23 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?
This area was a part of the former LESP where an EIR (SCH#2006082094) was adopted and certified by the Yuba City Council. Although the plan was vacated, the completed environmental analysis remains. The LESP area was identified as containing Farmland of Statewide Importance, an Important Farmland type as well as other lesser quality designated soils. The loss of agricultural land associated with the LESP was determined in the EIR to be a significant and unavoidable impact and Findings of Overriding Consideration were adopted as part of that project’s approval.
Additionally, the City evaluated the loss of farmland within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) or Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as part of the 2004 General Plan process and have included policies designed to reduce the impact of converting agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. As part of adopting the 2004 General Plan update, the City also adopted an Environmental Impact Report that also made Findings of Overriding Consideration for the loss of agricultural land within the SOI. The proposed project site was recently annexed to the City and had previously been a part of the City’s long established SOI.
The 41.36-acre site is located on land that the 2018 Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map for Sutter County identifies as “Unique Farmland.” However, the site is within the boundaries of the Yuba City urban area and is within the City limits. The City and Sutter County General Plans identify this area for urban development, as compared to the vast majority of Sutter County for which agricultural land is protected from urban growth (this was identified in the EIR’s for both the Yuba City and Sutter County General Plans). The property has been planned for and designated by the City for urban uses, as provided in the General Plan. The EIR for the City General Plan as well as the EIR for the Lincoln East Specific Plan considered the impacts on agricultural land to be significant and unavoidable but made overriding considerations for the significant impacts on. This subdivision will not create any additional significant impacts over what has already been identified regarding the loss of agricultural land. Therefore, the impact on agriculture land above what was anticipated in the General Plan EIR and the Lincoln East Specific Plan EIR will be less than significant.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
24 The property is not under a Williamson Act contract and the Project is consistent with existing zoning for non-agricultural uses. As such there are no impacts from inconsistent zoning or effects on a Williamson Act property.
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 consistent with the existing R-1 zoning. The Project is located in the Sacramento Valley in a relatively flat area that is being utilized for agriculture but designated years ago for urban use.
There are no forests or timberlands 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? 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? While the underlying soils have agriculture qualities, the area has been planned for and designated by the City for urban development as part of the 2004 City General Plan and the former LESP. Both of those plans analyzed impacts related to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses and each plan was approved by the City Council where EIRs were certified and Findings of Overriding Consideration were made for the loss and conversion of agricultural land. There are no nearby agricultural uses that are anticipated to be adversely impacted by this project. There are no forestlands on the project site or in the vicinity. No properties within the area are within the Williamson Act. For these reasons, the proposed project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact.
25 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Table 3.3: Air Quality
Would the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
3.3.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Yuba City is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), which consists of the northern half of the Central Valley and approximates the drainage basin for the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The SVAB is bounded on the west by the Coast Range, on the north by the Cascade Range, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the south by the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The intervening terrain is flat, and approximately 70 feet above sea level. The SVAB consists of the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba and portions of Placer and Solano Counties.
Hot dry summers and mild rainy winters characterize the Mediterranean climate of the Sacramento Valley. The climate of the SVAB is dominated by the strength and position of the semi-permanent highpressure cell over the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii. In summer, when the high-pressure cell is strongest and farthest north, temperatures are high and humidity is low, although the incursion of the sea breeze into the Central Valley helps moderate the summer heat. In winter, when the high-pressure cell is weakest and farthest south, conditions are characterized by occasional rainstorms interspersed with stagnant and sometimes foggy weather. Throughout the year, daily temperatures may range from summer highs often exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit and winter lows occasionally below freezing. Average annual rainfall is about 20 inches with snowfall being very rare. The prevailing winds are moderate in strength and vary from moist clean breezes from the south to dry land flows from the north.
In addition to prevailing wind patterns that control the rate of dispersion of local pollutant emissions, the region experiences two types of inversions that affect the vertical depth of the atmosphere through which pollutants can be mixed. In the warmer months in the SVAB (May through October), sinking air forms a "lid" over the region. These subsidence inversions contribute to summer photochemical smog problems by confining pollution to a shallow layer near the ground. These warmer months are characterized by stagnant morning air or light winds with the delta sea breeze arriving in the afternoon out of the
26 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 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
27 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 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,
28 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 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
29 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 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
30 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? Grading the site will briefly create equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. Ongoing air quality impacts will be from exhaust generated by vehicle traffic from the new residences. The new interior roadways will also be paved which will create some air pollutants. Standards set by FRQAMD, CARB, and Federal agencies relating to the proposed Project will apply. Prior to the initiation of construction, a Fugitive Dust Control Plan will be submitted to FRAQMD as a part of standard measures required by the District. An Indirect Source Review (ISR) application will be filed with the Air District to address emissions from construction.
Since the developer must prepare an air quality analysis and incorporate all of the resulting conditions into the Project and that a fugitive dust control plan be submitted prior to beginning work on the subdivision, any potential significant environmental impacts should be reduced to less than significant.
31 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? The Project would result in limited generation of criteria pollutants during Project construction and from vehicle traffic generated by the new residents following the construction of the residences. However, the proposed subdivision did not trigger comments from FRAQMD that air quality standards would be exceeded by this Project to the extent of being cumulatively significant. Therefore, the cumulative impacts are considered to be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The FRAQMD defines sensitive receptors as: facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. FRAQMD states that if a project is located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor location, the impact of diesel particulate matter shall be evaluated. According to the FRAQMD’s Indirect Source Review Guidelines, “Construction activity can result in emissions of particulate matter from the diesel exhaust (diesel PM) of construction equipment.
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 have been included as a mitigation measure. With this mitigation the impacts from will be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Construction of the residential subdivision and the ongoing single-family residential uses typically do not generate objectionable odors. As such, the impact of the Project creating local offensive odors would be less than significant.
3.3.6 Air Quality Mitigation Measure
Air Quality Mitigation Measure 1: The development shall use the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the impact from off-road diesel equipment include:
▪ Install diesel particulate filters or implement other ARB-verifies diesel emission control strategies on all construction equipment to further reduce diesel PM emissions beyond the 45% reduction required by the Districts Best Available Mitigation Measure for Construction Phase; ▪ Use equipment during times when receptors are not present (e.g., when school is not in session or during non-school hours; or when office buildings are unoccupied); ▪ Establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from off-site receptors;
▪ Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible; ▪ Use haul trucks with on-road engines instead of off-road engines even for on-site hauling;
32 ▪ 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.
33 Biological Resources
Table 3.4: Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
3.4.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The 41.36-acre level property is within the City of Yuba City. The site has been in agricultural use with no native habitat remaining. There are no known on-site or nearby riparian or critical habitat areas.
3.4.2. Federal & State Regulatory Setting
Threatened and Endangered Species: State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal endangered species acts, candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society are collectively referred to as “species of special status.” Permits may be required from both the CDFW and USFWS if activities
34 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 Waters of the U.S. are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued
35 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? Per the EIR prepared for the LESP, Swainson’s hawk and other raptor species are the only known sensitive or special status species known in the area. There is nesting within five miles of the Project area. As a precaution, to ensure against the disturbance of an active nesting site a mitigation measure is proposed to ensure there are no nesting raptors on the site prior to construction activities. This mitigation will reduce the potential impacts on any sensitive or special status species to a less than significant level.
According to the Yuba City General Plan EIR, the only designated special status vegetation species within Yuba City and its Sphere of Influence is the Golden Sunburst, a flowering plant that occurs primarily in non-native grasslands and is threatened mostly by the conversion of habitat to urban uses. The habitat area for this particular species occurs at the extreme eastern boundary of the Planning Area at the
36 confluence of the Feather and Yuba Rivers. This property does not fall within this area, therefore there would a less than significant impact to special status species as a result of this project. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
According to the biological report for the EIR prepared for the LESP, no wetlands or federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present within the proposed Project area or general vicinity. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
According to the EIR prepared for the LESP, no wetlands or federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present within the proposed Project area or general vicinity. There would be no impact on any wetland areas or waterways.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed Project would not disturb any waterways, as the nearest waterway is the Feather River, being several miles to the east. Therefore, migratory fish would not be affected. Per the EIR’s prepared for the General Plan and for the LESP, there are no known wildlife movement corridors associated with the Project site other than certain raptor species discussed above. A mitigation measure is provided below to address the potential impacts on raptor species nesting sites. As a result, the impacts on fish or wildlife habitat would be less than significant with mitigation. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No native trees or other biological resources other than several raptor species that are discussed above that would be protected by local policies or ordinances remain on the proposed Project site. Therefore, the impacts on biological resources caused by this Project will be less than significant. 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.
3.4.5 Biological Resource Mitigation Measure
Biological Resource Mitigation Measure 1: Pre-construction Nesting Surveys: Pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors should be conducted on trees within the subject property if construction activities occur between March 1 and September 15 pursuant to California Department of Fish & Wildlife requirements. These surveys should be accomplished no later than 7 days prior to commencement of tree removals and grading activities. If nesting raptors are discovered, the Project biologist shall identify
37 and implement appropriate mitigation, subject to City review and approval, to ensure protection of the raptors prior to any tree removals.
Cultural Resources
Table 3.5: Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5.
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5.
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
3.5.1. Federal Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), Section 106: The significance of cultural resources is evaluated under the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 are as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
▪ That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
▪ That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or ▪ That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ▪ That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP are considered to be historic properties. Sites younger than 50 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
3.5.2. State Regulatory Setting
CEQA requires consideration of project impacts on archaeological or historical sites deemed to be "historical resources." Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource is considered a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, a "historical resource" is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14 CCR §15064.5[a][1]-[3]). Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or
38 archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).
The eligibility criteria for the California Register are the definitive criteria for assessing the significance of historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (Office of Historic Preservation). Generally, a resource is considered "historically significant" if it meets one or more of the following criteria for listing on the California Register:
▪ Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
▪ Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. ▪ Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. ▪ Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1[c])
In addition, the resource must retain integrity. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, § 4852(c)).
Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5: Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
3.5.3. Native American Consultation
In September of 2014, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which added provisions to the PRC regarding the evaluation of impacts on tribal cultural resources under CEQA, and consultation requirements with California Native American tribes. In particular, AB 52 now requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on “tribal cultural resources” separately from archaeological resources (PRC § 21074; 21083.09). AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (PRC § 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3). More information is provided in Section 3.18.
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 is a single-family residence on the property that will be removed as part of this Project. The home does not appear old enough to be considered historic. Per the historical resource surveys conducted for
39 the LESP EIR there is only one building within the LESP area that is considered to have historical importance – Dahling House – which is located elsewhere within the specific plan area. The EIR prepared for the General Plan update also did not identify any additional buildingsin the vicinity as having historical value. As such the potential for significant impacts on any historical resources is less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
The LESP EIR documented a field investigation which did not discover any prehistoric archaeological sites or features and, presently, there are no cemeteries within the project area. In the course of project development, there is the possibility of encountering previously unidentified stone or bone tools or fragments; cultural features such as house floors or hearths; concentrations of dietary debris; and/or human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries both within the plan area as well as off-site. A standard accidental discovery mitigation measure, GEO 1, has been incorporated (see Section 3.7, Geology, below), which will reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The 41.36-acre property that will be developed has been farmed as an orchard for many years. Per the LESP EIR no formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the proposed Project site. However, there 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.
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.
40 CALGreen sets forth mandatory measures, applicable to new residential and nonresidential structures as well as additions and alterations, on water efficiency and conservation, building material conservation, interior environmental quality, and energy efficiency. California has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard, which requires electricity retailers in the state to generate 33% of electricity they sell from renewable energy sources (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric from small generators, etc.) by the end of 2020. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which increases the electricity generation requirement from renewable sources to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.
3.6.2. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? As with air pollutant emissions, the main sources of energy consumption would be site preparation and construction activities. These activities would involve fuel consumption and use of other non-renewable resources. Construction equipment used for such improvements typically runs on diesel fuel or gasoline.
The same fuels typically are used for vehicles that transport equipment and workers to and from a construction site. However, construction-related fuel consumption would be finite, short-term, and consistent with construction activities of a similar character. This energy use would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Electricity may be used for equipment operation during construction activities. It is expected that more electrical construction equipment would be used in the future, as it would generate fewer air pollutant and GHG emissions. This electrical consumption would be consistent with construction activities of a similar character; therefore, the use of electricity in construction activities would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption would be reduced.
Moreover, under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard, a greater share of electricity would be provided from renewable energy sources over time, so less fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity would occur.
The Project would be required to comply with CALGreen and with the building energy efficiency standards of California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 in effect at the time of project approval. Compliance with these standards would reduce energy consumption associated with project operations, although reductions from compliance cannot be readily quantified.
Overall, Project construction and operations would not consume energy resources in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Project impacts related to energy consumption are considered less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? In addition to reducing energy consumption, the proposed sustainability components are consistent with state and local energy efficiency plans. All components will be consistent with the energy efficiency goals of CALGreen and Title 24, and similar measures (see Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). This project is consistent with applicable state and local plans to increase energy efficiency. As a result, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
41 3.7 Geology and Soils
Table 3.7: Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly expose people or structures
to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resources or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
3.7.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Topography and Geology: According to the Sutter County General Plan, Sutter County is located in the flat surface of the Great Valley geomorphic province of California. The Great Valley is an alluvial plain approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central portion of California. The Great Valley’s northern portion is the Sacramento Valley, drained by the Sacramento River, and its southern portion is the San Joaquin Valley, drained by the San Joaquin River. The geology of the Great Valley is typified by thick sequences of alluvial sediments derived primarily from erosion of the mountains of the Sierra Nevada to the east, and to a lesser extent, erosion of the Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range to the north. These sediments were transported downstream and subsequently laid down as a river channel, floodplain deposits, and alluvial fans.
