70 3.15.3 State Regulatory Setting
California Fire Code and Building Code: The 2013 California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provision of the Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service features such as fire apparatus access roads, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland urban interface areas.
California Health and Safety Code (HSC): State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California HSC, which includes regulations for building standards (as set forth in the CBC), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
California Master Mutual Aid Agreement: The California Master Mutual Aid Agreement is a framework agreement between the State of California and local governments for aid and assistance by the interchange of services, facilities, and equipment, including but not limited to fire, police, medical and health, communication, and transportation services and facilities to cope with the problems of emergency rescue, relief, evacuation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
3.15.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection: The Fire Department reviewed the proposal and did not express concerns. Since all new development pays development impact fees intended to offset the cost of additional fire facilities and equipment costs resulting from this growth, the impacts on fire services will be less than significant.
Police Protection: The Police Department reviewed this proposal and did not express concerns. Since new development will pay development impact fees intended to offset the cost of additional police facilities and equipment resulting from this growth the impacts on police services will be less than significant.
Schools: New residences that may result from this GPA and RZ must pay the Yuba City Unified School District adopted school impact fees that are intended to provide their fair share for expanded or new educational facilities needed to accommodate this new growth. Therefore, the impact on schools will be less than significant.
Parks: The City charges a park impact fee for each new residence that is utilized to purchase parkland and construct new parks. Therefore, the impact on parks from this Project will be less than significant.
Other Public Facilities: The Project will be connected to City water and wastewater systems. Each new connection to those systems must pay connection fees that are utilized for expansion of the respective treatment plants. The City also collects development impact fees for County services that are provided to the new development, such as the library system and justice system.
71 Accordingly, the Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to the provision of public services.
3.16. Recreation
Table 3-16: Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
3.16.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Yuba City has 22 City-owned parks and recreational areas, managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. This consists of four community parks, 15 neighborhood parks, and three passive or mini parks.
3.16.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations regarding parks and open space that are applicable to the proposed Project.
3.16.3 State Regulatory Setting
State Public Park Preservation Act: The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is the Public Park Preservation Act of 1971. Under the PRC section 5400-5409, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non-park use unless compensation or land, or both, are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides no net loss of parkland and facilities.
Quimby Act: California Government Code Section 66477, referred to as the Quimby Act, permits local jurisdictions to require the dedication of land and/or the payment of in-lieu fees solely for park and recreation purposes. The required dedication and/or fee are based upon the residential density and housing type, land cost, and other factors. Land dedicated and fees collected pursuant to the Quimby Act may be used for developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities.
72 3.16.4 Local Regulatory Setting
The Yuba City General Plan and the City’s Parks Master Plan provide a goal of providing 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents, while it also requires 1 acre of Neighborhood Park for every 1,000 residents.
The City’s development impact fee program collects fees for new development which is allocated for the acquisition and development of open space in the City.
3.16.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The six new residences that will be constructed as a result of this GPA/RZ/TPM will incrementally increase the use of City parks. However, for each new residence development impact fees for new or expanded parks and recreation facilities will be paid. These fees will mitigate any incremental impacts on recreational facilities. Therefore, the impact on the City park system from this Project is less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? There is no proposal to provide any on-site recreational facilities, nor is the Project large enough to cause the expansion of any park facilities. Therefore, the impact on park expansion caused by this Project will be less than significant.
3.17. Transportation/Traffic
Table 4-17: Transportation Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
3.17.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal Highway Administration: FHWA is the agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the Federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway network and
73 portions of the primary State highway network. FHWA funding is provided through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficiency Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA- LU can be used to fund local transportation improvement projects, such as projects to improve the efficiency of existing roadways, traffic signal coordination, bikeways, and transit system upgrades.
Several federal regulations govern transportation issues. They include:
Title 49, CFR, Sections 171-177 (49 CFR 171-177), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles.
Title 49 CFR 350-399, and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways.
3.17.2. State Regulatory Setting
The measurement of the impacts of a project’s traffic is set by the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15064.3 of the Guidelines states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. VMT is a metric which refers to the amount of distance of automobile traffic that is generated by a project. Per the Guidelines “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” “Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant environmental impact.” The CEQA Guidelines also states that the lead agency (Yuba City) may “choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled …”. As this is a new form of calculating significant traffic events, the City has not yet determined its own methodology to calculate levels of significance for VMT. Until that methodology is determined, for purposes of this initial study the information provided by the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) and the CA Office of Planning and Research is utilized. A review of these studies indicates several factors that may be utilized for determining levels of significance. One is that if the project will generate less than 110 vehicle trips per day, it is assumed that with the small size of the project, the impact is less than significant. A second criteria is that for a project, on a per capita or per employee basis, the VMT will be at least 15 percent below that of existing development is a reasonable threshold for determining significance.
As this is a new methodology, future projects may utilize different criterion as they become available.
3.17.3. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
The Project will not be a large traffic generator, that being the difference between what two duplexes and three duplexes would generate. The streets around the site were designed to meet all City standards and General Plan policy standards for auto, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. As such, the potential impacts on nearby streets due to this Project will be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? This CEQA section describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). SACOG, in “Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” provides two criteria for which if the project meets either of them, the traffic impacts
74 are considered less than significant. One criterion is that the project generates less than 110 vehicle trips per day is considered to be less than a significant impact. Based on accepted traffic generation criteria, this Project will not exceed this criterion, as it will generate less than 60 trips per day. Thus, the transportation impacts from this subdivision are consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.4(b). It follows that the traffic impacts generated by this project are considered to be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The streets near the Project were designed and constructed long ago. The Project will not cause any changes to nearby City streets. The small size of the Project will generate little additional traffic flow. The Public Works review of the Project did not indicate that there are any street design issues on nearby streets. Therefore, any increase in street hazards generated by this Project are less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the Project plans and did not express concerns about emergency access to the property. As such there will not be a potential for any significant impacts on emergency access to this area.
3.18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Table 3-18: Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project cause of substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
75 3.18.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). The following analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to TCRs is derived primarily from the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Yuba City General Plan (2004) and consultation record with California Native American tribes under Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
3.18.2 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.
3.18.3 State Regulatory Setting
Assembly Bill 52: Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.
Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.
Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
76 a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.
Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their TCRs and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies initiate consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs.
Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.
Senate Bill 18: Effective March 2005, it requires city and county governments to consult with California Native American tribes early in the planning process with the intent of protecting traditional tribal cultural places. The purpose of involving the tribes at the early stage of planning efforts is to allow consideration of tribal cultural places in context of broad local land use policy before project-level land use decisions are made by a local government. As such, SB 18 applies to the adoption or substantial amendment of general or specific plans. As the later adopted AB 52 provides for a similar review process for all discretionary reviews including general plan amendments and specific plan amendments, the provisions of SB 18 fall within the SB 52 review process for purposes of this document.
3.18.4 Cultural Setting
The Nisenan (also referred to as Southern Maidu) inhabited the General Plan area prior to large-scale European and Euroamerican settlement of the surrounding area. Nisenan territory comprised the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American Rivers, and the lower drainages of the Feather River. The Nisenan, together with the Maidu and Konkow, their northern neighbors, form the Maiduan language family of the Penutian linguistic stock (Shipley 1978:89). Kroeber (1976:392) noted three dialects:
Northern Hill Nisenan, Southern Hill Nisenan, and Valley Nisenan. Although cultural descriptions of this group in the English language are known from as early as 1849, most of our current cultural knowledge comes from various anthropologists in the early part of the 20th century (Levy 1978:413; Wilson and Towne 1978:397).
The basic subsistence strategy of the Nisenan was seasonally mobile hunting and gathering. Acorns, the primary staple of the Nisenan diet, were gathered in the valley along with seeds, buckeye, salmon, insects, and a wide variety of other plants and animals. During the warmer months, people moved to mountainous areas to hunt and collect food resources, such as pine nuts. Bedrock and portable mortars and pestles were used to process acorns. Nisenan settlement patterns were oriented to major river drainages and tributaries. In the foothills and lower Sierra Nevada, Nisenan located their villages in large flats or ridges near major streams. These villages tended to be smaller than the villages in the valley. (Wilson and Towne 1978:389–390.)
