound walls along highways and arterials when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility.
 9.1-I-6 Require new noise sources to use best available control technology (BACT) to minimize noise from all sources.
 9.1-I-7 Minimize vehicular and stationary noise sources and noise emanating from temporary activities, such as construction.

65 Figure 1: Noise Exposure

LAND USE CATEGORY
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE - Ldn or CNEL (dBA)
50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low Density
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile
Home
Residential – Multi-Family
Transient Lodging –
Motel/Hotel
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditorium, Concert Hall,
Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business,
Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development generally should not be undertaken.

Source: State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2003. General Plan Guidelines.

66 City of Yuba City Municipal Code: Title 4, Chapter 17, Section 4-17.10(e) of the Yuba City Municipal Code prohibits the operation of noise‐generating construction equipment before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. daily, except Sunday and State or federal holidays when the prohibited time is before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m.

3.13.6 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
A temporary increase in noise will occur during site preparation and construction of the duplexes. All of this will primarily occur during daylight hours, Monday through Saturday. Noise from construction activities would contribute to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. This could have an impact on existing nearby residences. Activities involved in construction could generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 2, ranging from 79 to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers) and ranging from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, with feasible noise control. However, due to the limited duration of the construction activities, that the construction will occur during the less sensitive daylight hours, the noise effects from this activity are expected to be less than significant.

Table 2: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Type of Equipment (1) dBA at 50 ft.

Without Feasible Noise Control (2) With Feasible Noise Control Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Scraper 88 80
Front End Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Truck 91 75
(1) US Environmental Protection Agency. “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances.” Figure IV.H‐4. 1971.
(2) Feasible noise control includes the use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds operating in accordance with manufacturers specifications Once constructed the duplex residences are generally not considered to be significant noise generators.

Therefore, the residences are not expected in any significant way to raise the ambient noise levels in the surrounding residential neighborhood. For these reasons, the noise impacts from adding new residences to a residential area will be less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Table 3 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.

67 Table 3: Typical Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment (1) VdB at 25 ft2
Small Bulldozer 58
Vibratory Roller 94
Jackhammer 79
Loaded Trucks 86
(1) US Environmental Protection Agency. “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances.” Figure IV.H‐4. 1971.

Vibration levels of construction equipment in Table 3 are at a distance of 25 feet from the equipment. As noted above, construction activities are limited to daylight hours. Infrequent construction-related vibrations would be short-term and temporary, and operation of heavy-duty construction equipment would be intermittent throughout the day during construction. Therefore, with the short duration of grading activities associated with the project, the approximate reduction of 6 VdB for every doubling of distance from the source, and consideration of the distance to the nearest existing residences, the temporary impact to any uses in the vicinity of the project would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Project is not within an airport land use plan nor are there any public or private airports or airfields located in this vicinity. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to the Project.

3.14. Population and Housing
Table 4-14: Population and Housing
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

3.14.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The two properties consisting of 0.31-acre are flat and vacant. The neighborhood around these two vacant parcels is a built-out eclectic neighborhood consisting of single-family residences that appear to be original to the older neighborhood, and several apartment complexes that appear to be of a 1970’s style design.

68 3.14.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the proposed Project.

3.14.3 State Regulatory Setting
California law (Government Code Section 65580, et seq.) requires cities and counties to include a housing element as a part of their general plan to address housing conditions and needs in the community.

Housing elements are prepared approximately every eight years following implementation of Senate Bill [SB] 375), following timetables set forth in the law. The housing element must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and “make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community,” among other requirements. The City adopted its current Housing Element in 2021.

3.14.4 Regional Regulatory Setting
State law mandates that all cities and counties offer a portion of housing to accommodate the increasing needs of regional population growth. The statewide housing demand is determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), while local governments and councils of governments decide and manage their specific regional and jurisdictional housing needs and develop a regional housing needs assessment (RHNA).

In the greater Sacramento region, which includes the City of Yuba City, SACOG has the responsibility of developing and approving an RHNA and a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) every eight years (Government Code, Section 65580 et seq.). This document has a central role of distributing the allocation of housing for every county and city in the SACOG region. Housing needs are assessed for very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate households.1 As described above, SACOG is the association of local governments that includes Yuba City, along with other jurisdictions comprising the six counties in the greater Sacramento region. In addition to preparing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region, SACOG approves the distribution of affordable housing in the region through its RHNP. SACOG also assists in planning for transit, bicycle networks, clean air and serves as the Airport Land Use Commission for the region.2

3.14.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed Project will result in the construction of three duplexes on three small-lot parcels. The six resulting duplex residences, when compared to the four duplex residences that could be constructed under the existing zoning, is not a major change. The existing infrastructure that serves this area, including streets, water, sewer, drainage, etc., is adequate to accommodate this change. Although this Project includes a change to plans, the Project includes a general plan amendment and rezoning, it is being

69 scrutinized by this process for consistency with all plans and programs. It is planned growth. As such, the Project’s impacts caused by un-planned growth are less than significant.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
There will be no residences removed as part of this GPA/RZ/TPM. Therefore, there will be no impact.

3.15. Public Services
Table 3.15: Public Services
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X

3.15.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Law enforcement is provided by the Yuba City Police Department. Fire protection is provided by the Yuba City Fire Department. Nearby parks and other urban services including streets, water, sewer, and stormwater drainage will also be provided by Yuba City. The nearby Yuba City High School is part of the Yuba City Unified School District.

3.15.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Fire Protection Association: The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international nonprofit organization that provides consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education on fire prevention and public safety. The NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 such codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks. The NFPA publishes the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, which provides requirements to establish a reasonable level of fire safety and property protection in new and existing buildings.