42 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, 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
43 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 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
44 located in the central portion of the county extending north to south, with scattered areas along the southeastern edge of the county. Soil descriptions for the principal soil units in the county are provided below. These descriptions, which were developed by the NRCS, are for native, undisturbed soils and are primarily associated with agricultural suitability. Soil characteristics may vary considerably from the mapped locations and descriptions due to development and other uses. Geotechnical studies are required to identify actual engineering properties of soils at specific locations to determine whether there are specific soil characteristics that could affect foundations, drainage, infrastructure, or other structural features.
3.7.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
Historic Sites Act of 1935: This Act became law on August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) and has been amended eight times. This Act establishes as a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects, including geologic formations.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which was first authorized by Congress in 1977, coordinates the earthquake-related activities of the Federal Government. The goal of NEHRP is to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States through basic and directed research and implementation activities in the fields of earthquake science and engineering. Under NEHRP, FEMA is responsible for developing effective earthquake risk reduction tools and promoting their implementation, as well as supporting the development of disaster-resistant building codes and standards. FEMA's NEHRP activities are led by the FEMA Headquarters (HQ), Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Risk Reduction Division, Building Science Branch, in strong partnership with other FEMA HQ Directorates, and in coordination with the FEMA Regions, the States, the earthquake consortia, and other public and private partners.
3.7.3 State Regulatory Setting
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (originally enacted in 1972 and renamed in 1994) is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The statute prohibits the location of mot types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and regulates construction in the corridors along active faults.
California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act: The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones.
Uniform Building Code: The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the Uniform Building Code with necessary California amendments. The Uniform Building Code is a widely adopted model building code in the United States published by the International Conference of Building Officials. About one-third of the text within the California Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions.
45 Paleontological Resources: Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals and associated deposits. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has identified vertebrate fossils, their taphonomic and associated environmental indicators, and fossiliferous deposits as significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be considered significant resources. CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature (CEQA Appendix G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) Section 15126.4 (a)(1)). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 (see above) also applies to paleontological resources.
3.7.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Directly or indirectly expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
According to the Yuba City General Plan, no active earthquake faults are known to exist in Sutter County, although active faults in the region could produce ground motion in Yuba City (Dyett & Bhatia, 2004). The closest known fault zone is the Bear Mountain Fault Zone, located approximately 20 miles northeast of Yuba City (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2015). Potentially active faults do exist in the Sutter Buttes, but those faults are considered small and have not exhibited activity in recent history. Because the distance from the City to the closest known active fault zone is large, the potential for exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects from fault rupture is low. Considering that the Building Code incorporates construction standards for minimizing earthquake damage to buildings, and the low potential for a significant earthquake activity in the vicinity, the potential for adverse impacts from an earthquake is less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
In the event of a major regional earthquake, fault rupture or seismic ground shaking could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. Ground shaking could potentially expose people and property to seismic-related hazards, including localized liquefaction and ground failure. However, all new structures are required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction, and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards. General Plan Implementing Policies 9.2-I-1 through 9.2-I-8 and the building codes reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The proposed Project is not located within a liquefaction zone according to the California Department of Conservation’s California Geologic Survey regulatory maps. Regardless, all new structures are required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction, and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards. Therefore, the potential impact from ground failure is less than significant.
46 iv. Landslides?
According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan, due to the flat topography, erosion, landslides, and mudflows are not a risk in the City limits or within the City’s Sphere of Influence. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? All of the Project’s 41.36 acres would be disturbed during site grading. Even though the area is relatively flat, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the City/Sutter County Water Agency drainage system. However, as part of the grading and construction of the subdivision the applicant will be required to follow Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and provide erosion control measures to minimize soil runoff during the construction process. Therefore, impacts from soil erosion are less than significant.
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
See d) below.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The extreme southwest corner of the Yuba City Sphere of Influence is the only known area with expansive soils. The Project area is not located within that area and therefore will not be impacted by the presence of expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? All of the new residences will be connected to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. No new septic systems will be utilized. As such, there will be no new impacts from septic systems. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature? Due to prior ground disturbances for agricultural and residential usesit is unlikely that any paleontological resources exist on the site. However, the following mitigation measure shall apply if any paleontological resources are discovered.
3.7.5 Paleontological Mitigation Measure
Paleontological Mitigation Measure 1: Mitigation Measure 1 shall be placed as a note on the Demolition and Grading Plans. If paleontological resources are found, the construction manager shall halt all activity and immediately contact the Development Services Department at 530-822-4700.
Mitigation shall be conducted as follows:
1. Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by intense field survey where impacts are considered high;
2. Assess effects on identified sites;
47 3. Consult with the institutional/academic paleontologists conducting research investigations within the geological formations that are slated to be impacted;
4. Obtain comments from the researchers;
5. Comply with researchers’ recommendations to address any significant adverse effects were determined by the City to be feasible.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City’s Community Development Department Staff shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, Specific or General Plan policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out.
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 3.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
3.8.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98), which became effective December 29, 2009, requires that all facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent per year beginning in 2010, report their emissions on an annual basis. On May 13, 2010, the USEPA issued a final rule that established an approach to addressing GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA) permitting programs. The final rule set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
In addition, the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) found that the USEPA has the authority to list GHGs as pollutants and to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) under the CAA. On April 17, 2009, the USEPA found that CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride may contribute to air pollution and may endanger public health and welfare. This finding may result in the USEPA regulating GHG emissions; however, to date the USEPA has not propose 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
48 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?
The proposed project will emit greenhouse gases during project construction due to the operation of construction equipment, and from worker and building supply vehicles. Additionally, the development of homes will increase the potential for additional greenhouse emissions. The City encourages the use of the following in addressing energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, to be addressed as a condition of the project:
▪ Use of green-building materials on buildings and other outdoor structures, such as low-emission concrete, recycled aggregate, recycled reinforcing, or waffle pods to be used in foundations; recycled plastics to be used in community structures such as fencing or playground equipment; wood flooring materials to be treated with low emissions varnishes and floor board substrates to be made from low emission particleboard; and other recycled building materials like recycled aluminum for window frames or post-consumer plastic for piping; ▪ Installation of photovoltaic rooftop energy systems where feasible; ▪ Establishment of tree-planting guidelines that encourage residents to plant trees to shade buildings primarily on the west and south sides of the buildings. Use of deciduous trees (to allow solar gain during the winter) and direct shading of air conditioning systems shall be included in the guidelines;
▪ Include energy-conserving features as options for home buyers, such as:
49 1. Increased wall and ceiling insulation (beyond building code requirements);
2. Energy efficient windows (double-paned or low-E);
3. Radiant heat barriers;
4. Solar water-heating systems; and
5. Low NOx-emitting or high-efficiency, energy efficient water heaters. ▪ Awnings or other shading mechanisms for windows;
▪ Porch, patio, and walkway overhangs;
▪ Ceiling fans or whole-house fans;
▪ Daylighting (natural lighting) systems such as skylights, light shelves, and interior transom windows;
▪ Electrical outlets around the exterior of units shall be installed to encourage the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment;
▪ Use of low and no-VOC coatings and paint;
▪ Natural gas lines (if available to the project area) shall be provided in backyard or patio areas to encourage the use of gas barbecues; and
▪ Pre-wire units with fiber and other high-speed internet connections. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving force for Global Climate Change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. Global Climate Change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased emission of GHGs and long-term global temperature. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.
GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA).
The proposed construction of the subdivision will create GHG emissions due to the use of motorized construction equipment. The emissions will be from construction equipment during the construction of the subdivision and residences. Once completed, vehicle traffic generated by auto use from the new residences will contribute GHG gases. Due to the small size of the Project it is not expected to create significant greenhouse gas emissions. However, on a cumulative scale, possible reasonable reductions
50 could be applied to the Project in order to further minimize those impacts. Specifically addressing this proposal, the City’s Resource Efficiency Plan addresses greenhouse gas concerns and provides a description of greenhouse gas reduction measures. A mitigation measure is included that requires the Project incorporate the relevant greenhouse gas reduction measures. With this mitigation the impacts from greenhouse gases will be less than significant.
3.8.4 Greenhouse Mitigation Measure
GHG 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Pertaining to potential cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions, site grading process shall comply with the GHG Reduction Measures provided in the adopted Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan.
Given compliance with the City’s established rules, and proposed mitigation as recommended, impacts associated with this item are considered to be less than significant.
51 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 Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation,
52 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.
53 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
54 quality for waters of the State, while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters.
California Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA): In California, every employer has a legal obligation to provide and maintain a safe and healthful workplace for employees, according to the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (per Title 8 of the CCR). The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) program is responsible for enforcing California laws and regulations pertaining to workplace safety and health and for providing assistance to employers and workers about workplace safety and health issues. Cal/OSHA regulations are administered through Title 8 of the CCR. The regulations require all manufacturers or importers to assess the hazards of substances that they produce or import and all employers to provide information to their employees about the hazardous substances to which they may be exposed.
California Fire Code: The California Fire Code is Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code. The California Fire Code incorporates the Uniform Fire Code with necessary California amendments. This Code prescribes regulations consistent with nationally recognized good practice for the safeguarding to a reasonable degree of life and property from the hazards of fire explosion, and dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the use or occupancy of buildings or premises and provisions to assist emergency response personnel.
3.9.3 Local Regulatory Setting
Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The SCACLUP was adopted in April 1994 by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). SACOG is the designated Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties under the provisions of the California Public Utilities Code, Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670.1 Airport Land Use Commission Law. The purpose of the ALUC law is to (1) protect public health, safety, and welfare through the adoption of land use standards that minimize the public’s exposure to safety hazards and excessive levels of noise, and (2) Prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses around public-use airports, thereby preserving the utilities of these airports into the future.
3.9.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
See b) below.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The only hazardous materials associated with the construction of this subdivision 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 generated by the Project would be household hazardous waste. Assuming proper and legal disposal of those wastes there should not be a significant impact from hazardous materials.
55 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 Project. Also, assuming proper use of the fuels, solvents, and oil for the grading and paving equipment, there should not be any significant impacts.
Similarly, for household hazardous waste generated by new residences, assuming proper and legal use and disposal there will be no significant impacts.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The property is not on any listings of sites that are contaminated by hazardous wastes. Therefore, the potential for impacts from a known hazardous materials site are 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 adopted Sutter County Airport and the Yuba County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plans, nor is within two miles of a public or public use airport. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Yuba City Fire Department and Police Department serve this area. Neither agency has expressed concern over impacts the Project may have on any emergency response plans. Accordingly, the impacts on emergency services will be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The Project site is located on the edge of the urban area, and the urban area is surrounded by irrigated agricultural lands. There are no wildlands on the site or in the vicinity. Accordingly, the potential impacts from wildland fires are less than significant.
56 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 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that can be used for planning purposes. Flood hazard areas identified
57 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.
▪ The most prevalent groundwater contaminants affecting California’s community drinking water wells are arsenic, nitrate, gross alpha activity, and perchlorate.
58 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 the new residences will only receive water through the City system, it is unlikely that the Project could degrade the water quality in the City system.
All of the wastewater generated by the 179 new residences will flow into the City wastewater treatment facility which is in compliance with all state water discharge standards. The wastewater from the residences is not expected to generate any unique type of waste that would cause the system to become out of compliance with state standards.
All storm water runoff associated with the Project will ultimately drain into the Feather River. The water quality of the stormwater runoff is addressed through General Plan Implementing Policies 8.5-I-1 through
59 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.
Additionally, even though the project site is relatively level, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the City stormwater drainage system. As part of the construction of the subdivision, the development of the site is subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
This triggers the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes City adopted Best Management Practices designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwaters moving offsite into receiving waters during the construction process. Assuming all necessary permits are acquired, impacts on water quality are anticipated to be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin? All of the new residences that will result from construction of this subdivision will be connected to the City’s water system. While consumption of City water will increase with the Project, very little, if any, groundwater will be utilized as the City primarily utilizes surface water supplies in its system. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned m 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 this development, which will ultimately drain into the Feather River. The Project will be required to construct the local collection facilities and pay the appropriate fees to the City and Sutter County Water Agency for its fair share of improvements and expansion to the existing drainage system that it will be connected too. Also, as noted above, all new construction must involve use of Best Management Practices. Assuming all required standards are met, there is not expected to be any significant impacts from additional storm water drainage from the site.
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency this portion of the City is outside of the 100- year flood plain. This is due to the existing levee system that contains seasonally high-water flows from the nearby Feather River from flooding areas outside of the levee system. Additional construction within the City that is outside of the levee system does not impact the levee system and therefore does not increase, impede, or otherwise have any effect on the highwater flows within the levee system.