77 Trade provided other valuable resources that were not normally available in the Nisenan environment.
The Valley Nisenan received black acorns, pine nuts, manzanita berries, skins, bows, and bow wood from the Hill Nisenan to their east, in exchange for fish, roots, grasses, shells, beads, salt, and feathers (Wilson and Towne 1978). To obtain, process, and utilize these material resources, the Nisenan had an array of tools to assist them. Wooden digging sticks, poles for shaking acorns loose, and baskets of primarily willow and redbud were used to gather vegetal resources. Stone mortars and pestles were used to process many of the vegetal foods; baskets, heated stones, and wooden stirring sticks were used for cooking. Basalt and obsidian were primary stone materials used for making knives, arrow and spear points, clubs, arrow straighteners, and scrapers (Wilson and Towne 1978).
Nisenan settlement locations depended primarily on elevation, exposure, and proximity to water and other resources. Permanent villages were usually located on low rises along major watercourses. Village size ranged from three houses to 40 or 50 houses. Larger villages often had semi-subterranean dance houses that were covered in earth and tule or brush and had a central smoke hole at the top and an entrance that faced east (Wilson and Towne 1978:388). Early Nisenan contact with Europeans appears to have been limited to the southern reaches of their territory. Spanish expeditions intruded into Nisenan territory in the early 1800s. In the two or three years following the gold discovery, Nisenan territory was overrun by immigrants from all over the world. Gold seekers and the settlements that sprang up to support them were nearly fatal to the native inhabitants. Survivors worked as wage laborers and domestic help and lived on the edges of foothill towns. Despite severe depredations, descendants of the Nisenan still live in their original land area and maintain and pass on their cultural identity.
3.18.5 Summary of Native American Consultation
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
3.18.6 Thresholds of Significance
AB 52 established that a substantial adverse change to a TCR has a significant effect on the environment.
The thresholds of significance for impacts to TCRs are as follows:
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR, defined in Section 21074 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a Native American tribe that are:
Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
78 Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision k of Section 5010.1; and/or
Determined by the City to be significant, as supported by substantial evidence, including:
o A cultural landscape with a geographically defined boundary; o A historical resource as described in Section 21084.1 (either eligible for or listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or listed on a local registry); o A unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2; and/or o A non-unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2.
In assessing substantial adverse change, the City must determine whether or not the project will adversely affect the qualities of the resource that convey its significance. The qualities are expressed through integrity. Integrity of a resource is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association [CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)]. Impacts are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired [CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)]. Accordingly, impacts to a TCR would likely be significant if the project negatively affects the qualities of integrity that made it significant in the first place. In making this determination, the City need only address the aspects of integrity that are important to the TCR’s significance.
3.18.7 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
There are no buildings on the property that will be removed as part of this Project. Therefore, there will be no potential significant impacts on any historical resources, directly or indirectly. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
The City solicited consultation with culturally affiliated California Native American tribes (regarding the proposed project in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52). The United Auburn Indian Community, responding to the City’s request in a July 5, 2022, email, stated that the property is not sensitive for tribal cultural resources. The email also provides that in case there are unanticipated discoveries of Native American materials, the “Undiscovered Discoveries” mitigation be applied to the Project. As such, the Unanticipated Discoveries mitigation is applied to this Project. With this mitigation measure, the impact on cultural resources will be less than significant.
3.18.8 Tribal Cultural Mitigation Measures
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation 1: Unanticipated Discoveries: If any suspected TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find, or an agreed upon distance based on the project area and nature of the find. A Tribal Representative from a California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a TCR (PRC
79 21074). The Tribal Representative will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary.
Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA and UAIC protocols, and every effort must be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign. Culturally appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, returning objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. The Tribe does not consider curation of TCR’s to be appropriate or respectful and request that materials not be permanently curated, unless approved by the Tribe.
The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by the CEQA lead agency to be necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the resource, including but limited to, facilitating the appropriate tribal treatment of the find, as necessary. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a Tribal Cultural Resource may include Tribal monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil.
Work at the discovery location cannot resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the discovery under the requirements of CEQA, including AB 523 has been satisfied.
3.19. Utilities and Service Systems
Table 3-19: Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water or wastewater
treatment or storm drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projected demand in addition to the existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
80 3.19.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wastewater:
Yuba City owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that provides sewer service to approximately 60,000 residents and numerous businesses. The remainder of the residents and businesses in the Yuba City Sphere of Influence (SOI) are currently serviced by private septic systems. In the early 1970s, the City’s original sewage treatment plant was abandoned, and the current Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) was constructed.
Water:
The water supply source for the City is surface water from the Feather River with use of a backup groundwater well. The City of Yuba City is a public water agency with over 18,000 connections. City policy only allows areas within the City limits to be served by the surface water system.
Reuse and Recycling:
Solid waste generated in Yuba City is collected by Recology Yuba-Sutter. Recology offers residential, commercial, industrial, electronic, and hazardous waste collection, processing, recycling, and disposal, as well as construction and demolition waste processing, diversion, and transfer to a disposal facility. The City’s municipal solid waste is delivered to the Ostrom Road Landfill; a State-permitted solid waste facility that provides a full range of transfer and diversion services. As of June 2021, the Recology Ostrom Road Landfill Remaining Site Net Airspace is 33,764,000 cy; and has a remaining capacity of 21,297,000 tons; and remaining landfill service life is 53 years.
3.19.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Discharge of treated wastewater to surface water(s) of the U.S., including wetlands, requires an NPDES permit. In California, the RWQCB administers the issuance of these federal permits. Obtaining a NPDES permit requires preparation of detailed information, including characterization of wastewater sources, treatment processes, and effluent quality. Any future development that exceeds one acre in size would be required to comply with NPDES criteria, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the inclusion of BMPs to control erosion and offsite transport of soils.
3.19.3 State Regulatory Setting
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): Waste Discharge Requirements Program. State regulations pertaining to the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, CCR, Section 20005 et seq. (hereafter Title 27). In general, the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Program (sometimes also referred to as the “Non-Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program”) regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 20230 of Title 27. Several programs are administered under the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs.
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle): The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track the 76 million
81 tons of waste generated each year in California. CalRecycle develops laws and regulations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40050 et seq. or Assembly Bill (AB 939, codified in PRC 40000), administered by CalRecycle, requires all local and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills.
This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.
Regional Water Quality Control Boards: The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The State Board sets statewide policy for the implementation of state and federal laws and regulations. The Regional Boards adopt and implement Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans), which recognize regional differences in natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into water of the United States. In California, it is the responsibility of Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve and enhance the quality of the state’s waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge requirements (WDRs). WDRs for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits.
California Department of Water Resources: The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is a department within the California Resources Agency. The DWR is responsible for the State of California's management and regulation of water usage.
3.19.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? See b) below.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? The Project will connect to both the City’s water and wastewater treatment systems. The Yuba City Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) has available capacity to accommodate new growth. The WWTF current permitted capacity is 10.5 mgd (annual average dry weather flow). The existing average influent flow to the WWTF is approximately 6 mgd. The remaining treatment capacity at the WWTF can be used to accommodate additional flow from the future developments.
The City’s Water Treatment plant (WTP), for which its primary source of water is from the Feather River, also has adequate capacity to accommodate this project. The WTP uses two types of treatment systems,
82 conventional and membrane treatment. The permitted capacity of the conventional WTP is 24 million gallons per day (mgd). The membrane treatment system has a permitted capacity of 12 mgd. Water produced from the conventional and the membrane treatment plants are blended for chlorine disinfection. Operating the conventional and membrane treatment facilities provides a total WTP capacity of 36 mgd. The City is permitted to draw 30 mgd from the Feather River. The current maximum day use is 26 mgd. The City also has an on-site water well at the water plant that supplements the surface water when needed.
For both facilities there are City adopted master plans to expand those plants to the extent that they will accommodate the overall growth of the City.
The ongoing expansions of those plants to accommodate growth beyond this project are funded by the connection fees paid by each new connection. Therefore, the impact on the water and wastewater treatment facilities will be less than significant.
Stormwater drainage in this area is provided by a combination of Yuba City drainage lines and the Gilsizer County Drainage District. As the Gilsizer County Drainage District did not comment on the project, the impacts on the stormwater drainage system will be less than significant.
The extension of electric power facilities, natural gas facilities and telecommunication facilities are provided by private companies, none of which have voiced concerns over the extensions of their services to this Project site. With these considerations the impacts on these types of facilities are expected to be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the existing commitments? See Parts a) and b), above.
d). Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
See e) below.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Recology Yuba-Sutter provides solid waste disposal for the area as well as for all of Sutter and Yuba Counties. There is adequate collection and landfill capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
83 3.20. Wildfire
Table 3-20: Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
3.20.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wildland fires are an annual hazard in Sutter County, particularly in the vicinity of the Sutter Buttes, and, to a lesser degree due to urbanized development, Yuba City. Wildland fires burn natural vegetation on undeveloped lands and include rangeland, brush, and grass fires. Long, hot, and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100°F add to the County’s fire hazard. Human activities are the major causes of wildland fires, while lightning causes the remaining wildland fires. Irrigated agricultural areas, which tend to surround Yuba City, are considered a low hazard for wildland fires.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program identifies fire threat based on a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). These two factors are combined in determining the following Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. These zones apply to areas designated as State Responsibility Areas – areas in which the State has primary firefighting responsibility.