Therefore, there is no impact on the high-water flows within the Feather River levee system. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
60 This portion of the City is outside of the 100-year flood plain. The City is not close to the ocean or any big lakes so a seiche is unlikely to happen in or near the City. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean, so people or structures in the City would not be exposed to inundation by a tsunami. Mudflows and landslides are unlikely to happen due to the relatively flat topography within the Project area. Thus, it is unlikely that the Project site would be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, mudflow, or landslide.
Therefore, there is no potential for significant impacts from any of these types of events. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As noted above, all new construction is required to utilize Best Management Practices. Assuming all required standards are met, water quality of runoff water from the Project will not create any significant impacts. The City primarily utilizes surface water for its water source so there will be no significant impacts on groundwater.
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Table 3.11: Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
3.11.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The 41.36-acre site and neighboring properties have primarily been utilized for agricultural except for severalsingle-family residencesinterspersed among the orchards. But the General Plan Land Use Element designates this and the neighboring properties to be developed with low density residential and related uses. The site is bordered on both the north and west sides (across Lincoln Road and George Washington Boulevard) by unincorporated property even though they are within the Yuba City Sphere of Influence, are within the City’s General Plan area, and are planned for urban development.
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
61 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?
The transition of the property to residential uses and a park will be a change from the existing agricultural use. However, the Project would not divide an established neighborhood but would provide for expansion of residential uses in the area. Further, this property and the neighboring properties have been planned for and designated by the City for urban uses, as provided in the General Plan. As such this Project would allow for expansion of the community but would not divide an existing community and would therefore be a less than significant impact.
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 single-family residential Project is consistent with the LDR General Plan land use designation. The proposed Project will have a density of approximately 4.7 residences per acre (excludes park property), which is within the permitted range of 2 to 8 residences per acre. The Project will provide its fair share of street improvements, sewer and stormwater system improvements, and parkland dedication, as provided for in the General Plan. The Project is not in conflict with any land use policies which and as such any environmental impacts due to conflicts with policies, programs, or regulations will be less than significant.
3.12 Mineral Resources
Table 3.12: Mineral Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
X
3.12.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the proposed Project.
62 3.12.2 State Regulatory Setting
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975: Enacted by the State Legislature in 1975, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq., insures a continuing supply of mineral resources for the State. The act also creates surface mining and reclamation policy to assure that:
▪ Production and conservation of minerals is encouraged; ▪ Environmental effects are prevented or minimized;
▪ Consideration is given to recreational activities, watersheds, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment;
▪ Mined lands are reclaimed to a useable condition once mining is completed; and ▪ Hazards to public safety both now and in the future are eliminated.
Areas in the State (city or county) that do not have their own regulations for mining and reclamation activities rely on the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Office of Mine Reclamation to enforce this law. SMARA contains provisions for the inventory of mineral lands in the State of California.
The State Geologist, in accordance with the State Board’s Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, must classify Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) as designated below:
▪ MRZ-1. Areas where available geologic information indicates that there is minimal likelihood of significant resources.
▪ MRZ-2. Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant mineral deposits are located or likely to be located.
▪ MRZ-3. Areas where mineral deposits are found but the significance of the deposits cannot be evaluated without further exploration.
▪ MRZ-4. Areas where there is not enough information to assess the zone. These are areas that have unknown mineral resource significance.
SMARA only covers mining activities that impact or disturb the surface of the land. Deep mining (tunnel) or petroleum and gas production is not covered by SMARA.
3.12.3 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
See b) below.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The Yuba City General Plan does not recognize any mineral resource zone within the City limits, and no mineral extraction facilities currently exist within the City. Because of this the property contains no known mineral resources and there is little opportunity for mineral resource extraction. Additionally, the site
63 has nearby residential uses, which generally is considered incompatible with mineral extraction facilities.
As such the Project will not have an impact on mineral resources.
3.13 Noise
Table 3.13: Noise
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people be residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X
3.13.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment for Noise Noise can be generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain.
Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the frequency/sound power level spectrum.
The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency midrange. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of Aweighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements.
Noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. Noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the
64 contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual receptor. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts.
3.13.2 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment for Groundbourne Vibration Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV), or root mean squared (RMS), as in RMS vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS (VbA) vibration velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal and is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings.
Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. As it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals, it is more prudent to use vibration velocity when measuring human response. The typical background vibration velocity level in residential areas is approximately 50 VdB. Groundborne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels.
Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. The approximate threshold of vibration perception is 65 VdB, while 85 VdB is the vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.
3.13.3 Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal Vibration Policies: The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FRA, fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 90 VdB without experiencing structural damage. The FTA has identified the human annoyance response to vibration levels as 75 VdB.
3.13.4 State Regulatory Setting
California Noise Control Act: The California Noise Control Act was enacted in 1973 (Health and Safety Code §46010 et seq.), and states that the Office of Noise Control (ONC) should provide assistance to local communities in developing local noise control programs. It also indicates that ONC staff would work with the Department of Resources Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to provide guidance for the preparation of the required noise elements in city and county General Plans, pursuant to Government Code § 65302(f). California Government Code § 65302(f) requires city and county general plans to include
65 a noise element. The purpose of a noise element is to guide future development to enhance future land use compatibility.
Title 24 – Sound Transmission Control: Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) codifies Sound Transmission Control requirements, which establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards for new hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. Specifically, Title 24 states that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room of new dwellings Title 24, Part 2 requires an acoustical report that demonstrates the achievements of the required 45 dBA CNEL. Dwellings are designed so that interior noise levels will meet this standard for at least ten years from the time of building permit application.
3.13.5 Local Regulatory Setting
The City of Yuba City General Plan presents the vision for the future of Yuba City and outlines several guiding policies and policies relevant to noise.
The following goals and policies from the City of Yuba City General Plan are relevant to noise.
Guiding Policies
▪ 9.1-G-1 Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the present and future residences of Yuba City.
▪ 9.1-G-2 Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses. ▪ Implementing Policies
▪ 9.1-I-1 Require a noise study and mitigation for all projects that have noise exposure greater than “normally acceptable” levels. Noise mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
o Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment,
o Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings, o Retain fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers, o Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows, and o Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.
▪ 9.1-I-3 In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consider an increase of four or more dBA to be "significant" if the resulting noise level would exceed that described as normally acceptable for the affected land use in Figure 5. ▪ 9.1-I-4 Protect especially sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise, by enforcing “normally acceptable” noise level standards for these uses. ▪ 9.1-I-5 Discourage the use of sound walls. As a last resort, construct sound walls along highways and arterials when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility.
66 ▪ 9.1-I-6 Require new noise sources to use best available control technology (BACT) to minimize noise from all sources.
▪ 9.1-I-7 Minimize vehicular and stationary noise sources and noise emanating from temporary activities, such as construction.
Table 1: Noise Exposure
LAND USE CATEGORY
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE - Ldn or CNEL (dBA)
50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low Density
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile
Home
Residential – Multi-Family
Transient Lodging –
Motel/Hotel
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditorium, Concert Hall,
Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business,
Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
67 Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development generally should not be undertaken.
Source: State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2003. General Plan Guidelines.
City of Yuba City Municipal Code: Title 4, Chapter 17, Section 4-17.10(e) of the Yuba City Municipal Code prohibits the operation of noise‐generating construction equipment before 6:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. daily, except Sunday and State or federal holidays when the prohibited time is before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m.
3.13.6 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The proposed project will result in the establishment of 179 single family residential lots and a 2.65-acre park. The project site is within the boundaries of the former Lincoln East Specific Plan (LESP) where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously adopted (SCH# 2006082094). The project site is adjacent to existing developed homes and agricultural uses.
Temporary increase in noise will occur during construction of the subdivision and home construction that would follow, which will primarily occur during daylight hours, Monday through Saturday. Noise from construction activities would contribute to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. This could have an impact on existing nearby residences. Activities involved in construction could generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 2, ranging from 79 to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers) and ranging from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, with feasible noise control. However, due to the limited duration of the construction activities, that the construction will occur during the less sensitive daylight hours and, considering the distance between the construction area and the existing residences, the noise effects from this activity are expected to be less than significant.
Table 1: Noise Levels of Typical Construction
Type of Equipment (1) dBA at 50 ft.
Without Feasible Noise Control (2) With Feasible Noise Control Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Scraper 88 80
Front End Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Truck 91 75
(1) US Environmental Protection Agency. “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances.” Figure IV.H‐4. 1971.
(2) Feasible noise control includes the use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds operating in accordance with manufacturers specifications
68 The LESP EIR identified traffic noise impacts on the residences near Lincoln Road and George Washington Boulevard. But the EIR also provides that the use of six-foot high masonry walls along the exterior boundaries which is what is proposed. Therefore, the noise level is expected to be within acceptable levels in the new residential neighborhood. Once constructed the single-family residences are generally not considered to be significant noise generators.
The City’s Municipal Code requires that project construction activities be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays and state and federal holidays. Noise produced from construction-related activities is exempt from the exterior noise limits set by the City’s Municipal Code. The LESP EIR explained that compliance with the noise ordinance is adequate mitigation to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. However, because construction activities could expose occupants of adjacent uses to high levels of noise during the day, the LESP recommended the following mitigation measures to further reduce potential noise associated with construction.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce exposure of occupants on and off the project site to noise associated with project construction to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measures NOI 1, which is also Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 of the LESP EIR, will ensure maximum reduction of noise impacts on receptors near the construction areas by shielding construction activities and staging construction equipment away from residential, and school uses, limiting construction hours to daytime hours, and use of exhaust and intake silencers on construction equipment. Staff has updated subsection (a) of this mitigation measure to clarify it applies to development on parcels less than 50-feet from existing noise sensitive uses because the original measure was unclear on its applicability. Additionally, it is recommended in subsection (f) that the notification requirement be reduced from 500-feet to 300-feet to coincide with existing public noticing requirements for projects. These measures will assist to reduce the exposure of occupants both on and off the project site to the maximum extent feasible; thus, this impact would remain less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Project construction activities have the potential to generate vibration associated with impact equipment such as jackhammers and the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment such as trucks and bulldozers, jackhammers. Table 3 below shows typical vibration levels for construction equipment.
Table 2: Typical Construction Levels
Equipment (1) VdB at 25 ft2
Small Bulldozer 58
Vibratory Roller 94
Jackhammer 79
Loaded Trucks 86
(1) US Environmental Protection Agency. “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances.” Figure IV.H‐4. 1971.
Vibration can damage buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber; however, vibration significance is oriented toward avoiding sleep disturbance in residential areas; Based on the information presented the LESP EIR and specifically Table 4.9-7 and Table 4.9-10, vibration levels at residences nearest construction equipment would be expected to exceed the 80 VdB impact criterion for “infrequent”
69 vibration events7 associated with Land Use Category 2 (residences and buildings where people normally sleep).
Based on the estimated vibration levels of construction equipment, only equipment such as a large bulldozer and loaded truck would produce a vibration level above 80 VdB at 25 feet from the source. At 50 feet from the source, the vibration levels from typical construction equipment are not above the FTA’s 80 VdB ground borne vibration impact criteria. Construction activities would be limited to the daytime hours between 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM in accordance with the Yuba City Municipal Code; thus, construction activities would not occur during normal sleep hours. However, vibration levels still have the potential to interfere with sleep within the residences or other sensitive buildings during construction hours and could be above the acceptable vibration levels for infrequent events at residential land uses (80 VdB) if within 25 feet of the receptor.
Because construction of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to excessive ground borne vibration levels above the Federal Transportation Administration’s (FTA) vibration impact criteria, this would be a potentially significant impact.
To address this potential impact, the LESP EIR recommended a mitigation measure that if construction equipment is located at least 50 feet from sensitive receptors, such as residential uses or other land uses where people normally sleep, ground borne vibration levels would be kept below the FTA’s vibration impact criteria of 80 VdB for infrequent events. Although this mitigation is well intentioned, build-out of subsequent adjacent projects, where there is no intervening road, make this mitigation measure infeasible because equipment used for compacting and grading would be prohibited from working in adjoining project back yard area or near common property lines. As a result, staff proposes to amend this mitigation measure to reduce this distance to 20-feet so that subsequent adjoining subdivisions can build out.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will assist to limit the amount of sleep disturbance to occur during construction hours by excessive ground borne vibration levels reducing the impact to a less-than significant level.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Project is not located within two miles of the Sutter County Airport and the Yuba County Airport nor is it near any other public airport or public use airport. Since the Project is not impacted by airport noise, there should be no potential for any significant impacts from any airport activity.
3.13.7 Noise Mitigation Measures
Noise Mitigation Measure 1: The project contractor(s) shall ensure that the following measures are implemented during all phases of project construction:
a) Whenever construction occurs on parcels less than 50-feet from residential buildings where people normally sleep, schools or other sensitive uses, when it occurs during later project stages on parcels near residential and other noise-sensitive uses built on-site during earlier project stages, temporary barriers shall be constructed around the construction sites to shield the ground floor and lower stories of the noise-sensitive uses. These barriers shall be of ¾- inch Medium Density Overlay (MDO) plywood sheeting, or other material of equivalent utility and appearance, and shall achieve a Sound Transmission Class of STC-30, or greater, based on
70 certified sound transmission loss data taken according to ASTM Test Method E90. The barrier shall not contain any gaps at its base or face, except for site access and surveying openings.