The Project site is not within a State Responsibility Area and therefore has not been placed in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
3.20.2 Impact Assessment/ Environmental Consequences
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
84 As discussed in Section 3.17 of this Initial Study, the construction not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area. Therefore, the impacts of the project related to emergency response or evacuations would be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The Project site is in a level urban area with no native vegetation remaining, and the urban area is surrounded by irrigated farmland. This type of environment is generally not subject to wildfires. In light of this, the exposure of new residents to wildfire is less than significant. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
As discussed above, the site is not near any wildland areas and the Project itself will not create any improvements that potentially could generate wildfire conditions. As such the Project will not be constructing or maintaining wildfire related infrastructure such as fire breaks, emergency water sources, etc. Thus, the Project generated impacts that could result from these types of improvements will be less than significant.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The Project site is in a topographically flat area. There are no streams or other channels that cross the site. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides.
Impacts of the Project related to these issues would be less than significant.
85 3.21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Table 3.21: Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number, or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important example of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
X
c) Have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
3.21.1 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The Project site and surround properties were stripped many years ago of native vegetation and utilized for urban uses. Therefore any development that could occur as a result of this Project will not significantly degrade the quality of the natural environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the proposed Project, with its mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the local environment.
86 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.
This amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan was compared to policies in other elements of the General Plan. As such the traffic generated by three new duplexes is within what was anticipated in the General Plan which considered anticipated future growth of the area. The City has adequate water and wastewater capacity, and the Project will be utilizing those services. Stormwater drainage will also meet all City standards. There will be no loss of agricultural land. The Yuba City Unified School District has not indicated that they lack capacity to provide proper educational facilities to the new students. The FRAQMD also did not comment that the project would create any significant cumulative impacts on air quality. Therefore, there are no impacts that will be individually limited but that will create significant cumulative impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed Project in and of itself would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction-related air quality, noise, and hazardous materials exposure impacts would occur for a very short period and only be a minor impact during that time period. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any direct or indirect significant adverse impacts on humans.
87 4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference According to Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, an ND may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public record. The incorporated language will be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the ND. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at, or can be obtained through, the City of Yuba City Development Services Department located at the address provided above. The following documents are incorporated by reference:
Fehr & Peers, Inc. September 2020. SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for City of Yuba City.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, November 2017. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Hex Maps. Work VMT-2020 MTP/SCS (Adopted).
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland 2012. August 2014.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2013. Sutter County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014.
Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.
Yuba City, City of. 2016. City of Yuba City Municipal Code. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/yuba_city/codes/code_of_ordinances Dyett & Bhatia. 2004. City of Yuba City General Plan. Adopted April 8, 2004.
Yuba City General Plan, 2004 Environmental Impact Report. (SCH #2001072105).
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1995. Yuba-Sutter Bikeway Master Plan. December 1995. “Determination of 1-in-200 Year Floodplain for Yuba City Urban Level of Flood Protection Determination,” prepared for Yuba City by MBK Engineers, November 2015.
Sutter County General Plan.
Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) CEQA Significance Thresholds.
Yuba Sutter Transit Route Map.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. “Fault Zone Activity Map.” AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor. Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
88 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland Map.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.
City of Yuba City Wastewater Master Plan.
Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, April 1994.
Yuba County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Sept. 2010.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System website. Updated September 7, 2011. Available at
http://dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm
89 Appendix A
Ratliff Duplex Development
Site Plan and Building Elevations
For General Plan Amendment 22-01, Rezoning 22-02,
and Tentative Parcel Map 22-01
90
91 Appendix B
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PLAN
Ratliff Duplex Development
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 22-04 For General Plan Amendment 22-01, Rezoning 22-02,
and Tentative Parcel Map 22-01
92 City of Yuba City
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PLAN
Ratliff Duplex Development
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 22-04 For General Plan Amendment 22-01, Rezoning 22-02, and Tentative Parcel Map 22-01 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:
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
Developer Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services Dept.
During
grading
phase
93 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 selfstorage 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
Cultural
Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation 1:
If potential tribal cultural resources
(TCRs) are 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
Developer Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services Dept.
During
construction
phase
94 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 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.
Agenda Item 13
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) 23-02 and Rezone (RZ) 23-02 for the Bains – Bridge Street project
Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing and after consideration; B. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Environmental Assessment 23-04, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contingently approving General Plan Amendment 23-02 re-designating 0.68 acre from Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) for the Bains – Bridge Street project, located on the north side of Bridge Street approximately 300 feet west of Walton Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 58-080-005); and
C. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to adopt Rezone 23-02 for the Bains – Bridge Street project located on approximately
0.68 acres on the north side of Bridge Street approximately 300 feet west of Walton Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 58-080-005)
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) 23-02 and Rezone (RZ) 23-02 for the Bains – Bridge Street project.
Council’s Strategic Goal:
This item meets the City Council’s strategic goal of business friendly.
Background:
The applicant, Parm Bains, filed an application for GPA 23-02 and RZ 23-02 to change the land use and zoning from Office and Office Park (C-O) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-3).
On July 26, 2023, the Yuba City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, and the Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt Resolution PC 23-15 recommending approval of GPA 23-02
and RZ 23-02 to the City Council together with Environmental Assessment 23-04. There was no opposition expressed by the public at the Planning Commission meeting.
Analysis:
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-02 and Rezone (RZ) 23-02 (“Project”), proposes to amend the land use and zoning for a 0.68 parcel as farther outlined below. • GPA 23-02: Proposal to re-designate a 0.68-acre parcel (approximately 30,0000 square feet) from the Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation. The HDR designation allows for a residential density range of 12 to 36 residences per acre, providing for a range of attached housing types including duplexes, and multiple-family housing types. The allowed density range translates to nine to 24 residences that could be constructed on this property if this GPA is approved; and • RZ 23-02: Proposal to rezone the same 0.68 acres from the Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District. The R-3 Zone District provides for a similar range of housing types as the corresponding HDR General Plan designation.
No physical development is proposed at this time as part of this application.
Compatibility with neighboring uses:
With no development proposed it is not possible to fully consider the compatibility of the differing uses.
However, placing this higher density residential property next to high density residential on the north would likely result in apartments, garden apartments, condominiums, duplexes, etc. The property to the west is similarly designated at a lower medium density residential, likely resulting in duplexes.
Properties to the east are office type uses but the properties are back-to-back with a masonry wall between them, so compatibility should not be an issue. Across Bridge Street to the south there are single-family and multiple-family uses. There should be no compatibility issues with this proposal.
Table 2: Bordering Information and Uses
General Plan
Land Use Designation
Zoning Existing
Land Use
Project
Site
Medium-High Density
Residential (HDR) (proposed)
Multiple-Family Residential
(R-3) (proposed)
Vacant
North HDR R-3 Vacant
East Office and Office Park (O) Office-Commercial (C-O) Bank and office related uses.
West Low-Medium Density
Residential (MDR). Six to 14
residences per acre.
R-2 Vacant
South Low and Medium Density
Residential
R1 and R-3 Bridge St. with single-family
residential and multi-family
across the street.
Traffic
Due to the parcel size (0.68 acre) of the proposed project, the proposal to change the land use and zoning from office to multiple-family will not create a large traffic generation difference. The General Plan provides density requirements for multiple-family developments as 12-36 dwelling units per acre (DUA), which means that a 0.68-acre parcel could result in nine to twenty-four new multiple-family or duplex residential units. Both Bridge Street, on which the site fronts, and nearby Walton Avenue are within the City’s acceptable level of service standard of D or better. Any development resulting from this project will be required to provide any needed on-site Bridge Street improvements for auto, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. As such, the potential impacts on nearby streets due to this project are considered to be less than significant.
Environmental Considerations:
An environmental assessment was prepared for this project (EA 23-04) 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 to the City Council 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 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 23-02 and Rezone 23-02.