The barrier height shall be designed to break the line-of-sight and provide at least a 5-dBA insertion loss between the noise producing equipment and the upper-most story of the adjacent noise-sensitive uses. If, for practical reasons, which are subject to the review and approval of the City, a barrier cannot be built to provide noise relief to the upper stories of nearby noise-sensitive uses, then it must be built to the tallest feasible height. b) Construction equipment staging areas shall be located as far as possible from residential areas while still serving the needs of construction contractor(s). c) High noise activities, such as jackhammers, drills, impact wrenches and other generators of sporadic high noise peaks, shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, unless it can be proved to the satisfaction of the City that the allowance of work outside these hours and dates would not adversely affect nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
d) Construction equipment shall be properly muffled and maintained with noise reduction devices to minimize construction-generated noise.
e) The unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. f) Residents and businesses within 300 feet of the construction site shall be notified of the construction scheduling in writing.
g) The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (i.e., starting too early, bad muffler, no shielding), and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the construction coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and be included in the notice sent to neighbors and businesses regarding the construction schedule.
Noise Mitigation Measure 2: The project applicant shall require that all construction contracts include specifications that construction equipment remain a minimum of 20 feet from residential buildings or other buildings where people normally sleep.
The incorporation of the above mitigation measure will ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
71 3.14 Population and Housing
Table 3.14: Population and Housing
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
3.14.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The Project would be a planned extension of residential uses into an agricultural area. The property is abutted by agricultural uses but for which are also designated in the General Plan for urban type uses.
3.14.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the proposed Project.
3.14.3 State Regulatory Setting
California law (Government Code Section 65580, et seq.) requires cities and counties to include a housing element as a part of their general plan to address housing conditions and needs in the community.
Housing elements are prepared approximately every eight years, following timetables set forth in the law.
The housing element must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and “make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community,” among other requirements. The City recently adopted its current Housing Element.
3.14.4 Regional Regulatory Setting
State law mandates that all cities and counties offer a portion of housing to accommodate the increasing needs of regional population growth. The statewide housing demand is determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), while local governments and councils of governments decide and manage their specific regional and jurisdictional housing needs and develop a regional housing needs assessment (RHNA).
In the greater Sacramento region, which includes the City of Yuba City, SACOG has the responsibility of developing and approving an RHNA and a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) every eight years (Government Code, Section 65580 et seq.). This document has a central role of distributing the allocation of housing for every county and city in the SACOG region. Housing needs are assessed for very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate households.
72 As described above, SACOG is the association of local governments that includes Yuba City, along with other jurisdictions comprising the six counties in the greater Sacramento region. In addition to preparing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region, SACOG approves the distribution of affordable housing in the region through its RHNP. SACOG also assists in planning for transit, bicycle networks, clean air and serves as the Airport Land Use Commission for the region.
3.14.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed Project will result in 179 single-family residences and a City park. This is on property that is mostly surrounded by agricultural uses. Single-family residential development has been planned for this property and neighboring properties since at least the adoption of the General Plan in 2004. As this property and neighboring properties have been planned for development for many years, this Project will not induce unplanned growth to the area, and as a result the impacts from unplanned growth will be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed Project will result in the demolition of one single-family residence. As an offset the Project proposes to construct 179 new single-family residences. As such the loss of the residence will be a less than significant impact.
73 3.15 Public Services
Table 3.15: Public Services
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) 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:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
3.15.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Law enforcement for the proposed new housing will be provided by the Yuba City Police Department. Fire protection is provided by the Yuba City Fire Department. Nearby parks and other urban services that will be utilized by new residents, including streets, water, and sewer. Stormwater drainage will also be provided by Yuba City.
3.15.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Fire Protection Association: The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international nonprofit organization that provides consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education on fire prevention and public safety. The NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 such codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks. The NFPA publishes the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, which provides requirements to establish a reasonable level of fire safety and property protection in new and existing buildings.
3.15.3 State Regulatory Setting
California Fire Code and Building Code: The 2013 California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provision of the Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service features such as fire
74 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 housing 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 the proposal and did not express concerns. Since all new housing development pays impact fees that intended to offset the cost of additional police facilities and equipment resulting from this growth the impacts on police services will be less than significant.
Schools: New residences will pay the Yuba City Unified School District adopted school impact fees that are intended to provide the new resident’s fair share for expanded or new educational facilities needed to accommodate this new growth. Therefore, the impact on schools will be less than significant.
Parks: The Project proposes to dedicate almost three acres for a City park site, as provided in the General Plan, as well as completing all of the associated right-of-way improvements, as well as paying City development impact fees for parks and recreation. As this will offset any additional park usage generated by this Project, 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 residential connection to those systems must pay connection fees that are utilized for expansion of the respective treatment plants. The City also collects development impact fees for County services that are provided to the new residences, such as the library system and justice system.
Accordingly, the Project’s impacts on the provision of public services will be less than significant.
75 3.16 Recreation
Table 3.16: Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
3.16.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Yuba City has 22 City-owned parks and recreational areas, managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. This consists of four community parks, 15 neighborhood parks, and three passive or mini parks.
3.16.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations regarding parks and open space that are applicable to the proposed Project.
3.16.3 State Regulatory Setting
State Public Park Preservation Act: The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is the Public Park Preservation Act of 1971. Under the PRC section 5400-5409, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non-park use unless compensation or land, or both, are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides no net loss of parkland and facilities.
Quimby Act: California Government Code Section 66477, referred to as the Quimby Act, permits local jurisdictions to require the dedication of land and/or the payment of in-lieu fees solely for park and recreation purposes. The required dedication and/or fee are based upon the residential density and housing type, land cost, and other factors. Land dedicated and fees collected pursuant to the Quimby Act may be used for developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities.
3.16.4 Local Regulatory Setting
The Yuba City General Plan and the City’s Parks Master Plan provide a goal of providing 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents, while it also requires 1 acre of Neighborhood Park for every 1,000 residents.
The City’s development impact fee program collects fees for new development which is allocated for the acquisition and development of open space in the City.
76 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 179 new residences that will be constructed as a result of this subdivision will incrementally increase the use of City parks. However, the Project will dedicate almost three acres for parkland and will pay park related development impact fees. The park land dedication as well as the fees that are utilized for new or expanding City parks and will mitigate any incremental impacts on recreational facilities. Implementation of the mitigation measure will reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level. 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? The Project proposes to dedicate land for a future City park site. The park site was considered in all sections of this in this environmental document for its potential impacts, which were considered to be less than significant.
3.16.6 Recreation Mitigation Measures
Recreation Mitigation Measure 1: Development of the neighborhood park shall be consistent with the approved Development Agreement.
3.17 Transportation/Traffic
Table 3.17: Transportation Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a)
Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
3.17.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal Highway Administration: FHWA is the agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the Federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway network and portions of the primary State highway network. FHWA funding is provided through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficiency Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA- LU can be used
77 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. Local Regulatory Setting
The Yuba City General Plan Transportation Element has policies regulating all mode of transportation and related activities. Specifically, there are Implementing Policies regarding Traffic Levels of Service that are relevant to the Project review process:
5.2-I-12 Develop and manage the roadway system to obtain LOS D or better for all major roadways and intersections in the City. This policy does not extend to residential streets (i.e., streets with direct driveway access to homes) or bridges across the Feather River nor does the policy apply to state highways and their intersections, where Caltrans policies apply. Exceptions to LOS policy may be allowed by the City Council in areas, such as downtown, where allowing a lower LOS would result in clear public benefits. Specific exceptions granted by the Council shall be added to the list of exceptions below:
• SR 20 (SR 99 to Feather River Bridge) – LOS F is acceptable; • SR 20 (Feather River Bridge) – LOS F is acceptable;
78 • Bridge Street (Twin Bridges across the Feather River) – LOS F is acceptable; • Lincoln Road (New bridge across the Feather River) - LOS F is acceptable.
No new development will be approved unless it can be shown that required level of service can be maintained on the affected roadways.
5.2-I-13 Develop and manage residential streets (i.e., streets with direct driveway access to homes) to limit average daily traffic volumes to 2,500 or less and 85th percentile speeds to 25 miles per hour or less.
5.2-I-14 Require traffic impact studies for all proposed new developments that will generate significant amounts of traffic.
Specific thresholds will be based on location and project type, and exceptions may be granted where traffic studies have been completed for adjacent development.
5.2-I-15 Improve intersections as needed to maintain LOS standards and safety on major arterials.
3.17.4. 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 original traffic analysis prepared for the LESP EIR concluded that development of the specific plan area would require major street improvements to the General Plan level streets within the plan area and nearby. The study determined that those impacts would be significant without major improvements of those streets. Mitigation a fair share of improvements was included in the LESP, primarily for street intersections. All projects would make fair share contributions. Even though the specific plan was rescinded, the land use densities and intensities remained the same, so the impacts on the street system is assumed to be the same. For this Project a follow-up traffic review was prepared (Focused Traffic Impact Analysis, Sohal Ranch Subdivision, LESP Mitigation Review, prepared by MHM Incorporated, April 17, 2023 – copy attached to this study). The study considered all of the original relevant intersection improvements with today’s City adopted traffic impact fees. Most of those intersection improvements have since been included in the City impact fee program which the Project will automatically pay into on a per-residential building permit basis, and no longer needs to be included as mitigation measures for the Project. This includes:
• Franklin Road/Harding Road
• Franklin Road/Walton Avenue
• Bogue Road Walton Avenue
• Franklin Road/George Washington Blvd.
• Lincoln Road/SR 99
• Franklin Road/Harding Road
• Lincoln Road/Harter Parkway
79 There are several items that are not within the citywide traffic impact fee program for which fair share mitigation is needed. This includes:
• Bogue Road/Sanborn Road
• Lincoln Road/Sanborn Road
• To provide public transit service and park and ride program for the LESP area.
Mitigation Measures provided below will mitigate this potential impact to less than significant.
3.17.5 Transportation Mitigation Measure
Traffic Mitigation Measure 1: The project applicant(s) shall contribute its fair share of the cost to provide public transit service and additional park-and-ride space for the plan area as determined by the City of Yuba City through participation in a benefit or assessment district or through a separate agreement between the applicant(s), the City of Yuba City, and Yuba-Sutter Transit. At a minimum, service is expected to include the following components.
• Fixed-route bus service connecting the plan area to existing Yuba-Sutter Transit service with a minimum of hourly headways during normal operating hours. • Demand-responsive service meeting ADA paratransit requirements in the plan area. • Expansion of peak period (AM and PM) weekday commuter bus service to downtown Sacramento.
• Expansion of park-and-ride space.
Costs shall include the capital costs of transit vehicles and facilities as well as the operating and maintenance cost of the service beyond what would be paid for through the transportation development act (TDA) funding.
Costs shall include the capital costs of transit vehicles and facilities as well as the operating and maintenance cost of the service beyond what would be paid for through the transportation development act (TDA) funding.
Traffic Mitigation Measure 2: For Bogue Road/Sanborn Road - until this intersection is added to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Study Program, the project applicant(s) shall pay a fair-share to install a traffic signal at the Bogue Road/Sanborn Road intersection. If it is added to the City’s Fee Study Program the project applicant(s) shall be responsible for complying with the Fee Study Program.
Traffic Mitigation Measure 3: Lincoln Road Sanborn Road, until this intersection is added to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Study Program the project applicant shall pay a fair share to install a traffic signal and construct one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane on all approaches at the Lincoln Road/Sanborn Road intersection.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? This CEQA section describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). SACOG, in “Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” provides two criteria for which if the project meets either of them, the traffic impacts are considered less than significant. One criterion is that the project generates less than 110 vehicle trips
80 per day is considered to be less than a significant impact. The Project will exceed this criterion, so it is not further considered in this review. The second criterion is that if a project, on a per capita or per employee basis, the VMT will be at least 15 percent below that of existing development is a reasonable threshold for determining significance. SACOG also has released a draft document (SB 743 regional screening maps) that provides mapping data indicating the average miles traveled for different areas within and around Yuba City. The range of the categories are:
Less than 50% of regional average.
50-85% of regional average.
85-100% of the regional average.
115-150% of the regional average.
More than 150% of the regional average.
Per the SACOG maps, for this area under consideration, the estimated average vehicle distance traveled per residence is in the 50-85% range of the norm. In other words, per the SACOG regional screening maps, this subdivision is located in an area that meets the 15 percent vehicle trip reduction criteria. Thus, the transportation impacts from this subdivision are consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.4(b) and it follows that the traffic impacts generated by this Project are considered to be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The primary intersection impacted by the Project is the Lincoln Road/George Washington Boulevard intersection. The Project will also be creating two new local street intersections onto those roads. Per the Public Works Department, the improvements made to the Lincoln Road/George Washington Boulevard intersection and the new local street intersections as a result of this Project will meet all City standards those intersections. As such impacts due to inadequate geometric design will be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Fire Department and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed subdivisions. They did not express concerns about emergency access to the property. As such, with the improvements to Lincoln Road and George Washington Boulevard, as well as payment of traffic impact fees for other street improvements, the impacts on providing emergency access to all nearby areas is less than significant.