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 23-04, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contingently approving General Plan Amendment 23-02 re-designating 0.68 acre from Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) for the Bains – Bridge Street project, located on the north side of Bridge Street approximately 300 feet west of Walton Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 58-080-005); and
C. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to adopt Rezone 23-02 for the Bains – Bridge Street project located on approximately 0.68 acres on the north side of Bridge Street approximately 300 feet west of Walton Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 58- 080-005).
Attachments:
1. City Council Resolution
2. City Council Ordinance
3. Planning Commission Staff Report Packet, dated July 26, 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 23-04, BY ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, AND CONTINGENTLY APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 23-02 RE-DESIGNATING 0.68 ACRE FROM OFFICE AND OFFICE PARK (O) LAND
USE DESIGNATION TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) FOR THE BAINS – BRIDGE STREET PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BRIDGE STREET APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET WEST OF WALTON AVENUE (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 58-080-005)
WHEREAS, the City received an application from Parm Bains for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from an Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to a High Density Residential (HDR) designation, and a Rezone for this same property, revising the zoning from a C-O Zone District to an R-3 Zone District (GPA 23-02); 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, 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 23-04) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applications, GPA 23-02, RZ-23-02, as well as Environmental Assessment (EA) 23-04, 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 approving EA 23-04 andGPA 23-02, and adopt an ordinance approving RZ 23-02.
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider the GPA 23-02, Rezone (RZ) 23-02, and EA 23-04, and received both oral testimony and written information presented at the hearing regarding the same; and WHEREAS, the City Council 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 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
2 WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt EA 23-04 and contigently approve GPA 23-02, with RZ 23-02 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 23-04.
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 23-04 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 23-04.
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.
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 23-02, including the following:
3 a. The proposed HDR land use designation, when used in conjunction with the proposed rezoning and the accompanying development standards, 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 significant decrease in levels of service for nearby General Plan streets including Bridge Street, and Walton 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. General Plan Housing Element Policy H-A-3 (Facilitate a Variety of Housing Types): This policy encourages a variety of housing types but particulary enphasises the use of the Medium High Density (HDR) Land Use Designation as the higher densities typically results in more affordable housing. This project to add property designated HDR will increase the City’s capacity for higher density housing by nine to 24 residences. d. General Plan Housing Element Policy H-C-7 (Regional Housing Needs): This policy requires the City to add more HDR designated land. This proposal will add 0.68 acres designated as HDR, which translates to nine to 24 new residences, likely at the more affordable range of housing types.
e. The environmental document prepared for the Project (EA 23-04) 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. f. 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. g. 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 23-02. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City approves General Plan Amendment 23-02, per the attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference. This approval is contingent upon the following:
a. The approval of General Plan Amendment 23-02 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 23-02 as a component of the same. If such approval 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:
_____________________________
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 Maps, GPA 23-02
5 EXHIBIT A
6
ATTACHMENT 2
1 ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY TO ADOPT REZONE 23-02 FOR THE BAINS – BRIDGE STREET PROJECT LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 0.68 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BRIDGE STREET APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET WEST OF WALTON AVENUE (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 58-080-005).
WHEREAS, the City received an application for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from an Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to a High Density Residential (HDR) designation, and a Rezone for this same property, revising the zoning from a C-O Zone District to an R-3 Zone District; 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, 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 July 26, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applications, GPA 23-02, RZ-23-02, as well as Environmental Assessment (EA) 23-04, 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 EA 23-04, approve GPA 23-02, and adopt an ordinance approving RZ 23-02.
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider the GPA 23-02, RZ-23-02, and EA 23-04, 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 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve RZ 23-02.
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 same herein as if set forth in full.
2. CEQA Findings: The City Council of the City of Yuba City has concurrently approved EA 23-
2 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 23-02 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 23-02. The City Council finds that Rezone 23-02 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 23-02; 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 23-02. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City adopts an Ordinance approving RZ 23-02 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 and the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopts a final resolution authorizing amendment of the General Plan and identifying General Plan Amendment 23-02 as a component of the same.
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 23-02
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
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF YUBA CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Date: July 26, 2023
To: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Development Services Department
Presentation by: Doug Libby, Deputy Development Services Director Subject: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-02, Rezone (RZ) 23-02, Bains - Bridge Street.
Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing and make the necessary findings to:
B. Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City recommending the City Council approve Environmental Assessment 23-04 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the Mitigation Measures, approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-02 re-designating 0.68-acres from the Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation, and adopt an Ordinance approving Rezone (RZ) 23-02 rezoning the same 0.68 acres from the Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, for the Bains on Bridge Street project, located on the north side of Bridge Street approximately 300 feet west of Walton Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 058-080-005).
Applicant/Owner: Parm Bains
Project Location: The 0.68-acre parcel is located on the north side of Bridge Street approximately 300 feet west of Walton Avenue. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 058-080-005
General Plan: Existing: Office and Office Park (O)
Proposed: Medium-High Density Residential (MDR)
Zoning: Existing: Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District Proposed: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District ____________________________________________________________________________ Purpose:
Consideration of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-02, Rezone (RZ) 23-02 for the proposed Bains - Bridge Street project.
Item 5
2 Project Description
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-02 and Rezone (RZ) 23-02 (“Project”), proposes to amend the land use and zoning for a 0.68 parcel as farther outlined below. • GPA 23-02: Proposal to re-designate a 0.68-acre parcel (approximately 30,0000 square feet) from the Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to the MediumHigh Density Residential (HDR) designation. The HDR designation allows for a residential density range of 12 to 36 residences per acre, providing for a range of attached housing types including duplexes, and multiple-family housing types. The allowed density range translates to nine to 24 residences that could be constructed on this property if this GPA is approved; and
• RZ 23-02: Proposal to rezone the same 0.68 acres from the Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District. The R-3 Zone District provides for a similar range of housing types as the corresponding HDR General Plan designation.
There is no actual development proposed as part of this application.
Background
This property was originally part of a larger 5.73-acre parcel for which in June 2019 the Planning Commission considered and recommended approval to amend the General Plan, Rezone, and approved Tentative Subdivision Map 19-03, which divided the property into 18 lots (GPA 18-03, RZ 18-02, TSM 19-03). The GPA and RZ were approved by the City Council on September 17, 2019. The General Plan Amendment was generally intended to convert the vacant property from office and light industrial designations to residential for 17 of the proposed 18 lots. The subject
0.68-acre lot remained office commercial.
TPM 19-03 was originally approved on June 26, 2019 with an expiration date of June 26, 2021.
Since then the applicant/owner has received two extension, with a final expiration date of June 26, 2024. The conditions as set forth for Tentative Map (TSM) 19-03 shall still be in effect.
This proposal will place the last remaining lot of the original subdivision into a residential designation. Of the 18 subdivision lots, 10 of the lots along the west and much of the north side are zoned for single-family residences, six lots in the center of the subdivision are zoned for duplexes (12 residences), and the 1.5-acre parcel in the northeast corner of the subdivision (north side of this property) was designated for high density residential (typically apartments). This proposal for the 0.68-acre parcel requests a Medium-High density residential designation which allows a density range of 12-36 residences/acre consistent with the parcel on the north side of the property.
Analysis
Compatibility with neighboring uses:
With no development proposed it is not possible to fully consider the compatibility of the differing uses. However, placing this higher density residential property next to high density residential on
Item 5
3 the north would likely result in apartments, garden apartments, condominiums, duplexes, etc. The property to the west is similarly designated at a lower medium density residential, likely resulting in duplexes. Properties to the east are office type uses but the properties are back-to-back with a masonry wall between them, so compatibility should not be an issue. Across Bridge Street to the south there are single-family and multiple-family uses. There should be no compatibility issues with this proposal.
Traffic
Due to the parcel size (0.68 acres) of the proposed project, the proposal to change the land use and zoning from office to multiple-family will not create a large traffic generation difference. The General Plan provides density requirements for multiple-family developments as 12-36 dwelling units per acre (DUA), which means that a 0.68 parcel could result in nine to twenty-four new multiple-family or duplex residential units. Both Bridge Street, on which the site fronts, and nearby Walton Avenue are within the City’s acceptable level of service standard of D or better. Any development resulting from this project will be required to provide any needed on-site Bridge Street improvements for auto, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. As such, the potential impacts on nearby streets due to this project are considered to be less than significant.
Environmental Considerations:
An environmental assessment was prepared for this project (EA 23-04) 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 to the City Council adoption of a mitigated negative Table 2: Bordering Information and Uses
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning ExistingLand Use
Project
Site
Medium-High Density
Residential (HDR)
(proposed)
Multiple-Family
Residential (R-3)
(proposed)
Vacant
North HDR R-3 Vacant
East Office and Office Park (O) Office-Commercial (CO) Bank and office related
uses.
West
Low-Medium Density
Residential (MDR). Six to
14 residences per acre.
R-2 Vacant
South Low and Medium Density
Residential R1 and R-3
Bridge St. with singlefamily residential and
multi-family across the
street.
Item 5
4 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 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 of the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City recommending the City Council approve Environmental Assessment 23-04 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the Mitigation Measures, approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-02 re-designating 0.68-acres from the Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation, and adopt an Ordinance approving Rezone (RZ) 23-02 rezoning the same 0.68 acres from the Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, for the Bains on Bridge Street project, located on the north side of Bridge Street approximately 300 feet west of Walton Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 058-080-005).
Attachment:
1. Planning Commission Resolution (GPA 23-02, RZ 23-02) Exhibit A: General Plan Map, GPA 23-02
Exhibit B: Rezone Map, RZ 23-02
2. Location Map
3. Tentative Subdivision Map 19-03 and Conditions of Approval
4. Environmental Assessment 23-04 and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
ATTACHMENT 1
PC 23-15 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 23-15
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 23-04 BY ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
SUBJECT TO THE MITIGATION MEASURES, APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 23-02 RE-DESIGNATING 0.68-ACRES FROM THE OFFICE
AND OFFICE PARK (O) LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE MEDIUM-HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) DESIGNATION, AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING REZONE (RZ) 23-02 REZONING THE SAME 0.68 ACRES FROM THE
OFFICE COMMERCIAL (C-O) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE DISTRICT, FOR THE BAINS ON BRIDGE STREET
PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BRIDGE STREET
APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET WEST OF WALTON AVENUE (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 058-080-005).
WHEREAS, the City received an application for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from an Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to a High Density Residential (HDR) designation, and a Rezone for this same property, revising the zoning from a C-O Zone District to an R-3 Zone District; 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 23- 04 considering a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project, which provided mitigations that reduce potential significant impacts to less than significant; and WHEREAS, all development that may result from this action will be provided a full range of City services; and
WHEREAS, a review of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations determined that the proposed GPA/RZ is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City on July 6, 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 July 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing July 26, 2023 and considered all of the project and environmental information presented by staff, public testimony and all of the background information; 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 23-04, approving GPA 23-02, and adopting an ordinance approving RZ 23-02; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
PC 23-15 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City resolves and orders as follows:
1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein.
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 23-02 and Rezone 23-02, may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the MND prepared in Environmental Assessment 23-04.
Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and determine 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 23-04 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 judgment 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 23-04.
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 23-02, including the following:
PC 23-15 3
a. The proposed HDR land use designation, when used in conjunction with the proposed rezoning and the accompanying development standards, 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, and Walton 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. General Plan Housing Element Policy H-A-3 (Facilitate a Variety of Housing Types): This policy encourages a variety of housing types but particulary enphasises the use of the Medium High Density (HDR) Land Use Designation as the higher densities typically results in more affordable housing. This project to add property designated HDR will increase the City’s capacity for higher density housing by 4-9 residences. d. General Plan Housing Element Policy H-C-7 (Regional Housing Needs): This policy requires the City to add more HDR designated land. This proposal will add 0.67 acres designated as HDR, which translates to 4-9 new residences, likely at the more affordable range of housing types.
e. 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. f. 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. g. 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 General Plan Amendment 23-02. Based on the information provided above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of Yuba City adoption of General Plan Amendment 23-02, per the attached Exhibit A.
6. Rezone Findings. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find and determine, that Rezone 23-02 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 23-02. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that Rezone 23-02 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.
PC 23-15 4
7. Recommendation of Approval of the Rezone 23-02. Based on the information provided above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of Yuba City adoption of an ordinance approving RZ 23-02 and reclassify the zone districts as depicted in Exhibit B shown on the zoning map for the City of Yuba City.
8. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on July 26, 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 Map, GPA 23-02
Exhibit B: Rezone Map, RZ 23-02
EXHIBIT A
N NORTH VALLEY
N NORTH VALLEY
EXHIBIT B
N NORTH VALLEY
N NORTH VALLEY
ATTACHMENT 2
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the
GIS User Community
Bains on Bridge
I!
GPA 23-02, RZ 23-02 | Location Map
Project Site
ATTACHMENT 3
N
NVES
Tentative Subdivision Map 19-03
Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures
Conditions of Approval
General
1. Approval of Tentative Map (TSM) 19-03 may become null and void in the event that development is not completed in accordance with all the conditions and requirements imposed on this tentative parcel map, the Zoning Ordinance, the most recently Cityadopted Uniform Building Code, and all Public Works Standards and Specifications. The City shall not assume responsibility for any deletions or omissions resulting from the permit review process or for additions or alterations to construction plan not specifically submitted and reviewed and approved pursuant to this special permit or subsequent amendments or revisions.
2. The applicant, operator, and/or property owner ("Applicant" herein) is required to enter into an agreement with the City agreeing to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Yuba City, its officers, attorneys, agents, employees, departments, commissioners, authorized volunteers, and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this land use approval, including without limitation any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for City’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct. This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued. The land use approval shall not become effective until Applicant executes a “Covenant to Indemnify.
3. The Planning Commission’s approval of TSM 19-03 shall not become effective unless and until the City Council approves General Plan Amendment 18-03 and Rezoning 18-02. The effective approval date of this subdivision for purposes of this subdivision map’s expiration date, as described in Condition #4 below, shall not be until the effective date of the rezoning.
Expiration and Development Impact Fees
4. Approval of TSM 19-03 shall be null and void without further action if either the project has not been substantially commenced within two years of the approval date of TSM 19-03 or that a request for an extension of time, pursuant to Section 66452.6 and as amended, of the California Subdivision Map Act, has been submitted to the City prior to the map’s expiration date.
5. Development Impact Fees. Impact fees shall be paid pursuant to the YCMC.
Planning Division
6. The lot design on the subdivision map shall be designed in conformance with the TSM 19- 03, as approved by the Planning Commission.
7. TSM 19-03 shall comply with the Conditions of Approval.
8. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all residential lots that abut the neighboring nonresidential general plan designations shall be planted with a hedge type plant, as approved by the Development Services Director, along its common property line with the nonresidential designated properties.
9. A five-foot wide hedge planting shall be provided along the residential property lines that are in common with the neighboring commercial and light industrial properties. This includes hedge plantings along the northerly property line of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and along the easterly and southerly line of Lot 11.
Public Works Department
General
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Storage of construction material is not allowed in the travel way.
14. The Developer shall prepare and submit improvement plans for the construction of all public improvements including water, sanitary sewer, storm drain facilities, roadway improvements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway strips, signing, striping and streetlights.
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit
15. 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 residential or agricultural lands or impede the drainage from those properties. The rear yards and/or side yards of the lots that are created by this subdivision 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 Improvement Plans
16. A Subdivision Agreement outlining any costs (hot tap, connection fee, fair share contribution, etc.) associated with the development shall be accepted by the City prior to recordation of map.
17. The contractor shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City prior to performing any work within public rights of way.
18. A tunnel permit from the State Division of Occupational Safety and Health; Mining and Tunneling Unit will be required. A copy of this permit must be supplied to the City prior to approval of the improvement plans.
19. Where an excavation for a trench and/or structure is 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.
20. Bridge Street shall be widened to a typical half-width (centerline to back of curb). Right-ofway shall be dedicated together with a 12.0-foot PUE behind the right-of-way. Frontage improvements shall include street section, curb, gutter, and a 5.0-foot wide attached sidewalk.
21. Street “A” shall be constructed to a width of 37.0 feet back of curb to back of curb with parking permitted on both sides. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to a width of 38.0 feet together with a 19.5-foot PUE behind the right-of-way. Construction shall include street section, curbs, gutters, 4.0-foot wide detached sidewalk, street trees and street lights, except as otherwise shown on the tentative map and approved by the Public Works Department.
22. The structural section of all road improvements shall be designed using a geotechnical investigation which provides the basement soils R-value and expansion pressure test results. The structural section shall be designed to the following standards:
a. Use 3” minimum for residential, 4” minimum for collectors and 5” minimum for arterials, of ‘Type A’ asphaltic concrete over Class 2 aggregate base (the thickness of the base shall be designed to the R-value of the soil):
b. Use a traffic index of 6 for residential streets,
c. Use a traffic index of 7 for collector streets,
d. Use a traffic index of 10 for arterial streets,
A copy of the geotechnical investigation, including R-value, test locations and structural section calculations, shall also be submitted with the first improvement plan check.