81 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
3.18.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) in the Master Plan. The following analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to TCRs is derived primarily from the following sources:
▪ California Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search, December 11, 2017 ▪ Ethnographic overview of the Nisenan culture
▪ Environmental Impact Report for the City of Yuba City General Plan (2004) ▪ Consultation record with California Native American tribes under Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
3.18.2 State Regulatory Setting
Assembly Bill 52: Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.
Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the
82 purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.
Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, 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.
3.18.3 Cultural Setting
The Nisenan (also referred to as Southern Maidu) inhabited the General Plan area prior to large-scale European and Euroamerican settlement of the surrounding area. Nisenan territory comprised the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American Rivers, and the lower drainages of the Feather River. The Nisenan, together with the Maidu and Konkow, their northern neighbors, form the Maiduan language family of the Penutian linguistic stock (Shipley 1978:89). Kroeber (1976:392) noted three dialects:
Northern Hill Nisenan, Southern Hill Nisenan, and Valley Nisenan. Although cultural descriptions of this group in the English language are known from as early as 1849, most of our current cultural knowledge comes from various anthropologists in the early part of the 20th century (Levy 1978:413; Wilson and Towne 1978:397).
The basic subsistence strategy of the Nisenan was seasonally mobile hunting and gathering. Acorns, the primary staple of the Nisenan diet, were gathered in the valley along with seeds, buckeye, salmon, insects, and a wide variety of other plants and animals. During the warmer months, people moved to mountainous areas to hunt and collect food resources, such as pine nuts. Bedrock and portable mortars and pestles were used to process acorns. Nisenan settlement patterns were oriented to major river drainages and tributaries. In the foothills and lower Sierra Nevada, Nisenan located their villages in large flats or ridges near major streams. These villages tended to be smaller than the villages in the valley. (Wilson and Towne 1978:389–390.)
83 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.
3.18.4 Summary of Native American Consultation
As provided above, AB 52 now requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on “tribal cultural resources” separately from archaeological resources (PRC § 21074; 21083.09). AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (PRC § 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).
In response to AB 52, 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
3.18.5 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
84 are:
▪ Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
▪ Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision k of Section 5010.1; and/or
▪ 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.
3.18.6 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
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).
There are no known tribal and cultural resources known to exist on or proximate to the project site and none have been identified (as defined in Section 21074) within the project area. Therefore, no resources listed for or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register are present. A mitigation measure has been added to address potential for inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources. With this mitigation, this impact is considered less than significant. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
The UAIC reviewed the cultural study prepared for the LESP EIR. As a result, they concluded that further study was not needed but recommended use of the standard Unanticipated Discoveries Measure be utilized as a mitigation measure. Given the level of previous disturbance within the Project area, it is not
85 expected that any TCRs would remain. However, during grading and excavation activities, there is a potential to encounter native soils, which may contain undiscovered TCRs. In the unlikely event resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities that are associated with Native American culture, compliance with the TCR Mitigation Measure provided below would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
3.18.7 Tribal Cultural Mitigation Measure
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation 1: Worker Awareness Training. The developer shall ensure that a Worker Education Program is developed and delivered to train equipment operators about cultural resources and training shall be documented. 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 a work stoppage; procedures for notifying the City of any occurrences; and enforcement of penalties and repercussions for non-compliance 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 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 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 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.
The types of treatment preferred by UAIC that protects, preserves or restores the integrity of tribal cultural resources 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 tribal cultural resources will be documented in the project record. For any recommendations
86 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.
87 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
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
3.19.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wastewater: Yuba City owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that provides sewer service to 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 approximately 18,045 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 Statepermitted 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.
88 3.19.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Discharge of treated wastewater to surface water(s) of the U.S., including wetlands, requires an NPDES permit. In California, the RWQCB administers the issuance of these federal permits. Obtaining a NPDES permit requires preparation of detailed information, including characterization of wastewater sources, treatment processes, and effluent quality. Any future development that exceeds one acre in size would be required to comply with NPDES criteria, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the inclusion of BMPs to control erosion and offsite transport of soils.
3.19.3 State Regulatory Setting
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): Waste Discharge Requirements Program. State regulations pertaining to the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, CCR, Section 20005 et seq. (hereafter Title 27). In general, the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Program (sometimes also referred to as the “Non-Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program”) regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 20230 of Title 27. Several programs are administered under the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs.
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle): The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track the 76 million tons of waste generated each year in California. CalRecycle develops laws and regulations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40050 et seq. or Assembly Bill (AB 939, codified in PRC 40000), administered by CalRecycle, requires all local and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills.
This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.
Regional Water Quality Control Boards: The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The State Board sets statewide policy for the implementation of state and federal laws and regulations. The Regional Boards adopt and implement Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans), which recognize regional differences in natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities.
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
89 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, 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. Additionally, construction impacts from the installation of utility line extensions to serve the site were analyzed in the LESP EIR.
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.
The extension of electric power facilities, natural gas facilities and telecommunication facilities are provided by private companies, none of which have voiced concerns over the extensions of their services to this project site. With these considerations, the impact on these types of facilities is anticipated 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 project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
90 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 this region including all of Sutter and Yuba Counties. There is adequate collection and landfill capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
Transportation and disposal of all waste due to the proposed project’s construction and build-out would be facilitated in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.
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.
91 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? As discussed in Section 3.17 of this Initial Study, Project construction is not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area. Project operations would not obstruct any roadways. 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 irrigated agricultural area that is transitioning to urban use. There is little, if any, native vegetation remaining. This type of environment is generally not subject to wildfires near the urban area. 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 will not create any potential significant impacts that could result from these types of improvements.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The Project site is in a topographically flat area. There are no streams or other channels that cross the site.
As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Impacts of the Project related to these issues would be less than significant.
92 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Table 3.21: Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, 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 substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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 land was stripped many years ago of native vegetation for agricultural uses. Therefore, with the proposed mitigation measure for raptors that may be nesting on the property, the construction of this subdivision 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.
93 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 Project is consistent with the residential densities and policies of the General Plan. As such the traffic generated by the Project 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 extending those services to the site. Stormwater drainage will also meet all City standards. The City has good development and design standards that will be applied to the subdivision. The loss of agricultural land is cumulative but based on City and County agricultural protection program, the loss is limited to within the urban areas of the cities which is a minor portion of the entire County. The school district has not indicated that they lack capacity to provide proper educational facilities to 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 significant impacts that will be individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
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.
94 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:
MHM Engineering, July 12, 2023, Focused Traffic Impact analysis for Sohal Ranch Subdivision, LESA Mitigation Review.
PBSJ for the City of Yuba City, March 2009, Environmental Impact Report for the Lincoln East specific Plan.
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.
95 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. “Fault Zone Activity Map.” AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor. Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland Map.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
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
96 Appendix A
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PLAN
SOHAL RANCH SUBDIVISION
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 22-06 For Tentative Subdivision Map 22-02 and
a Development Agreement
97 City of Yuba City
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PLAN
Sohal Ranch Subdivision:
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 22-06 For Tentative Subdivision Map 22-02 and a Development Agreement Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing
3.3 Air Quality Air Quality Mitigation Measure 1: The development shall use the following Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to reduce the impact from off-road diesel
equipment include:
• Install diesel particulate filters or implement
other ARB-verifies diesel emission control
strategies on all construction equipment to
further reduce diesel PM emissions beyond
the 45% reduction required by the Districts
Best Available Mitigation Measure for
Construction Phase;
• Use equipment during times when receptors
are not present (e.g., when school is not in
session or during non-school hours; or when
office buildings are unoccupied);
• Establish staging areas for the construction
equipment that are as distant as possible
from off-site receptors;
• Establish an electricity supply to the
construction site and use electric powered
equipment instead of diesel-powered
equipment or generators, where feasible;
• Use haul trucks with on-road engines instead
of off-road engines even for on-site hauling;
• Equip nearby buildings with High Efficiency
Particle Arresting (HEPA) filter systems at all
mechanical air intake points to the building
to reduce the levels of diesel PM that enter
the buildings; and/or,
• Temporarily relocate receptors during
construction.
Developer Development
Services
Dept.
During the
construction
phase.
3.4 Biological
Resources
Biological Resource Mitigation Measure 1: Preconstruction Nesting Surveys: Pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors should be conducted on
trees within the subject property if construction
activities occur between March 1 and September 15
Developer Development
Services
Dept.
Prior to the
construction
phase
98 pursuant to California Department of Fish & Wildlife requirements. These surveys should be
accomplished no later than 7 days prior to
commencement of tree removals and grading
activities. If nesting raptors are discovered, the
Project biologist shall identify and implement
appropriate mitigation, subject to City review and
approval, to ensure protection of the raptors prior to
any tree removals.
3.7 Geology and
Soils
Paleontological Mitigation Measure 1: This
Mitigation Measure shall be placed as a note on the
Demolition and Grading Plans. If paleontological
resources are found, the construction manager shall
halt all activity and immediately contact the
Development Services Department at 530-822-4700.
Mitigation shall be conducted as follows:
1. Identify and evaluate paleontological
resources by intense field survey where
impacts are considered high;
2. Assess effects on identified sites;
3. Consult with the institutional/academic
paleontologists conducting research
investigations within the geological
formations that are slated to be impacted;
4. Obtain comments from the researchers;
5. Comply with researchers’ recommendations
to address any significant adverse effects
were determined by the City to be feasible.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by
the consulting paleontologist, the City’s Community
Development Department Staff shall determine
whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light
of factors such as the nature of the find, project
design, costs, Specific or General Plan policies and
land use assumptions, and other considerations. If
avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other
appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be
instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the
project site while mitigation for paleontological
resources is carried out.
Developer Development
Services Dept
During
construction
phase
99 3.8. Greenhouse
Gases
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation 1: Pertaining to
potential cumulative impacts associated with GHG
emissions, site grading process 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.
3.13. Noise Noise Mitigation Measure 1: The project
contractor(s) shall ensure that the following
measures are implemented during all phases of
project construction:
a) Whenever construction occurs on parcels
less than 50-feet from residential buildings
where people normally sleep, schools or
other sensitive uses, when it occurs during
later project stages on parcels near
residential and other noise-sensitive uses
built on-site during earlier project stages,
temporary barriers shall be constructed
around the construction sites to shield the
ground floor and lower stories of the noisesensitive uses. These barriers shall be of ¾- inch Medium Density Overlay (MDO)
plywood sheeting, or other material of
equivalent utility and appearance, and shall
achieve a Sound Transmission Class of STC30, or greater, based on certified sound transmission loss data taken according to
ASTM Test Method E90. The barrier shall not
contain any gaps at its base or face, except
for site access and surveying openings. The
barrier height shall be designed to break the
line-of-sight and provide at least a 5-dBA
insertion loss between the noise producing
equipment and the upper-most story of the
adjacent noise-sensitive uses. If, for practical
reasons, which are subject to the review and
approval of the City, a barrier cannot be built
to provide noise relief to the upper stories of
nearby noise-sensitive uses, then it must be
built to the tallest feasible height.
b) Construction equipment staging areas shall
be located as far as possible from residential
areas while still serving the needs of
construction contractor(s).
c) High noise activities, such as jackhammers,
drills, impact wrenches and other generators
Developer Development
Services
Dept.
During
construction
phase
100
of sporadic high noise peaks, shall be
restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Monday through Friday, unless it can be
proved to the satisfaction of the City that the
allowance of work outside these hours and
dates would not adversely affect nearby
noise-sensitive receptors.
d) Construction equipment shall be properly
muffled and maintained with noise reduction
devices to minimize construction-generated
noise.
e) The unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines shall be prohibited.
f) Residents and businesses within 300 feet of
the construction site shall be notified of the
construction scheduling in writing.
g) The construction contractor shall designate a
“noise disturbance coordinator” for
construction activities. The coordinator shall
be responsible for responding to any local
complaints regarding construction noise. The
coordinator shall determine the cause of the
noise complaint (i.e., starting too early, bad
muffler, no shielding), and would require that
reasonable measures warranted to correct
the problem be implemented. A telephone
number for the construction coordinator
shall be posted at the construction site and
be included in the notice sent to neighbors
and businesses regarding the construction
schedule.
Noise Mitigation Measure 2: The project
applicant shall require that all construction contracts include specifications that construction equipment
remain a minimum of 20 feet from residential
buildings or other buildings where people normally
sleep.
3.16. Recreation Recreation Mitigation Measure 1: Development of the neighborhood park shall be consistent with the
approved Development Agreement.
Developer Public Works
Dept.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
101
3.17. Transportation
and Traffic
Traffic Mitigation Measure 1: The project
applicant(s) shall contribute its fair share of the cost to provide public transit service and additional parkand-ride space for the plan area as determined by the City of Yuba City through participation in a benefit or assessment district or through a separate agreement
between the applicant(s), the City of Yuba City, and
Yuba-Sutter Transit. At a minimum, service is
expected to include the following components.
• Fixed-route bus service connecting the
plan area to existing Yuba-Sutter Transit
service with a minimum of hourly
headways during normal operating hours.
• Demand-responsive service meeting ADA
paratransit requirements in the plan area.
• Expansion of peak period (AM and PM)
weekday commuter bus service to
downtown Sacramento.
• Expansion of park-and-ride space.