23. 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. Speed limit signs shall be installed at locations determined by the Public Works Department.
24. The Developer shall submit to Sutter County a drainage plan for any drainage improvements that utilize County facilities for approval by Sutter County Public Works Director.
25. The Improvement Plans shall show provisions for the placement of centralized mail delivery units in the Public Utility Easement (P.U.E.). Developers will provide a concrete base for placement of the centralized mail delivery unit. Specifications and location of such base shall be determined pursuant to the applicable requirements of the Postal Service and the Yuba City Public Works Department, with due consideration for street light location, traffic safety, security and consumer convenience.
26. As required by Section 8-5.5904(b)(4) of the Zoning Regulations, prior to recordation of the final map, a solid 6.0-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed along the following locations (as locations are shown on the tentative map dated June 5, 2019):
a. Along the northerly property line of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; and b. Along the easterly and southerly line of Lot 11; and c. Between Lot 11 and Lot 12.
27. A solid 6.0-foot high decorative (as approved by the Development Services Director) masonry block wall with pilasters located no more than 50 feet apart, shall be constructed along the southerly line of Lots 1, 13, 18. At the entrances to the subdivision, the block wall shall be “stepped down” in a decorative manner that is acceptable to the Public Works Director.
28. 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 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.”
Prior to acceptance of Public Improvements
29. Prior to paving, the Developer shall vacuum test all manholes to ensure no leakage will occur.
30. Prior to paving, the Developer shall hydroflush, and televise, all storm drain mains and all sewer mains. In addition, prior to the City’s acceptance of the subdivision improvements, and at the Public Works Department’s discretion, the storm sewer and sewer mains shall be re-hydroflushed.
31. The contractor shall maintain record drawings of the improvements 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 (AutoCad version 2010 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.
Prior to Final Map Recordation
32. 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, or by another secure funding mechanism acceptable to the City. The City shall be reimbursed actual costs associated with the formation of, or annexation to, the district.
33. The property shall petition for formation of a Zone of Benefit of the Yuba City Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for the purpose of maintaining street trees which are to be planted along all streets, maintaining the street lights, maintaining the landscaping along Bridge Street, and maintaining the masonry walls. The Engineering Division shall be reimbursed actual costs associated with the formation of the district.
34. Three street lights shall be provided along Bridge Street at locations determined by the Public Works Director.
35. Street lights shall be installed along Street “A”.
36. All public street lighting shall be dedicated to the City of Yuba City.
37. A public utility easement shall be provided along all streets extending 10.0 feet behind the back of the sidewalk.
Prior to Building Permit
38. The Developer’s Superintendent/Representative shall submit three sets of Pacific Gas and Electric approved utility plans showing joint trench locations and distribution lines prior to issuance of first building permit.
39. The applicant shall be required to pay all applicable Sutter County Water Agency connection fees and maintenance and operation fees. Fees are payable at the Sutter County Development Services Counter located at 1130 Civic Center Blvd.
40. The Developer shall enter into an agreement with Sutter County providing the following:
Participation in a zone of benefit, drainage district, agency, service area or any other public entity for the financing of construction and maintenance of a drainage system. In addition to the special assessment district or public entity referred to immediately above, the agreement shall contemplate the imposition by the district or public entity of any legally available fee, assessment or other financing mechanism to facilitate the construction and maintenance of a drainage system.
41. All street lighting shall be energized prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
42. 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.
43. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all reduced pressure backflow preventers shall be tested and a back flow preventer certification performed by an AWWA licensed tester shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
44. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, all underground utilities, public improvements, and site improvements, including rough grading, shall be completed.
Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources Mitigation 1: In the event that previously undetected cultural materials (i.e. prehistoric sites, historic features, isolated artifacts, and features such as concentrations of shell or glass) are discovered during construction, work in the immediate vicinity should immediately cease and be redirected to another area until the Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria is re-contacted and allowed the opportunity to consult under AB 52. Further, a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historic archaeology inspects and assesses the find. The City shall consider further recommendations as presented by the professional and implement additional measures as necessary to protect and preserve the particular resource. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures.
Cultural Resources Mitigation 2: If human remains are uncovered, or in any other case where human remains are discovered, the Sutter County Coroner, as appropriate, is to be notified to arrange their proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified – on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits – as those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public Resource Code 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hour of discovery. The NAHC will then notify the most likely descendant, who may recommend treatment of the remains.
Cultural Resources Mitigation 3: Should artifacts or unusual amounts of bone or shell be uncovered during demolition or construction activity, all work shall be stopped and a qualified archeologist shall be contacted for on-site consultation. Avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation shall be completed according to CEQA guidelines. The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archeological Resource Management Reports, which shall be used for guidelines. If a bone appears to be human, California law mandates that the Sutter County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission be contacted.
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.
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 1: Worker Awareness Training. The City shall ensure that a Worker Education Program is developed and delivered to train equipment
operators about cultural resources. The program shall be designed to inform workers about:
federal and state regulations pertaining to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; the subsurface indicators of resources that shall require work stoppage; procedures for notifying the City of any occurrences; and enforcement of penalties and repercussions for noncompliance with the program. Worker education training may be provided either in person or as a DVD with a training binder, prepared by a qualified professional archaeologist and reviewed by the City. The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) shall be afforded the option of attending the initial training in person or providing a video segment or information for incorporation into the training that appeals to the contractor’s need to be respectful of tribal cultural resources and tribal participation in implementing unanticipated discovery protocols.
All ground-disturbing equipment operators shall be required to receive the training and sign a form that acknowledges receipt of the training. A copy of the form shall be provided to the City as proof of compliance.
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 2: Avoid and minimize impacts to previously unknown Tribal Cultural Resources. If any cultural resources, such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains are encountered during the initial inspection or during any subsequent construction activities, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the construction supervisor shall immediately notify the City representative. If the find includes human remains, then the City shall immediately notify the Sutter County Coroner and the procedures in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and, if applicable, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, shall be followed. For resources reasonably associated with Native American cultural and for human remains, the City shall coordinate with any necessary investigation of the discovery with a UAIC tribal representative and a qualified archaeologist approved by the City. As part of the site investigation and resource assessment, the City shall consult with UAIC to develop, document, and implement appropriate management recommendations, should potential impacts to the resources be found by the City to be significant. Nothing in this measure prohibits the City from considering any comments from other culturally-affiliated Native American tribes that volunteer information to the City during its investigation. Possible management recommendations could include documentation, data recovery, or (if deemed feasible by the City) preservation in place. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by the City staff to be necessary and feasible to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant effects to the cultural resources, such as the use of a Native American Monitor whenever work is occurring within 100 feet of the discovery of Native American Resources, if deemed appropriate by the City.
ATTACHMENT 4
Environmental Assessment 23-04
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 23- 02 and Rezone 23-02, Bains on Bridge Street. A request to amend the General Plan and rezone 0.68 acres from Office to Multiple-Family Residential.
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
July 6, 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 ..................................................................................................6 Contact Person and Phone Number.............................................................................................7 Project Location............................................................................................................................7 Project Applicant ..........................................................................................................................7 Property owner.............................................................................................................................7 General Plan Designation .............................................................................................................7 Zoning ...........................................................................................................................................7 Project Description .......................................................................................................................7
2.10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting............................................................................................12
2.11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required ........................................................12
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.? ............................................................12
2.13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:..............................................................................13
2.14. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: .......................................................................................14
3. Environmental Checklist and Impact Evaluation........................................................................15 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................15 Agricultural and Forestry Resources...........................................................................................18 Air Quality...................................................................................................................................22 Biological Resources...................................................................................................................30 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................34
3.6. Energy .........................................................................................................................................37
3.7. Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................39
3.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................................45
3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................................48
3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................................53
3 3.11. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................57
3.12. Mineral Resources......................................................................................................................58
3.13. Noise...........................................................................................................................................60
3.14. Population and Housing .............................................................................................................66
3.15. Public Services............................................................................................................................68
3.16. Recreation...................................................................................................................................70
3.17. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................71
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) 23-02 and Rezone (RZ) 23-02, Bains on Bridge Street (“Project”): This request will:
Amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map redesignating a 0.68-acre (approximately 30,000 square feet) parcel from the Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation. The HDR designation allows for a residential density range of 12 to 36 residences per acre. This designation provides for a range of attached housing types including duplexes, or multiple-family housing types. The allowed density range translates to nine to 24 residences that could be constructed on this property; and Rezone the same 0.68 acres from the Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District. The R-3 Zone District provides for a similar range of housing types as the corresponding MDR General Plan designation.
There is no actual development proposed as part of this application.
The GPA/RZ is considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the City has discretionary authority over the Project. The Project requires 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 statement describing the reasons why a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA pursuant to §15300 et
5 seq. of Article 19 of the Guidelines, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a) The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b) The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:
a. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and
b. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If revisions are adopted by the Lead Agency into the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared.
Document Format
This IS/MND contains four chapters. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the proposed Project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a detailed description of proposed Project objectives and components. Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible measures. If the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected.
If the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 4, List of Preparers, provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of the IS/MND.
Purpose of Document
The proposed GPA/RZ 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. 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.
The initial study is a public document used by the decision-making lead agency to determine whether the 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
6 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 July 6, 2023 and end on July 26, 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) 23-02 and Rezone (RZ) 23-02, Bains on Bridge Street.
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department, Planning Division
1201 Civic Center Blvd.
Yuba City, CA 95993
7 Contact Person and Phone Number
Doug Libby, AICP
Deputy Director of Development Services
(530) 822-3231
[email protected]
Project Location
The 0.68-acre parcel is located on the north side of Bridge Street approximately 300 feet west of Walton Avenue. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 058-080-005.
Project Applicant
Parm Bains
4142 Highway 99
Yuba City, CA 95991
Property owner
Parm Bains
4142 Highway 99
Yuba City, CA 95991
General Plan Designation
Existing: Office and Office Park (0) Land Use Designation.
Proposed: Medium-High Density (HDR) Land Use Designation (12-36 residences per acre).
Zoning
Existing: Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District.
Proposed: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District.
Project Description
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-02 and Rezone (RZ) 23-02 (Project): This request will:
Amend the General Plan Land Use Element map redesignating a 0.68-acre (approximately 30,000 square feet) parcel from the Office and Office Park (O) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation. The HDR designation allows for a residential density range of 12 to 36 residences per acre. This designation provides for a range of attached housing types including duplexes, or multiple-family housing types. The allowed density range translates nine to 24 residences that could be constructed on this property; and
8 Rezone the same 0.68 acres from the Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District. The R-3 Zone District provides for a similar range of housing types as the corresponding HDR General Plan designation.
There is no actual development proposed as part of this application.
9 Figure 1: Location Map
10 Figure 2: General Plan Amendment 23-02
11 Figure 3: Rezone 23-02
12 2.10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Setting: The 0.68-acre parcel is flat and vacant. The property is within a recently subdivided 5.73-acre property for which all the properties were placed within various residential designations except this parcel, which remained designated as Office. The neighborhood around the parcel ranges from a bank to the east, a vacant property designated for high density residential uses to the north, a vacant parcel to the west designated primarily for duplexes, and there are single-family residences and multiple-family residences to the south across Bridge Street.
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: Vacant 1.25-acre parcel designated for multiple-family residential uses.
South: Single-family and multi-family residences across Bridge Street.
East: Bank
West: Two vacant parcels designated for duplexes.
13 2.13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist and subsequent discussion on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources 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.
______________________________________________ __________________ 2023 Signature Date
Doug Libby, AICP, Deputy Director of Development Services Printed Name/Position
July 6,
14 2.14. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analysis,” as described below, may be cross referenced). A Mitigated Negative Declaration also requires preparation and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
15 3. Environmental Checklist and Impact Evaluation
The following section presents the initial study checklist recommended by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Appendix G) to determine potential impacts of a project. Explanations of all answers are provided following each question, as necessary.
Aesthetics
Table 3-1: Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In 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, comprise the long-range views. They are located several miles northwest of the Project site, visible from the much of the City, except in areas where trees or intervening structures block views of the mountain range.
The City’s General Plan, more specifically the Community Design Element “establishes policies to ensure the creation of public and private improvements that will maintain and enhance the image, livability, and aesthetics of Yuba City in the years to come.”
The following principles and policies are applicable:
▪ Maintain the identity of Yuba City as a small-town community, commercial hub, and residential community, surrounded by agricultural land and convey, through land uses and design amenities, Yuba City’s character and place in the Sacramento Valley.
16 ▪ Recognizing the livability and beauty of peer communities with highly designed visual landscapes, commit to a focus on the visual landscape of Yuba City. ▪ Maintain, develop, and enhance connections between existing and planned neighborhoods. ▪ Create and build upon a structured open space and parks network, centered on two large urban parks and the Feather River Corridor.
▪ Strive for lush, landscaped public areas marked by extensive tree plantings. ▪ Design commercial and industrial centers to be visually appealing, to serve both pedestrians and automobiles, and to integrate into the adjacent urban fabric.
In addition to the City’s General Plan, the City provides Design Guidelines. The goal of the City’s design guidelines is to ensure the highest quality of building design: designs that are aesthetically pleasing; designs that are compatible with the surroundings in terms of scale, mass, detailing, and building patterns; designs that accommodate the pedestrian, automobile, bicycle, and transit circulation; and designs that consider public safety, public interaction, and historic resources. As there is no actual development proposed the design guidelines do not apply to this proposal. They will be applied when a development is proposed.
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.
17 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. Further, as there is no development proposed so there will be no impacts on scenic resources.
Therefore, this GPA/RZ will not create any significant impacts on the scenic views from this area. When a development project is proposed it will be evaluated at that time on its own merits. No impacts are anticipated.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
This vacant property is unremarkable in that it is flat with no topographic features, rock outcroppings, large heritage type trees or buildings. Also, there is no development proposed so there will be no impact on scenic resources. When a development project is proposed it will be evaluated at that time on its own merits. No impacts are anticipated.
c) In nonurbanized areas substantially degrade the existing visual character of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
The site is within the urbanized area. Since no actual development is proposed, there will be no impacts on public views. When a development project is proposed it will be evaluated at that time on its own merits. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
The site is within the urban area where street lighting and exterior lighting is already prevalent. As there isn’t a development proposed at this time, there will be no impact on scenic resources. When a
18 development project is proposed, it will have to meet all adopted City standards, but it will be evaluated on its own merits at that time. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared (1997) by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Table 3-2: Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in 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.
19 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.
20 ▪ 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
21 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 0.68-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 urban uses. The property is also very small, making it unviable for agricultural use. Therefore, there will be no loss of agricultural land and no impacts are anticipated. 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. d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
22 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 to the south separated by Bridge Street and to the west separated by several vacant residentially designated parcels. 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
23 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
24 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
25 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
26 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
27 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.
3.3.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
28 As there is no physical development proposed at this time, there will be no direct air quality impacts.
However, when a development is proposed as a result of this action, 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 development and that a fugitive dust control plan be submitted prior to beginning work on the development, and due to the small parcel size, any potential significant environmental impacts are anticipated 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)? As there is no physical development proposed at this time, there will be no air quality impacts. However, when a development is proposed as a result of this action, the development would result in limited generation of criteria pollutants during its construction and on an ongoing basis from vehicle traffic generated by new residents. Due to the small size of the property, and the fact that all air quality standards will be required by FRAQMD to be met, the impacts on air quality would be 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.
There are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project. However, the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to reduce the impact from off-road diesel equipment from a development that could result from this GPA/RZ include:
▪ Install diesel particulate filters or implement other ARB-verifies diesel emission control strategies on all construction equipment to further reduce diesel PM emissions beyond the 45% reduction required by the Districts Best Available Mitigation Measure for Construction Phase; ▪ Use equipment during times when receptors are not present (e.g., when school is not in session or during non-school hours; or when office buildings are unoccupied); ▪ Establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from off-site receptors;
▪ Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible; ▪ Use haul trucks with on-road engines instead of off-road engines even for on-site hauling;
29 ▪ 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 property and the short duration of site grading, air quality impacts from development that may result from this action 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 new residencesthat could result from this action 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 would be less than significant.
30 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 0.68 acres are level, vacant, and within the Yuba City urbanized area. The small property is surrounded by other vacant parcels and urban 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
31 “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
32 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. 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 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
33 area for this species occurs at the extreme eastern boundary of the Planning Area at the confluence of the Feather and Yuba Rivers. As this property does not fall within this area, the impacts to special status species from any development that may result 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?
Development that could occur as a result of 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 a less than significant impact on biological resources anticipated 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. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
34 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 dedicated cemeteries? X
3.5.1. Federal Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), Section 106: The significance of cultural resources is evaluated under the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 are as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
▪ That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
▪ That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or ▪ That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ▪ That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP are considered to be historic properties. Sites younger than 50 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
3.5.2. State Regulatory Setting
CEQA requires consideration of project impacts on archaeological or historical sites deemed to be "historical resources." Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource is considered a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, a "historical resource" is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14 CCR §15064.5[a][1]-[3]). Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).