Costs shall include the capital costs of transit vehicles and facilities as well as the operating and
maintenance cost of the service beyond what would
be paid for through the transportation development
act (TDA) funding.
Costs shall include the capital costs of transit vehicles and facilities as well as the operating and
maintenance cost of the service beyond what would
be paid for through the transportation development
act (TDA) funding.
Traffic Mitigation Measure 2: For Bogue
Road/Sanborn Road - until this intersection is added
to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Study Program, the
project applicant(s) shall pay a fair-share to install a traffic signal at the Bogue Road/Sanborn Road
intersection. If it is added to the City’s Fee Study
Program the project applicant(s) shall be responsible
for complying with the Fee Study Program.
Traffic Mitigation Measure 3: Lincoln Road Sanborn
Road, until this intersection is added to the City’s
Traffic Impact Fee Study Program the project
applicant shall pay a fair share to install a traffic signal and construct one left-turn lane and one shared
Developer,
Public Works
Dept.
Public Works
Dept.
Prior to
recordation
of the
subdivision
map
102
through/right-turn lane on all approaches at the
Lincoln Road/Sanborn Road intersection.
3.18. Tribal Cultural
Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation 1: Worker
Awareness Training. The developer shall ensure that
a Worker Education Program is developed and
delivered to train equipment operators about
cultural resources and training shall be documented.
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 a work stoppage; procedures for notifying the City of
any occurrences; and enforcement of penalties and
repercussions for non-compliance 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 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 any
Developer Development
Services
Dept.
During
construction
phase
103
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 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.
The types of treatment preferred by UAIC that
protects, preserves or restores the integrity of tribal cultural resources 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 tribal cultural resources will be
documented in the project record. For any
recommendations.
104
Appendix B
FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR SOHAL RANCH SUBDIVISION
Prepared by MHM Engineering
July 28, 2023
FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SOHAL RANCH SUBDIVISION
LESP MITIGATION REVIEW
Prepared by:
MHM Incorporated
1204 E Street, P.O. Box B
Marysville, California 95901
July 28, 2023
ii | Page
FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR SOHAL RANCH SUBDIVISION
Yuba City, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 EXISTING SETTING ..................................................................................................................... 7 Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 7 Level of Service ..................................................................................................................... 7 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................ 10 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 10 CONCULSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 11 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 3 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
FOCUSED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR SOHAL RANCH SUBDIVISION
Yuba City, CA
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes MHM Incorporated analysis of the potential traffic related mitigation measures within the Lincoln East Specific Plan (LESP) Project EIR and CEQA requirements for the impacts and traffic operational effects associated with the Sohal Ranch Subdivision in Yuba City, California. The Sohal Ranch Subdivision is located in southwest Yuba City at the southeast corner of South George Washington Boulevard and Lincoln Road. Figure 1 presents the site relative to the vicinity and the proposed tentative map is shown in Figure 2.
Project Description. Sohal Ranch will occupy roughly 40 acres located in the southeast corner of South George Washington Boulevard and Lincoln Road. The project proposes 179 single family residential lots and a neighborhood park of 2.63 net acres. Access to the local circulation system is planned at two intersections, one onto Lincoln Road and one onto South George Washington Boulevard. In the future, there will be an access to Harter Parkway. The project was part of the Lincoln East Specific Plan which was rescinded by the City Council.
The land use and circulation plan developed in the LESP is still part of the City zoning and General Plan maps.
Analysis Approach. The purpose of this focused analysis is to review mitigation measures from the LESP for some key intersections near the proposed Sohal Ranch Subdivision. The intersections and roadways reviewed are as follows:
1) Bogue Road/Sanborn Road – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch.
2) Franklin Road/Walton Avenue – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch.
3) Lincoln Road/Walton Avenue – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch.
4) Bogue Road/Walton Avenue – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch.
5) Franklin Road/George Washington Boulevard – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch. 6) Lincoln Road/George Washington Boulevard – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch. 7) Bogue Road/George Washington Boulevard – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 4 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch.
8) Lincoln Road/Sanborn Road – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch.
9) Lincoln Road/SR 99 – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch.
10) Lincoln Road/Harter Parkway – Review mitigation measure within the LESP and determine the CEQA requirements for the Sohal Ranch.
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 5 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
Figure No. 1 - Location Map
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 6 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
Figure No. 2 – Tentative Map
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 7 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
EXISTING SETTING
Study Area
This focused review of LESP mitigation measures at ten (10) existing intersections within the area that may be affected by the proposed project. The limits of the study area were identified through discussions with Yuba City staff based on their knowledge of the community and the results of previous traffic studies conducted for development in Yuba City.
Level of Service
Level of Service. To quantitatively evaluate traffic conditions and to provide a basis for comparison of operating conditions with and without project generated traffic, Levels of Service were determined at study area intersections from previous traffic studies. “Level of Service” (LOS) is a quantitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade “A” through “F” is assigned to an intersection. LOS “A” through “F” represents progressively worsening traffic conditions. The characteristics associated with the various LOS for intersections are presented in Table 1. The City of Yuba City General Plan has established LOS “D” measured over the peak hour as the minimum standard for City streets, with specific exceptions identified where conditions in excess of the LOS D standard will be acceptable.
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 8 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
TABLE NO. 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Roadway (Daily) “A” Uncongested operations, all queues
clear in a single-signal cycle.
Delay < 10.0 sec
Little or no delay.
Delay < 10 sec/veh
Completely free flow.
“B” Uncongested operations, all queues
clear in a single cycle.
Delay > 10.0 sec and < 20.0 sec
Short traffic delays.
Delay > 10 sec/veh and
< 15 sec/veh
Free flow, presence of other
vehicles noticeable.
“C” Light congestion, occasional backups
on critical approaches.
Delay > 20.0 sec and < 35.0 sec
Average traffic delays.
Delay > 15 sec/veh and
< 25 sec/veh
Ability to maneuver and
select operating speed
affected.
“D” Significant congestions of critical
approaches but intersection
functional. Cars required to wait
through more than one cycle during
short peaks. No long queues formed.
Delay > 35.0 sec and < 55.0 sec
Long traffic delays.
Delay > 25 sec/veh and
< 35 sec/veh
Unstable flow, speeds and
ability to maneuver
restricted.
“E” Severe congestion with some longstanding queues on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection
may occur if traffic signal does not
provide for protected turning
movements. Traffic queue may block
nearby intersection(s) upstream of
critical approach(es).
Delay > 55.0 sec and < 80.0 sec
Very long traffic delays, failure,
extreme congestion.
Delay > 35 sec/veh and
< 50 sec/veh
At or near capacity, flow
quite unstable.
“F” Total breakdown, stop-and-go
operation. Delay > 80.0 sec
Intersection blocked by external
causes. Delay > 50 sec/veh
Forced flow, breakdown.
Sources: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 9 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
Levels of Service obtained from previous studies including the LESP study and the most recent Citywide traffic study are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.
TABLE NO. 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS LEVELS OF SERVICES Existing Conditions Cumulative Market Conditions
Location Control Average
Delay
LOS Control Average
Delay
LOS
Bogue Road/Sanborn Road AWSC 9.0 A AWSC* 18.0 C
Walton Avenue/ Franklin Road Signalized 34.0 C Signalized 57.3 E S. Walton Avenue/ Lincoln Road Signalized 29.7 C Signalized 51.3 D S. Walton Avenue/ Bogue Road AWSC 11.5 B Signalized 11.4 B George Washington Boulevard/
Lincoln Road
AWSC 9.7 A Signalized 12.1 B
George Washington Boulevard/
Franklin Road
AWSC 14.2 B Signalized 6.5 A
George Washington Boulevard/
Bogue Road
AWSC 21.6 C Signalized 77.6 E
Lincoln Road/Sanborn Road AWSC 10.0 A Signalized* 30.0 C Lincoln Road/Harter Parkway Signalized 17.1 B
*Bogue Road/Sanborn Road and Lincoln Road/Sanborn Road are cumulative plus LESP TABLE NO. 3
EXISTING INTERSECTION PM PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS LEVELS OF SERVICES Existing Conditions Cumulative Market Conditions
Location Control Average
Delay
LOS Control Average
Delay
LOS
Bogue Road/Sanborn Road AWSC 9.0 A Signalized* 32.0 D
Walton Avenue/ Franklin Road Signalized 33.8 C Signalized 78.0 E S. Walton Avenue/ Lincoln Road Signalized 23.1 C Signalized 51.6 D S. Walton Avenue/ Bogue Road AWSC 11.6 B Signalized 37.9 D George Washington Boulevard/
Lincoln Road
AWSC 11.8 B AWSC 13.9 B
George Washington Boulevard/
Franklin Road
AWSC 15.2 C Signalized 6.9 A
George Washington Boulevard/
Bogue Road
AWSC 9.3 A AWSC 22.4 C
Lincoln Road/Sanborn Road AWSC 9.0 A Signalized* 25.0 C Lincoln Road/Harter Parkway Signalized 20.4 C
*Bogue Road/Sanborn Road and Lincoln Road/Sanborn Road are cumulative plus full LESP
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 10 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Project Description
The text that follows describes the characteristics of the project in terms of automobile trip generation and distribution.
Trip Generation. The number of vehicle trips that are expected to be generated by development of the Sohal Ranch Subdivision can be estimated using typical trip generation rates for single family development. Applicable rates are published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. These rates are presented in Table 4, and as shown 167 trips in the evening p.m. peak hour.
TABLE 4
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use Unit
Trip Per Unit
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Residential Dwelling 9.43 25% 75% 0.70 63% 37% 0.94 Sohal Ranch 179 du 1,688 14 44 126 50 29 168
Trips may not equal due to rounding
Trip Distribution. The distribution of vehicle trips associated with the proposed development has been based on existing traffic patterns, the location of probable destinations including the locations of local schools. Table 5 presents the projected trip distribution percentages for the project’s new trips used for this analysis. Variation also occurs between current and long-term conditions, should Harter Parkway be constructed.
TABLE 5
TRIP DISTRIBUATION
ASSUMPTIONS
Direction Route Percent
Distribution
Trips
North Lincoln Road to SR 20 via Geo Wash Blvd. 27% 453
South Lincoln Road to Bogue Road via Geo Wash Blvd. 21% 353 East Geo Wash Blvd to SR 99 via Lincoln Road 43% 722
West Geo Wash Blvd to Township Road via Lincoln Rd 9% 151 Total 100% 1679
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 11 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Following the review of the previous traffic studies in the Project Description and using the mitigation measures in the LESP, we have prepared Table 6 summarize the mitigation measures for the Sohal Ranch Subdivision Project. It should be noted that some of these improvements have been completed since the traffic study has been completed. Our developer still needs to pay fair share either through AB 1600 or reimbursement agreements.
TABLE NO. 6
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing
4.12-1. Under Existing Plus
Full LESP Project
conditions, the LESP
could increase traffic
volumes at study
intersections in the
City of Yuba City.
Franklin Road/Harding Road
a) The project applicant(s) shall be
responsible to pay their fair-share
to widen Franklin Road from two
to four lanes (including continuous
bike lanes and sidewalks) from the
proposed Harter Parkway to
Walton Avenue (Franklin Road is
already four lanes between the
Walton Avenue and SR 99).
AND
b) The project applicant(s) shall be
responsible to pay fair share to
remove the stop signs on the
eastbound and westbound
approaches, prohibit northbound
and southbound through and leftturn movements, and construct the following approach lanes at the
Franklin Road/Harding Road
intersection concurrent with a
connection between Cherry
Street/Harding Road and the
LESP.
Eastbound – an exclusive leftturn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn
lane.
Westbound – an exclusive
left-turn lane, one through
lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane.
Northbound and Southbound
– an exclusive right-turn lane.
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
widening is part of the
City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall be the traffic
impact fee.
Final Building
Permit
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 12 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
TABLE NO. 6
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing
Bogue Road/Sanborn Road
c) The project applicant shall be
responsible to pay fair share to
modify the Bogue Road/Sanborn
Road intersection. The
intersection improvements shall be
as follows:
Eastbound, Northbound, and
Southbound - an exclusive
left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane.
Westbound – one shared
through/left-turn lane and an
exclusive right-turn lane.
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
improvement is part of
the updated City
AB1600 fee program,
the project applicant(s)
shall pay a fair-share to
install a traffic signal
and intersection
improvements. If it is
added to the City’s Fee
Study Program the
project applicant(s)
shall be responsible for
complying with the Fee
Study Program.
Final Building
Permit
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 13 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
TABLE NO. 6
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing
Franklin Road/Walton Avenue
d) Implement Mitigation Measure
4.12-1(a); AND
e) The project applicant shall be
responsible to pay their fair-share
to widen Walton Avenue to four
lanes from south of Bridge Street
to Franklin Road (Walton Avenue
currently transitions from four to
two lanes south of Bridge Street).
The outside southbound throughlane should extend south of the Franklin Road/Walton Avenue
intersection a minimum of 600
feet before transitioning back to
one lane. The outside northbound
through-lane should begin at least
250 feet prior to Franklin Road;
AND
f) The project applicant(s) shall be
responsible to modify the traffic
signal and construct the following
approach lanes at the Franklin
Road/Walton Avenue
intersection.
Eastbound and Westbound
two left-turn lanes, two
through lanes, and an
exclusive right-turn lane.
Northbound and Southbound
– one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and an
exclusive right-turn lane.
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
intersection is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
intersection is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Final Building
Permit
Final Building
Permit
Lincoln Road/Walton Avenue
g) The project applicant shall be
responsible to widen Lincoln
Road to four lanes between
Walton Avenue and SR 99 (this
improvement does not include
widening Lincoln Road to four
lanes through the Lincoln
Road/SR 99 intersection). The
inside eastbound through lane is
recommended to be an exclusive
left-turn lane at SR 99. The
outside westbound through lane is
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
improvement is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Final Building
Permit
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 14 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
TABLE NO. 6
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing
recommended to begin as the
receiving lane for a “free” rightturn lane from southbound SR 99 and should extend west of the
Lincoln Road/Walton Avenue
intersection a minimum of 600
feet before transitioning back to
one lane. The outside eastbound
through lane should begin at least
250 feet prior to Walton Avenue,
AND
h) The project applicant(s) shall be
responsible to modify the traffic
signal and construct the following
approach lanes at the Lincoln
Road/Walton Avenue
intersection.
Eastbound and Westbound –
one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and one rightturn lane.
Northbound and Southbound
– one left-turn lane, one
through lane, and an
exclusive right-turn lane.
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
intersection is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Final Building
Permit
Bogue Road/Walton Avenue
i) The project applicant shall be
responsible to install a traffic
signal and construct the following
approach lanes at the Bogue
Road/Walton Avenue
intersection.
Eastbound, Northbound, and
Southbound – one left-turn
lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane.
Westbound – one left-turn
lane, one through lane, and
an exclusive right-turn lane.
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
intersection is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Final Building
Permit
4.12-3. Under Existing Plus
Full LESP Project
conditions, the LESP
could increase traffic
volumes at study
intersections in the
Sutter County.
Franklin Road/George Washington
Boulevard
a) The project applicant shall be
responsible to modify the
intersection to construct one leftturn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane on the
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
intersection is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
Final Building
Permit
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 15 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
TABLE NO. 6
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing
eastbound, westbound, and
southbound approaches at the
Franklin Road/George
Washington Boulevard
intersection
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Lincoln Road/ Sanborn Road
c) The project applicant(s) shall be
responsible to install a traffic
signal and construct one left-turn
lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane on all
approaches at the Lincoln
Road/Sanborn Road intersection.
Payment of required
fair share fee. If it is
added to the City’s Fee
Study Program the
project applicant(s)
shall be responsible for
complying with the Fee
Study Program.
Final Building
Permit
4.12-4. Under Existing Plus
Full LESP Project
conditions, the LESP
could increase traffic
volumes at study
intersections under
Caltrans Jurisdiction.
Lincoln Road/SR 99
e) The project applicant(s) shall be
pay traffic impact fees to modify
the traffic signal and widen the
eastbound approach to provide a
second left-turn lane at the
Lincoln Road/SR 99 intersection.
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
intersection is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Final Building
Permit
4.12-5. The proposed project
could increase
demand for public
transit service beyond
that currently planned
and may result in
unmet transit needs.
The project applicant(s) shall
contribute its fair share of the cost to
provide public transit service and
additional park-and-ride space for the
plan area as determined by the City of
Yuba City through participation in a
benefit or assessment district or
through a separate agreement between
the applicant(s), the City of Yuba
City, and Yuba-Sutter Transit. At a
minimum, service is expected to
include the following components.
Fixed-route bus service
connecting the plan area to
existing Yuba-Sutter Transit
service with a minimum of hourly
headways during normal
operating hours.
Demand-responsive service
meeting ADA paratransit
requirements in the plan area.
Expansion of peak period (AM
and PM) weekday commuter bus
Payment of required
fair share fee through
impact fee.
Final Building
Permit
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 16 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
TABLE NO. 6
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing
service to downtown Sacramento.
Expansion of park-and-ride
space.
Costs shall include the capital costs of
transit vehicles and facilities as well
as the operating and maintenance cost
of the service beyond what would be
paid for through the transportation
development act (TDA) funding.
4.12-6. The proposed project
could increase
demand for bicycle
and pedestrian
facilities
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.12-
1(a)
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
intersection is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Final Building
Permit
4.12-7. Under Cumulative
Plus Full LESP
Project conditions, the
LESP, in combination
with other
development, could
increase traffic
volumes at study
intersections in the
City of Yuba City.
Franklin Road/Harding Road
a) Implement Mitigation Measure
4.12-1(a)
Bogue Road/Sanborn Road
b) Until this intersection is added to
the City’s Traffic Impact Fee
Study Program, the project
applicant(s) shall pay a fair-share
to install a traffic signal at the
Bogue Road/Sanborn Road
intersection. If it is added to the
City’s Fee Study Program the
project applicant(s) shall be
responsible for complying with
the Fee Study Program.
Payment of required
fair share fee. This
intersection is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Final Building
Permit
4.12-9. Under Cumulative
Plus Full LESP
Project conditions, the
LESP, in combination
with other
development, could
increase traffic
volumes at study
intersection in County
of Sutter.
Lincoln Road/ Sanborn Road
a) The project applicant(s) shall be
responsible to install a traffic
signal and construct one left-turn
lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane on all
approaches at the Lincoln
Road/Sanborn Road intersection).
Lincoln Road/ Harter Parkway
b) This project applicants(s) shall
Payment of required
fair share fee. If it is
added to the City’s Fee
Study Program the
project applicant(s)
shall be responsible for
complying with the Fee
Study Program
Payment of required
Final Building
Permit
Final Building
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 17 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
TABLE NO. 6
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing
pay a fair-share to modify the
traffic signal to provide an
overlap phase for the southbound
right-turn movement at the
Lincoln Road/Harter Parkway
intersection.
fair share fee. This
intersection is part of
the City AB1600 fee
program. Developer
shall pay the traffic
impact fee.
Permit
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis 18 | Page
Sohal Ranch Subdivisions
APPENDIX A
Agenda Item 13
CITY OF YUBA CITY
STAFF REPORT
Date: October 17, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Bogue Road Infrastructure - Newkom Ranch Funding Request Recommendation: Authorize staff to initiate an amendment to Development Agreement 19-01 for the Newkom Ranch Subdivisions, to implement language related to financing Bogue Road infrastructure, streamlining development processes, and establishing specific time requirements
Fiscal Impact: Staff time with this action. Fiscal impacts associated with the amendment are to be determined
Purpose:
To coordinate with development to comprehensively improve Bogue Road from SR–99 to Railroad Avenue.
Council Strategic Goal:
This supports multiple Council strategic goals as the development and improvements provide for public infrastructure, being business friendly, and improving the overall quality of life for Yuba City residents.
Background:
The Bogue Stewart Master Plan (BSMP) guides the orderly development of 741.5 acres located along the southern edge of Yuba City, and provides for a mix of residential and commercial uses, parks and recreational sites, and public facilities. Work to finalize the BSMP began in 2015 and substantial acreage was annexed into the City limits in 2021-2022. A lead developer in the master plan area, Newkom Ranch LLC, has been coordinating to bring residential and commercial development to an approximate 161-acre area east of SR-99, south of Bogue Road. The City approved Development Agreement 19-01 for the Newkom Ranch Subdivisions on January 21, 2020.
Based on the configuration of the BSMP and the location of existing infrastructure, the initial development phase, Newkom Ranch, will require construction improvements to Bogue Road from SR99 to Railroad Avenue. A portion of these improvement costs along Bogue Road are City impact fee eligible. Concurrently, the City programmed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) funds to aid the construction of the Bogue Road Sewer Extension project, included in this segment of Bogue Road, to help extend a critical segment of the proposed trunk line sewer main to the west, to also aid future development by providing capacity for the west and northern portions of the City.
Newkom Ranch LLC has contacted the City to request funding support for the City-fee eligible items associated with Bogue Road, see Attachment 1. As part of the funding request, the Developer has indicated that they are willing to commit to the design and construction of infrastructure improvements associated with Phillips Road and BSMP plan storm drainage improvements in the amount of approximately $14M, with specific timelines related to initiating adjacent development.
Analysis:
Historically, the City has required developers to build as they go and enter into reimbursement agreements for fee-eligible items. This historical process has had negative consequences at times, where roads are improved in an incremental fashion or development stalls because of the risk of unknown reimbursement timelines for the developer. In addition, the current condition of this portion of Bogue Road is in poor shape, and regardless of the status of the BSMP, maintenance work is necessary.
Staff recognizes that in addition to City maintenance needs, some of the infrastructure required for Bogue Road is for future capacity, aligned with the full build out of the City, thus a substantial portion of the costs are eligible for City reimbursement. Also, as mentioned previously, the current condition of Bogue Road needs maintenance work. If the Newkom Ranch developer is required to address the existing deficiencies as well as construct the buildout of the road, it will place the development in a negative financial position due to the cost of these improvements. The full buildout of this development will not recover enough impact fee dollars to offset the initial Bogue Road costs.
Staff analyzed funding and development impacts associated with the request. Through review, there are many potential benefits to the City and residents that may occur should the City consider modifying the existing development agreement and help upfront the City’s obligations associated with the infrastructure:
1. Construction of a consistent – fully built out / improved roadway segment
2. Avoiding conflicts and redundant costs associated with sewer line construction
3. Backbone infrastructure is put in place for commercial and residential properties within BSMP, as well as existing properties located north of Bogue Road
4. Revenue to the City through property and sales tax
5. Needed housing for the community
6. Needed commercial (i.e., potential grocery store) for the area The negative aspect of fronting the City’s eligible costs is that the funding is a substantial amount, approximately $13M in total project costs, ($9M Road, $4M Wastewater), see Attachment 3. With limited Development Impact Fee funds available, the City would need to utilize a majority of available DIF funds, utilize portions of existing and future Road Fund allocations, then wait until development occurs, to begin recovering those costs.
There are opportunities through a Development Agreement to establish specific terms and conditions associated with funding, developer obligations, and timelines. Through an amendment, staff anticipates clarifying costs and scope related to SR-99 improvements to access Bogue Road and future commercial sites, and also looking to streamline development processes for commercial Tentative Parcel Maps and Development Plan approval with the high level of review and design that has been provided in the BSMP.
Staff recommends Council consider initiating an amendment to the existing Development Agreement to establish terms that help move the construction of Bogue Road forward in partnership with Newkom Ranch for mutual benefit.
Fiscal Impact:
There is staff time and processing costs associated with amending a development agreement. The full costs associated with amending the Newkom Ranch Development Agreement are undetermined until finalized. The request from Newkom Ranch, LLC is for the City to help front Bogue Road and SR-99 Improvements, where the City would contribute to building first and wait for development to occur with reimbursement. The road costs are estimated at approximately $9M, including maintenance needs.
Sewer line improvements are estimated at a cost of $3-4M. The City has previously programmed $2M of ARPA funds for the sewer extension work.
An alternative option to utilizing cash to fund the improvements is to finance the project through bonds.
If Council is interested in this option, staff will work with municipal financial advisors to determine the options.
Through the process of establishing an amended Development Agreement, costs, funding options, (such as bonding), and timelines for development reimbursement to initiate will be further analyzed and provided to Council for future consideration.
Alternatives:
Do not authorize staff to initiate a development agreement amendment and/or provide staff with alternative direction related to the Newkom Ranch funding request.
Recommendation:
Authorize staff to initiate an amendment to Development Agreement 19-01 for the Newkom Ranch Subdivisions, to implement language related to financing Bogue Road infrastructure, streamlining development processes, and establishing specific time requirements.
Attachments:
1. Newkom Letter – 5/30/23 Bogue Road and Sewer Improvements – Request for City Funding
2. Newkom Ranch – Site Map
3. Updated Cost Summary 08-10-2023 - (includes Bogue Rd. maintenance costs) Prepared By: Submitted By:
Benjamin K. Moody
Public Works & Development Services Director
Diana Langley
City Manager
ATTACHMENT 1
P.O. Box B ● 1204 E Street ● Marysville, CA 95901 ● (530) 742-6485 ● FAX (530) 742-5639 May 30, 2023
Diana Langley
City Manager
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.
Yuba City, CA 95993
Subject: Newkom Ranch - Phase 1 Improvements
Bogue Road and Sewer Improvements – Request for City Funding Dear Diana:
Per our meeting and discussion, Newkom Ranch has some major expenses for the first house, commercial building, or office. Most of the major infrastructure on Bogue Road is oversized to handle not only Newkom Ranch but development of the entire Bogue Stewart Master Plan (BSMP) and build-out of the original City limits. Major infrastructure is typical of large projects but what is unique about this project is that fee credits generated far exceed the amount that can be used during the development of the entire Newkom Ranch project. The total backbone infrastructure cost for the first phase is about $22,210,000.
On behalf of Newkom Ranch LLC, we are requesting some City participation in the development of improvement in the City impact fee programs. The infrastructure included in this request would be Bogue Road Improvement from SR 99 (including SR 99) to Railroad Avenue and the Sewer Backbone infrastructure. The Sewer backbone infrastructure includes a sewer lift station that would be sized to handle Newkom Ranch, southern portion of the “keyhole” area, and backbone for sewer system to serve the western part of Yuba City SOI and Lincoln East Area. The cost of these improvements and soft costs would be about $11,000,000. There would still be a significant developer cost but this would help the cash flow and feasibility of the project. Since all of these improvements are part of the City fee programs, the City would be reimbursed through future developer impact fees within Newkom, BSMP, and other developments in Yuba City.
We are also looking into SCIP and BOLD funding sources along with this City contribution to make this project feasible. We would like to meet and discuss this request with City Staff and potentially an ADHoc committee from the City Council.
We have attached a summary of the construction cost estimates and the detailed construction cost estimates for your review and consideration. We can provide additional information as requested.
Please let me know if you need additional information on this matter.
Sincerely,
M-H-M Incorporated
Sean Minard, P.E., P.L.S.
CITY OF YUBA CITY
NEWKOM RANCH - COMMERICAL - SEWER OFFSITE
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE - MAY 30, 2023
IMPROVEMENT COSTS - REQUEST FOR CITY SUPPORT
DESCRIPTION CO. RCVD. BY DATE
Newkom Ranch - Entire Project - Phase 1 - Commercial - Summary Sutter S.M. Minard 30-May-23 MHM PROJECT NO. QTY. BY IN CONST. INDEX
13-134 J. Mallen 15-Dec-21 13176.3
NUMBER OF PARCELS QTY. CHK. OUT BLDG. INDEX
12 S. Minard 30-May-23 8000.6
Item
No.
Item Description Estimated
Quantity
Unit Unit Price
($/Unit)
Amount
($)
1 SS Lift Station - Newkom Ranch and South Phillips Road Area 1 Job $1,363,015.50 $1,363,015.50 2 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - SR 99 to Phillips 1 Job 382,500.00 382,500.00 3 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - Phillips Road to PS 1 Job 372,381.60 372,381.60 4 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - PS to Bogue Road Manhole 1 Job 950,558.40 950,558.40 Total Estimated Cost of Phase 1 Improvements = $3,068,455.50 Contingency @ 15.0% = 460,300.00
Project Manager @ 0.5% = 15,300.00
City and County Plan Check @ 1.5% = 46,000.00
City and County Inspection @ 2.5% = 76,700.00
City and County CSDA Support Fee @ 0.0% of plan check and inspection total = 0.00 Preliminary Engineering @ 0.5% = 15,300.00
Design Engineering and Surveying @ 8.0% = 245,500.00
Construction Surveying @ 2.0% = 61,400.00
Grand Total = $3,988,955.50
For Budget Purposes = $3,989,000.00
Estimate Notes:
-
Total Construction Cost of Newkom Ranch - Commerical Project Estimate does not include cost of any connection fees or reimbursements.
Newkom Ranch - Commerical - Phase 1 - Sewer Offsite Improvements Construction Cost Estimate Summary Page 365 of 374 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF YUBA CITY
NEWKOM RANCH - COMMERICAL
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE - MAY 30, 2023
IMPROVEMENT COSTS - REQUEST FOR CITY FUNDING
DESCRIPTION CO. RCVD. BY DATE
Newkom Ranch - Entire Project - Phase 1 - Commercial - Summary Sutter S.M. Minard 30-May-23 MHM PROJECT NO. QTY. BY IN CONST. INDEX
13-134 J. Mallen 15-Dec-21 13176.3
NUMBER OF LOTS QTY. CHK. OUT BLDG. INDEX
120 S. Minard 30-May-23 8000.6
Item
No.
Item Description Estimated
Quantity
Unit Unit Price
($/Unit)
Amount
($)
1 SS Lift Station - Newkom Ranch and South Phillips Road Area 0 Job $1,363,015.50 $0.00 1 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - SR 99 to Phillips Road 0 Job 382,500.00 0.00 1 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - Phillips Road to PS 0 Job 372,381.60 0.00 1 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - PS to Bogue Manhole 0 Job 950,558.40 0.00 1 Phase 1 - Commercial - Onsite Improvements (no dry utilities) 0 Job 0.00 0.00 2 Phase 1 - Commericial - Bogue Road - SR 99 to Phillips Rd 1 Job 1,011,143.34 1,011,143.34 3 Phase 1 - Commericial - Bogue Road - Phillips Rd to Columbia Rd 1 Job 1,910,421.75 1,910,421.75 4 Phase 1 - Commericial - Bogue Road - Columbia Rd to Railroad Av 1 Job 1,129,672.44 1,129,672.44 4 Phase 1 - Commericial - Phillips Road - Bogue Rd to Summy Dr 0 Job 3,235,001.40 0.00 5 Phase 1 - Commericial - State Route 99 Improvements 1 Job 1,533,202.80 1,533,202.80 5 Phase 1 - Commerical - Offsite Water Improvements 0 Job 622,154.10 0.00 5 Phase 1 - Commercial - Offsite Storm Drainage Improvements 0 Job 854,097.00 0.00 5 Phase 1 - Commercial - Offsite Detention Pond Improvements 0 Job 3,505,352.40 0.00 7 Phase 1 - 8 Foot Solid Wall (i.e. Brick, Concrete, Masonry, Proto II) (565,000/ft x $350/lf) - Adjacent to State Route 99
0 LF 350.00 0.00
7 Phase 1 - 6 Foot Solid Wall (i.e. Brick, Concrete, Masonry, Proto II) (1,005/ft x $265/lf) - Adjacent to Residential
0 LF 265.00 0.00
8 Phase 1 - Demolition Structures (i.e. structures, orchard trees) 0 LS 65,000.00 0.00 9 Newkom Ranch Park Site Improvements 0 Job 0.00 0.00
Total Estimated Cost of Phase 1 Improvements = $5,584,660.33 Contingency @ 15.0% = 837,700.00
Project Manager @ 0.5% = 27,900.00
City and County Plan Check @ 1.5% = 83,800.00
City and County Inspection @ 2.5% = 139,600.00
City and County CSDA Support Fee @ 0.0% of plan check and inspection total = 0.00 Preliminary Engineering @ 0.5% = 27,900.00
Design Engineering and Surveying @ 3.5% = 195,500.00
Construction Surveying @ 2.0% = 111,700.00
Grand Total = $7,008,760.33
For Budget Purposes = $7,009,000.00
Estimate Notes:
-
City has agreed to cover the Sewer Pump Station and Forcemain Expenses Total Construction Cost of Newkom Ranch - Commerical Project Estimate does not include cost of any connection fees or reimbursements.
Newkom Ranch - Commerical - Phase 1 - Onsite Improvements Construction Cost Estimate Summary Page 366 of 374 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 2
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the
GIS User Community
BOGUE RD
RAIL
R
O
A
D
AV
E
STEWART RD
Newkom Ranch
Site Map
I!
City Limits
Newkom Ranch
Sphere Of Influence
H
WY
9 9
Newkom Ranch
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF YUBA CITY
NEWKOM RANCH - COMMERICAL
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE - AUGUST 10, 2023 - REQUEST FOR CITY SUPPORT DESCRIPTION CO. RCVD. BY DATE
Newkom Ranch - Entire Project - Phase 1 - Commercial - Summary Sutter S.M. Minard 10-Aug-23 MHM PROJECT NO. QTY. BY IN CONST. INDEX
13-134 J. Mallen 15-Dec-21 13472.56
NUMBER OF LOTS QTY. CHK. OUT BLDG. INDEX
120 S. Minard 10-Aug-23 8227.44
Item
No.
Item Description Estimated
Quantity
Unit Unit Price
($/Unit)
Amount
($)
1 SS Lift Station - Newkom Ranch and South Phillips Road Area 0 Job $1,405,015.50 $0.00 1 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - SR 99 to Phillips Road 0 Job 382,500.00 0.00 1 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - Phillips Road to PS 0 Job 372,381.60 0.00 1 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - PS to Bogue Manhole 0 Job 950,558.40 0.00 1 Phase 1 - Commercial - Onsite Improvements (no dry utilities) 0 Job 0.00 0.00 2 Phase 1 - Comm. - Bogue Rd - SR 99 to Phillips Rd - South 1 Job 1,337,981.94 1,337,981.94 3 Phase 1 - Comm. - Bogue Rd - SR 99 to Phillips Rd - North 1 Job 67,442.40 67,442.40 4 Phase 1 - Comm. - Bogue Rd - Phillips Rd to Columbia Rd - South 1 Job 1,846,936.95 1,846,936.95 5 Phase 1 - Comm. - Bogue Rd - Phillips Rd to Columbia Rd - North 1 Job 169,019.10 169,019.10 6 Phase 1 - Comm. - Bogue Rd - Columbia Rd to Railroad Av - South 1 Job 1,077,528.00 1,077,528.00 7 Phase 1 - Comm. - Bogue Rd - Columbia Rd to Railroad Av - North 1 Job 476,192.10 476,192.10 7 Phase 1 - Comm. - Phillips Rd - Bogue Rd to Summy Dr 0 Job 3,235,001.40 0.00 8 Phase 1 - Commericial - State Route 99 Improvements 1 Job 1,991,004.75 1,991,004.75 8 Phase 1 - Commerical - Offsite Water Improvements 0 Job 622,154.10 0.00 8 Phase 1 - Commercial - Offsite Storm Drainage Improvements 0 Job 854,097.00 0.00 8 Phase 1 - Commercial - Offsite Detention Pond Improvements 0 Job 3,505,352.40 0.00 8 Phase 1 - 8 Foot Solid Wall (i.e. Brick, Concrete, Masonry, Proto II) (0/ft x $350/lf) - Adjacent to State Route 99
0 LF 350.00 0.00
8 Phase 1 - 6 Foot Solid Wall (i.e. Brick, Concrete, Masonry, Proto II) (1,005/ft x $265/lf) - Adjacent to Residential
0 LF 265.00 0.00
8 Phase 1 - Demolition Structures (i.e. structures, orchard trees) 0 LS 65,000.00 0.00 9 Newkom Ranch Park Site Improvements 0 Job 0.00 0.00
Total Estimated Cost of Phase 1 Improvements = $6,966,105.24 Contingency @ 15.0% = 1,044,900.00
Project Manager @ 0.5% = 34,800.00
City and County Plan Check @ 1.5% = 104,500.00
City and County Inspection @ 2.5% = 174,200.00
City and County CSDA Support Fee @ 0.0% of plan check and inspection total = 0.00 Preliminary Engineering @ 0.5% = 34,800.00
Design Engineering and Surveying @ 3.5% = 243,800.00
Construction Surveying @ 2.0% = 139,300.00
Grand Total = $8,742,405.24
For Budget Purposes = $8,742,000.00
Estimate Notes:
-
City has agreed to cover the Sewer Pump Station and Forcemain Expenses Total Construction Cost of Newkom Ranch - Commerical Project Estimate does not include cost of any connection fees or reimbursements.
Newkom Ranch - Commerical - Phase 1 - Onsite Improvements - City Request for Support Construction Cost Estimate Summary Page 370 of 374 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF YUBA CITY
NEWKOM RANCH - COMMERICAL - SEWER OFFSITE
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE - AUGUST 10, 2023
IMPROVEMENT COSTS - REQUEST FOR CITY SUPPORT
DESCRIPTION CO. RCVD. BY DATE
Newkom Ranch - Entire Project - Phase 1 - Commercial - Summary Sutter S.M. Minard 10-Aug-23 MHM PROJECT NO. QTY. BY IN CONST. INDEX
13-134 J. Mallen 15-Dec-21 13472.56
NUMBER OF PARCELS QTY. CHK. OUT BLDG. INDEX
12 S. Minard 10-Aug-23 8227.44
Item
No.
Item Description Estimated
Quantity
Unit Unit Price
($/Unit)
Amount
($)
1 SS Lift Station - Newkom Ranch and South Phillips Road Area 1 Job $1,405,015.50 $1,405,015.50 2 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - SR 99 to Phillips 1 Job 382,500.00 382,500.00 3 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - Phillips Road to PS 1 Job 372,381.60 372,381.60 4 Phase 1 - Offsite Sewer Force Main - PS to Bogue Road Manhole 1 Job 950,558.40 950,558.40 Total Estimated Cost of Phase 1 Improvements = $3,110,455.50 Contingency @ 15.0% = 466,600.00
Project Manager @ 0.5% = 15,600.00
City and County Plan Check @ 1.5% = 46,700.00
City and County Inspection @ 2.5% = 77,800.00
City and County CSDA Support Fee @ 0.0% of plan check and inspection total = 0.00 Preliminary Engineering @ 0.5% = 15,600.00
Design Engineering and Surveying @ 8.0% = 248,800.00
Construction Surveying @ 2.0% = 62,200.00
Grand Total = $4,043,755.50
For Budget Purposes = $4,044,000.00
Estimate Notes:
-
Total Construction Cost of Newkom Ranch - Commerical Project Estimate does not include cost of any connection fees or reimbursements.
Newkom Ranch - Commerical - Phase 1 - Sewer Offsite Improvements Construction Cost Estimate Summary Page 371 of 374 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Future Agenda Items
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice Mayor Harris
- Mayor Kirchner
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Manager’s Report
CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Council Reports
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Councilmember Shaw
- Vice Mayor Harris
- Mayor Kirchner
Adjournment