35 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.
36 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. Also, the site has been recently graded for construction of a previously approved subdivision. As such, the potential impacts on any historical resources, directly or indirectly, are considered a less than significant impact. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? The 0.68-acre property is vacant, and the site has been previously graded. No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the site. However, there still remains the potential for previously unknown sub-surface resources to be present. In order to avoid potential impacts to unknown remains, mitigation measures provided in Section 3.18 are provided to ensure impacts are less than significant. No additional mitigation is necessary.
37 3.6. Energy
Table 3-6: Energy
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
3.6.1 State Regulatory Setting
California has implemented numerous energy efficiency and conservation programs that have resulted in substantial energy savings. The State has adopted comprehensive energy efficiency standards as part of its Building Standards Code, California Codes of Regulations, Title 24. In 2009, the California Building Standards Commission adopted a voluntary Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen, which became mandatory in 2011. Both Title 24 and CALGreen are implemented by the City of Yuba City in conjunction with its processing of building permits.
CALGreen sets forth mandatory measures, applicable to new residential and nonresidential structures as well as additions and alterations, on water efficiency and conservation, building material conservation, interior environmental quality, and energy efficiency. California has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard, which requires electricity retailers in the state to generate 33% of electricity they sell from renewable energy sources (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric from small generators, etc.) by the end of 2020. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which increases the electricity generation requirement from renewable sources to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.
3.6.2. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? Project construction from a development that could result from this GPA/RZ 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
38 and GHG emissions. This electrical consumption would be consistent with construction activities of a similar character; therefore, the use of electricity in construction activities would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption would be reduced.
Moreover, under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard, a greater share of electricity would be provided from renewable energy sources over time, so less fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity would occur.
New construction is 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 will 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, the main sources of energy consumption would be ongoing residential activities and vehicle usage. However, associated vehicle traffic from the residences that could be constructed on this small parcel 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? New construction that could result from this GPA/RZ 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.
39 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
40 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,
41 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
42 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 most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and regulates construction in the corridors along active faults.
California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act: The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones.
Uniform Building Code: The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the Uniform Building Code with necessary California amendments. The Uniform Building Code is a widely adopted model building code in the United States published by the International Conference of Building Officials. About one-third of the text within the California Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions.
43 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 2004 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 are considered 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 adopted building codes reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
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 considered less than significant.
44 iv. Landslides?
According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2004 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. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As a result of this GPA/RZ future development of the property could result in approximately 0.68 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 considered 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?
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 having expansive soils. This Project area is not located within that area and therefore will not be impacted by the presence of expansive soils. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. 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? New residences that could result from this action 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 and therefore no impacts are anticipated. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature? Due to prior ground disturbances, including recent grading for construction of a previously approved subdivision, it is unlikely that any paleontological resources exist on the site. However, the following mitigation measure shall apply if any paleontological resources are discovered from a development that could result from his GPA/RZ:
3.7.5 Paleontological Mitigation Measures
Paleontological Mitigation Measure 1: Mitigation Measure # 1 shall be placed as a note on the Demolition and Grading Plans. If paleontological resources are found, the construction manager shall halt all activity and immediately contact the Development Services Department @ 530-822-4700.
Mitigation shall be conducted as follows:
45 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 measure 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
46 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?
Response provided in section b) below.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving force for Global Climate Change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. Global Climate Change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast
47 majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased emission of GHGs and long-term global temperature. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.
GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA).
The construction of residences that could result from this action 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 (less than an acre), 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 are anticipated to be reduced to a less than significant level.
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.
48 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
49 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.
50 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
51 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?
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 the construction that would result from this GPA/RZ 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, a less than significant impact is anticipated from household hazardous materials.
52 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There is not a school within one-quarter mile of the proposed GPA/RZ. As a result, a less than significant impact from hazardous materials upon a school is anticipated. 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 listing of sites that are contaminated by hazardous wastes. Therefore, the potential for impacts from a known hazardous materials site is less than significant. 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 site is not located within the Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, nor is it within two miles of a public use airport. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Emergency services are provided to this area by the Yuba City Fire and Police Departments. Neither agency has expressed concern over impacts the Project may have on any emergency response plans. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
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. As a result, there are no impacts from potential wildland fires anticipated by the proposed project.
53 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
54 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.
55 ▪ The most prevalent groundwater contaminants affecting California’s community drinking water wells are arsenic, nitrate, gross alpha activity, and perchlorate.
California Government Code 65302 (d): The General Plan must contain a Conservation Element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, river and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources.
That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any County-wide water agency and with all district and City agencies which have developed, served, controlled, or conserved water for any purpose for the County or City for which the plan is prepared.
Coordination shall include the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information described in Section 65352.5 if that information has been submitted by the water agency to the City or County. The conservation element may also cover:
▪ The reclamation of land and waters.
▪ Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. ▪ Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan.
▪ Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores. ▪ Protection of watersheds.
▪ The location, quantity, and quality of the rock, sand, and gravel resources. ▪ Flood control.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: On September 16, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed historic legislation to strengthen local management and monitoring of groundwater basins most critical to the state’s water needs. The three bills, SB 1168 (Pavley) SB 1319 (Pavley) and AB 1739 (Dickinson) together makeup the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act comprehensively reforms groundwater management in California. The intent of the Act is to place management at the local level, although the state may intervene to manage basins when local agencies fail to take appropriate responsibility. The Act provides authority for local agency management of groundwater and requires creation of groundwater sustainability agencies and implementation of plans to achieve groundwater sustainability within basins of high and medium priority.
3.10.3 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Most of the City’s public water supply comes from the Feather River. The water is pumped from the river to the Water Treatment Plant located in northern Yuba City. The plant also sometimes utilizes a groundwater well in addition to surface water supplies due to recent drought conditions. Since any development that could result from this GPA/RZ will receive water only through the City system, it is unlikely that the Project could impact the water quality in the City system.
Wastewater generated by development that could result from new residences that could result from this GPA/RZ will flow into the City wastewater treatment facility which is in compliance with all state water discharge standards. Residential wastewater is not expected to generate any unique type of waste that would cause the system to become out of compliance with state standards.
56 All storm water runoff associated with the Project will drain into the City’s existing storm drain system and into the Gilsizer Slough that flows to the Sutter By-Pass. 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, a less than significant impact on the City’s water and waste-water systems or storm water drainage system from development that would result from this GPA/RZ will occur. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin? New development that could result from this GPA/RZ will connect to the City’s water system. While consumer consumption of City water will increase with the Project, very little, if any, groundwater will be utilized as the City primarily utilizes surface water supplies in its system. A less than significant impact is anticipated.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? There will be an increased amount of stormwater drainage caused by new impermeable surfaces created by development that could result from the proposed Project, which will ultimately drain into the Feather River. That development will be required to construct the local stormwater 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 that are implemented as project conditions.
Assuming all required standards are met there is not expected to be any significant impacts from additional storm water drainage from the site.
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency this portion of the City is outside of the 100- year flood plain. This is due to the existing levee system that contains seasonally high-water flows from the nearby Feather River from flooding areas outside of the levee system. Additional construction within the City that is outside of the levee system does not impact the levee system and therefore does not increase, impede, or otherwise have any effect on the highwater flows within the levee system.
Therefore, there is no significant impact on the high-water flows within the Feather River levee system. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
57 According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this portion of the City is outside of the 100- year flood plain as most areas of Yuba City are provided with 200-year flood protection. 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 the Project site would be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, mudflow or landslide. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated 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 from a development that could result from this action would be considered less than significant. Regarding water quality, as noted in Part a) above, all new construction is required to utilize 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 a less than significant impact on groundwater is anticipated.
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 0.68-acre property is flat and vacant. The property is part of a larger new subdivision that is currently vacant.
3.11.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal or state regulations pertaining to land use and planning relevant to the proposed Project.
3.11.3 Local Regulatory Setting
58 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?
Development that could result from this Project will not physically divide an established community as the new construction would be part of a newly constructed neighborhood within this new subdivision. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? This general plan amendment and rezone is consistent with other general plan policies and programs that generally encourage additional housing. The new construction that could result from this project is required to comply with all City design and development standards. As such, the new development’s impacts on plans, policies and programs designed to avoid or mitigate environmental effects is considered to 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 continuing supply of mineral resources for the State. The act also creates surface mining and reclamation policy to assure that: