Yuba City City Council
December 19, 2023

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 13
access, parking and loading, yards, landscaping, and other features required by City Ordinance.

The applicant is not requesting any change to the size and shape of the site.

The streets serving the site are adequate to carry the quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use.

The applicant is proposing to amend conditions that will not affect any approved traffic generated at the site.

The site design and size and design of the buildings will complement neighboring facilities.

The applicant is not making requesting any site changes with respect to design or size of buildings.

The establishment or operation of the use or building applied for will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

The applicant’s request to modify conditions does not alter any existing environmental review under IS/MND 17-10. No further environmental review is required as part of this application.

City staff determined (with UP 17-05 evaluation) that the project site is highly suited for a LVTS.

Staff noted that surrounding uses are industrial in nature and the operation of the LVTS facility in this location is not detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Per State regulations, the TPR required for the LVTS must incorporate numerous components to ensure the facility has been designed, and the facility will be operated, in compatibility with the surrounding properties. Some of these components which are mandated by the State’s solid waste facilities permitting process include the following items:

Station Controls Plan which addresses through engineered controls: fugitive nuisance dust control measures; vector control measures to prevent insects and mammals from potentially posing a threat to human health or environmental health or from becoming nuisances; Litter prevention & litter control measures; Noise control measures for station operations; Odor control measures; and Traffic control measures.

Records and Reporting which details maintenance of written records (daily operating records inspected by the LEA) as well as mandatory reporting for the operation of the LVTS.

These include: employee training and health & safety program records; Facility selfinspection records; Hazardous waste discovery incident response & materials disposition records; and Detailed public complaint records including agency notification for complaints received directly by the facility together with resolution for all complaints. Daily operating records must include customer vehicle count, customer origin, material weight/ volume records (received and shipped) and time of opening and closing of the facility to customers.

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 14
As discussed in the Environmental section above, and since the proposed project is a LVTS, the Yuba-Sutter Local Enforcement Agency is, and will continue to be, responsible for inspecting the modified project for compliance with all applicable State and local agency regulations and requirements. The LEA is also responsible for enforcement of all local restrictions and mandates placed on the proposed use which includes all key elements to ensure the compatibility of the LVTS use with the surrounding properties. Through this LVTS inspection process, which is conducted by the LEA on a minimum monthly frequency, the City may require that records of operations pursuant to the modified proposal be inspected by the LEA for compliance with a variety of conditions, such as:
• The LVTS is operating within the days and hours permissible; • The LVTS is not accepting any hazardous wastes (except for electronic waste); • The LVTS is accepting only material approved by the local jurisdiction; • The facility is limiting materials receipt to 300 tons or less per day; and • The facility average daily traffic count is 238 vehicles per day or less.

All of the above restrictions for the modified project shall be included in the amended Transfer/ Processing Report (TPR), which binds these conditions to enforcement by the LEA, in addition to the Ordinance enforcement authority of the City.

01248.0005/943995.1
Attachment 3

01248.0005/943995.1
RESOLUTION NO. __________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

MAKING A DETERMINATION TO UTILIZE THE ALTERNATIVE CITY

COUNCIL USE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS AS PROVIDED FOR BY
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 8-5.7003(F)
WHEREAS, in 2008, the Yuba City Planning Commission approved Use Permit 07-12 that relocated Recycling Industries operations from 389 Wilbur Avenue to 140 Epley Drive; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the Yuba City Planning Commission approved Use Permit 12-01 which converted the facility at 140 Epley Drive into a Large Volume Transfer Station (LVTS). Environmental Assessment (EA) 12-02 analyzed potential impacts associated with facility construction and operation with a maximum throughput of 100 tons per day (TPD) of mixed waste and recyclables. Project elements included the following:
a. Operations expanded to be conducted on three acres.
b. Two metal buildings replaced with a new 21,600 square foot building. c. Allow up to 100 TPD of mixed recyclables and solid waste. d. Allow up to 10 percent putrescible material.
e. Allow self-haul. Prohibited packer garbage trucks.
f. Required annual review for three years following construction. g. UP 12-01 received two time extensions with a final expiration date of July 23, 2020; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, on appeal from the Planning Commission, the City Council approved Use Permit 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03 and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration, amending previous entitlements to include the following key project limitations:
a. Continue to limit maximum throughput to 100 TPD where the applicant requested 300 TPD (Condition 3).
b. Restricted to accepting waste generated only from Sutter and Yuba Counties (Condition 4).
c. Continue to limit putrescible waste material to 10 percent where the applicant requested no threshold (Condition 5).
d. Continue to prohibit packer trucks (garbage trucks) where the applicant requested that packer trucks with side, front or rear loaders be allowed (Condition 10).
e. Project site expanded from three to four acres.
f. Relocate an existing 1,800 square foot (sf) metal building. g. Expand transfer and processing building from 18,000 sf to 21,600 sf.

01248.0005/943995.1
h. Limit tire storage to a 40-yard bin (Condition 7).
i. Prohibit operations on Sunday (Condition 12).
j. Require future project modifications be submitted to the City Council for Review (Condition 60).
k. Notify project opponents of any applications to modify the project (Condition 60); and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2023, Recycling Industries submitted a Use Permit Amendment Application requesting to remove certain restrictions established as part of the City Council’s 2019 approval of Use Permit 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 008-21 establishing an Alternative City Council Review Process for Use Permits and Development Plan applications where the City Council may determine to consider certain applications directly; and
WHEREAS, to utilize the Alternative City Council Review Process, Section 8-5.7003 (f)(4) specifies the following factors for potentially proceeding with the alternative review process including:
a. Likelihood of an appeal to the City Council.
b. The public interest in expediting the review process c. Other items related to public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, a minimum of seven calendar days’ notice was provided to the applicant, interested parties and all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the project site was provided in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8-5.7003(f)(3); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Yuba City has determined to utilize the Alternative City Council Review Process to consider the proposed amendment to Use Permit 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03, submitted on July 19, 2023, based on circumstances including any of the following:
a. Direct review by the City Council is already independently required by condition of approval number 60 to Use Permit 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03;
b. Given the history and the nature of the use proposed, there is a higher likelihood of an appeal to the City Council if another review process were utilized because Use Permit 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03 were originally appealed from the Planning Commission to the City Council, etc.; and/or

01248.0005/943995.1
c. It is in the public interest to expedite the review process because this project has a history of public interest, and it will conserve staff resources to have the proposed amendment heard directly by the Council; and
d. This project involves proposed uses and associated use impacts that are related to public health, safety, and welfare.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of December 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
___________________________
Shannon L. Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

Agenda Item 23

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 19, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services Summary
Subject: Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) - Consideration of the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Levee Development Impact Nexus Fee Study
Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing; then
B. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Program Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Fiscal Impact: Re-establishes a reduced development impact fee for flood protection Purpose:

Consideration to adopt the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Nexus Fee Study.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item relates to the Council’s Public Safety Strategic Goal.

Background:

The Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) was established in 2007 with the purpose of consolidating efforts of several agencies and communities with flood management responsibilities and implementing locally led flood protection projects. SBFCA’s membership consists of the Counties of Butte and Sutter and the Cities of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak, and Yuba City, and Levee Districts 1 and 9.

SBFCA’s City and County members have land use authority and are responsible for making key decisions that impact development in the floodplain.

In October 2007, the City of Yuba City adopted an AB 1600 nexus fee study for its development impact fee program that included a flood protection fee. This fee was also collected by Sutter County within the City’s sphere of influence. In June 2021, Yuba City rescinded its levee impact fee with the understanding that SBFCA would consider establishing a Regional Impact Fee for the entire Sutter-Butte Basin.

Since 2007, several key facts and circumstances that supported the Yuba City Nexus Study have changed, necessitating the development of a new Regional Levee Impact Fee Program. SBFCA in

coordination with the cities and counties is working to implement the new Levee fee that addresses the following key issues. In summary, the Regional LDIF reflects the following:
• A detailed update of planned developments in all jurisdictions within the boundaries of SBFCA

1. The Regional LDIF only applies to planned development within the Sutter-Butte Basin that benefits from the facilities providing reduced flood risk. For determining the allocation base for the fee, planned development is all development that has been identified by the land use jurisdictions and is expected to obtain a building permit after the implementation of the fee program. The study provides a summary of planned new development by land use that is expected to be subject to the fee for the duration of the fee program. • Inclusion of the full scope of SBFCA’s levee improvement program

1. The benefits identified in SBFCA’s Assessment District Engineer’s Report were based on all elements of the Sutter-Butte Basin protection system being completed, with the assumption that the required improvements to the southern portion of the Sutter-Butte Basin would be completed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). However, it is clear that DWR will not have sufficient funding available to prioritize the repairs and improvements along the southern portion of the Basin. As such, the overall funding plan reflected in the Regional LDIF Nexus Study takes into consideration updated assumptions regarding cost sharing for the improvement required to complete SBFCA’s charge reflected in its adopted Strategic Plan.
• Recognition of SBFCA’s current Assessment District and the funding provided

1. Since 2010, SBFCA’s Assessment District has collected assessments from all properties benefiting from a completed system of improvements within the Sutter-Butte Basin. This includes the benefits to be conveyed by repairs and improvements to both the Feather River West Levee (FRWL) and the Sutter Bypass East Levee. The investment of Assessment collected in the rural portion of the Basin, have helped advance improvements to the northern urban portion of the Basin based on the prioritization of risk and consequences. The Regional LDIF, when collected and utilized to help complete rural Basin repairs, will help ensure that the benefits of the completed improvements are realized by all properties being assessed.

2. Within the Regional LDIF Nexus Study, the amount of funding expected to be generated by the Fee considers the Assessment District, existing grants, and reflects an assumption for future State/Federal cost sharing of remaining projects.

In coordination with SBFCA, a public workshop on the proposed nexus study and development impact fee was conducted on September 12, 2023, in the City Council Chambers.

Analysis
The preparation of a Nexus Study is the first step in the process of establishing the Sutter-Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Development Impact Fee Program. SBFCA has prepared documentation required to implement a new Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee.

Nexus Study
The State’s Mitigation Fee Act (also known as “AB 1600,” Government Code sections 66000, et seq.),

identifies the required findings which must be made in any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a development impact fee as a condition of approval of a development project. The attached Nexus study has been prepared in a manner establishing an equitable and fair share impact fee that can be imposed on all planned development projects that are provided 200-year level of protection to the urban (Northern) portion of the Sutter-Butte Basin and a 100-year level of protection to the rural (Southern) portion of the Basin. The Impact Fee will be collected to continue providing funding necessary to pay for the levee system improvements. In general, the study establishes the “nexus” between the impacts of development projects and the costs associated with the construction of public facilities to mitigate the impacts.

A Nexus Study documents the findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act and includes the following:
• Identifies the purpose of the fee proposal.
• Identifies the use to which the fee is to be put.
• Determines how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
• Determines how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility (or portion of the public facility) attributable to the development project on which the fee is imposed.

The required findings and supporting discussion for the Development Impact Fee are presented within the Nexus Study. Table 1 below summarizes the preliminary initial fee rates documented and justified within the Nexus Study. Table 2 details the demonstrative rates on a per unit basis and provides a comparison to the previously rescinded Yuba City rates that were in effect till June 2021. It is SBFCA’s intent to annually adjust fee rates at the beginning of each fiscal year (July 1st). This timing is subject to approval of the Nexus Study Update by the land use agencies.

Table 1 – Preliminary Initial Fee Rates
Land Use Cost Share Admin Fee Fee Rate Per 1,000
Sq Ft
Table 8 3%
Single Family Residential $416 $12 $428
Multi-Family Residential $261 $8 $269
Commercial $423 $13 $436
Industrial $271 $8 $279
These initial Fee Rates are effective upon adoption through the end of FY 2023- 2024 after which annual Fee escalation, as described in the Nexus Study, will be applied starting July 1, 2024. Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Table 2 – Demonstrative Rates on Per Unit Basis
Land Use Per Unit Fee Rates
Proposed SBFCA Fee Previous Yuba City Estimated

(Estimated) Flood Protection Reduction
Single Family Residential $856 $3,951 78%
Multi-Family Residential $215 $2,832 92%
Commercial / KSF $436 $632 31%
Industrial / KSF $279 $316 12%
Per Yuba City Permit Calculation Sheet Effective January 1, 2021 (now rescinded) Assumes a 2,000 sq. Ft Single Family Residential unit and an 800 Sq. Ft Multi-Family Residential Unit The Regional LDIF will be collected on each project subject to the following conditions:

1. New Development
A. For all residential land uses, the fee is calculated proportionately to the square footage of the residential property. The total conditioned space (habitable) square footage of the property is divided by 1,000 square feet to determine the total fee amount. Conditioned or habitable square footage is livable space within a residential property excluding basements, garages, garden sheds, greenhouses, storage sheds, and covered patios.

B. For nonresidential land uses, the total square footage of building space is divided by 1,000 square feet to determine the total fee amount.

2. Development with Existing or Replacement Structures
A. For residential additions of 500 square feet or more in size of new conditioned space (habitable area), the incremental new square footage will be charged the fee on a per 1,000 square foot basis.

B. For residential replacement projects, only the incremental new conditioned space (habitable) square footage that is 500 square feet or more in size will be charged the fee on a per 1,000 square foot basis.

C. For residential additions or replacement projects of less than 500 square feet of new building area, no fee will be collected
D. For commercial or industrial additions of 500 square feet or more in size of new building area, the additional square footage will be charged the fee on a 1,000 square foot basis.

E. For commercial or industrial replacement projects, only the incremental new square footage that is 500 square feet or more in size will be charged the fee on a 1,000 square foot basis.

F. For commercial or industrial additions or replacement projects of less than 500 square feet of new building area, no fee will be collected.

3. The following land uses and/or development projects are exempt from the Regional Levee Fee:

A. Agricultural: Development projects on land zoned Agricultural Holding District (AH) B. Additions to Pre-Existing Structures: Development projects adding less than 500 square feet of conditioned spaces are exempt from the fee. If the project increases the structure by 500 square feet of conditioned space or more, only the incremental new square footage will be charged the fee on a proportionate basis.

C. Replacement projects due to damage (with or without addition): If a project is an in-kind replacement to a previously existing structure because of fire damage or other natural disaster, the project will be exempt from the fee as long as the replacement does not increase the new structure by more than 300 square feet. If the project increases the square footage of a structure by more than 300 square feet, the incremental new square footage will be charged the fee on a proportionate basis.

D. Structures Raised Above the 200-Year Floodplain Elevation: Development projects with structures raised above the elevation of the 200-year flood as determined by the Land use agencies shall be exempt from the fee. The “200-year flood” and “200-year floodplain” are determined without incorporating SBFCA’s completed Feather River West Levee improvements. Detailed mapping to assist in making this determination can be found on page 4-4 of SBFCA's Final Engineer's Report dated July 14, 2010 that can be located at
(http://sutterbutteflood.org/admin/upload/Final_Engineers_Report_7_14_10wAddendaCompiled.pdf). This mapping is reflected in greater detail SBFCA's geographic information system (GIS) data.

E. Open space: Any development project located on land designated by the Yuba City General Plan as Parks, Recreation and Open Space.

F. Public Agency Owned Land (including federal, state, and local agencies): Any development project located on land owned by a Public agency and is to be used solely for public use.

Fiscal Impact:

City Staff have coordinated with SBFCA staff to prepare the necessary materials to adopt the proposed fee by ordinance under a separate action. Fees are proposed to be established for development impacts to improve regional flood protection as determined in the Nexus Fee Study.

Alternatives:

The Council may choose not to proceed with approving the Regional LDIF Nexus Study.

Recommendation:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing; and

2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Program Development Impact Fee Nexus Study.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution to Adopt Nexus Study

2. Proposed Nexus Study

3. Levee Fee Comparison
Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

APPROVING THE SUTTER BUTTE BASIN REGIONAL LEVEE PROGRAM

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (Act) (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) authorizes a local agency to impose impact fees as a condition of approval of development projects to help defray the costs of public infrastructure and facilities that will be needed to serve the proposed development; and
WHEREAS, Section 66016.5(a) of the Act requires that prior to adopting a development impact fee, a local agency must adopt an impact fee nexus study that establishes the connection between the proposed fee and the actual impacts of development on the local public infrastructure and facilities; and
WHEREAS, The Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) is a joint powers authority formed in 2008 for the purpose of improving protection in the Sutter-Butte Basin; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak, and Yuba City and the Counties of Butte and Sutter are all member agencies of SBFCA and each has the authority to prescribe, revise, and collect fees as a condition of development of land for the purpose of financing flood control facilities, including the authority to make such fees applicable to development land within their boundaries; and
WHEREAS, each of the cities and/or counties has expressed an interest or intent to exercise this authority to collect fees to provide funding for flood protection; and WHEREAS, in its role as a joint powers authority planning and implementing flood control activities in the Sutter-Butte Basin, SBFCA has prepared a Sutter-Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) which is attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is describes and determines the applicable development impact fee within the city or county (“DIF”) and sets forth the required findings required by Government Code Section 66000 et. seq.; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 66016.5(a)(7) of the Act, notice was published in the City of Yuba City Bulletin on November 17, 2023, providing 30 days’ notification of the time and place for a public hearing to consider and adopt the Nexus Study. Notice of the hearing was also provided 14 days prior to the public hearing to those interested parties who requested, in writing, notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 19, 2023, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Yuba City (Council) to hear and consider the Nexus Study and its findings, as presented by SBFCA staff and consultants, and any written and oral presentations from interested members of the public regarding the Nexus Study and the proposed development impact fee; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study finds the development impact fee will fund full levee improvements to provide 200-year protection to the Urban (Northern) portion of the Sutter Butte Basin and 100-year protection to the rural (Southern) portion of the Basin; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Study includes appropriate findings that a fee charged on a square footage basis bears a reasonable relationship between the fee being charged and the burden posed by the development consistent with the requirements of Section 66016.5(a) of the Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yuba City as follows:

1. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct and establishes the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution.

2. The Council approves and adopts the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee Nexus Study prepared by SBFCA and attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. The Nexus Study adopted by this Resolution supersedes any prior nexus study adopted in relation to development impact fees for the Sutter Butte Basin, and shall be updated at least every eight years, in accordance with Section 66016(a)(8) of the Act.

4. The proposed development impact fee, along with any evidence regarding the proposed fee calculation, assumptions, or methodology, shall be considered for adoption on December 19, 2023 as was noticed and held in accordance with Sections 66018 and 66019 of the Act.

5. The adoption of this Resolution is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it is in furtherance of the creation of a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the resolved actions may have a significant effect on the environment, in that this Resolution contains no provisions modifying the physical design, development, or construction of residences or nonresidential structures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).

6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of December 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
Shannon Chaffin,
City Attorney
Aleshire &
Wynder, LLP

ATTACHMENT 2

i 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
2450 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 240
Sacramento, CA 95833
Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Levee Improvement
Program Development
Impact Fee

NEXUS STUDY
Adopted by ______________ Ordinance No. _____
(Fee Effective Month_____, 2023)
Prepared for: Butte County, Sutter County, City of Biggs, City of Gridley, City of Live Oak, and City of Yuba City
Prepared by: Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc.

Prepared on Behalf of: Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) June 30, 2023

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

RESOLUTION PLACEHOLDER

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
i 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................................. iii Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 SBFCA Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Regional Fee.................................................................................................................................................... 2 Authority and Procedures............................................................................................................................... 5 Land Use Categories & New Development ............................................................................................... 11 Land Use Categories...................................................................................................................................... 11 Sutter Butte Basin Land Uses........................................................................................................................ 11 Capital Improvements and Projects.......................................................................................................... 14 Capital Costs Allocable to Planned Development......................................................................................... 14 Summary of Capital Improvements Funded by the Development Impact Fee ............................................ 15 Regional LDIF Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 17 Cost Allocation and Calculation .................................................................................................................... 17 Fee Program Implementation .................................................................................................................. 25 Regional LDIF Collection................................................................................................................................ 25 Fee Triggers/Applicability ............................................................................................................................. 25 Regional LDIF Program Boundary ................................................................................................................. 25 Exemptions from the Fee.............................................................................................................................. 25 Coverage Period............................................................................................................................................ 26 Administration Costs..................................................................................................................................... 26 Variations in Method .................................................................................................................................... 27 Refunds and Appeals Process ....................................................................................................................... 27 Annual Fee Escalation ................................................................................................................................... 27 Fee Program Administration .................................................................................................................... 28 Fee Calculation.............................................................................................................................................. 28 Fee Revenue Accounting............................................................................................................................... 30 Periodic Review and Cost Adjustment.......................................................................................................... 30 Nexus Findings......................................................................................................................................... 32 Authority ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Summary of Nexus Findings.......................................................................................................................... 32

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
ii 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

LIST OF TABLES
Table S-1: Summary of Initial DIF Rates per 1,000 Sq.Ft.by Land Use Category ................................................ 9 Table 1: Planned Development Summary ........................................................................................................ 13 Table 2: Cost of Flood Control Capital Projects Covered by the Fee ................................................................ 16 Table 3: Damageable Square Feet of Structure Per GDA ................................................................................. 19 Table 4: Relative Structure Damage Per GDA................................................................................................... 20 Table 5: Relative Land Damage per GDA .......................................................................................................... 21 Table 6: Relative Flood Damage Index.............................................................................................................. 22 Table 7: Apportionment of Costs Per GDA ....................................................................................................... 23 Table 8: Development Fee Rate Summary ....................................................................................................... 24

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Boundary ........................................................................... 4

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Planned Development Details
Appendix B: Funding Sources Detail
Appendix C: Estimated Cost Allocation By Land Use Agency

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
iii 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2007 Nexus Study Yuba City Impact Fee Justification Report 2010 SBFCA Assessment ER SBFCA Assessment District Final Engineer’s Report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff dated July 14, 2010
AB 602 Assembly Bill 602 (2021)
AB 1600 Assembly Bill 1600, Mitigation Fee Act
DWR California Department of Water of Resources
CCI Construction Cost Index
ENR Engineering News-Record
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FRWLP Feather River West Levee Project
GDA Gross Developable Acreage
JPA Joint Powers Authority
Levee Fee Yuba City flood protection development impact fee LFMA Local Flood Management Agency
LWA Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc.

Member Land Use Agencies Counties of Butte and Sutter and the Cities of Biggs, Girdley, Live Oak, and Yuba City (collectively)
Nexus Study Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
Regional LDIF Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact
SBFCA Board SBFCA Board of Directors
USACE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
1 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

SUMMARY
Overview
Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc. (LWA) has prepared this Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee (Regional LDIF) Nexus Study (Nexus Study) by request of the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) and on behalf of the Counties of Butte and Sutter and the Cities of Biggs, Girdley, Live Oak, and Yuba City (collectively, the Member Land Use Agencies). This Nexus Study has been prepared to support the adoption of a Regional LDIF by each of the Member Land Use Agencies.

Since October 2007, Yuba City has collected a flood protection development impact fee (Levee Fee) as part of its comprehensive capital facilities fee program. This fee applied to all of Yuba City as well as Yuba City’s sphere of influence within Sutter County. In addition, Sutter County relied on the same impact fee justification (2007 Nexus Study) to collect the levee fee within Sutter County’s jurisdiction in the Sutter Butte Basin.

SBFCA is supporting the implementation of an updated development impact fee program for the entire region because the facts and circumstances supporting Yuba City’s 2007 Nexus Study have changed. This study includes the following updates relative to the 2007 Nexus Study:
• A detailed update of the planned development in all jurisdictions within the boundaries of SBFCA; • The full scope of SBFCA’s levee improvement program; and, • Recognition of SBFCA’s current Assessment District and the funding provided through this mechanism.

It is intended that the Regional LDIF be collected throughout the entire Sutter Butte Basin. This Nexus Study provides the basis for a Regional LDIF to ensure that new development pays its proportionate share of the levee improvements that are being advanced by SBFCA to provide protection to the entire Sutter Butte Basin.

It is expected that this Nexus Study and a Regional LDIF will be adopted by each of the Land Use Agencies.

SBFCA Background
SBFCA was formed in 2007 for the purpose of consolidating efforts of several agencies and communities with flood management responsibilities and implementing locally led flood protection projects. SBFCA is a joint powers authority (JPA) composed of the Counties of Butte and Sutter and the Cities of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak, and Yuba City, and Levee Districts 1 and 9. Among SBFCA’s member agencies, the cities and counties bear the responsibility for making key land use decisions and managing the floodplain. The member levee districts are responsible for the operation and maintenance of flood control facilities within their jurisdiction, including levees and appurtenant structures.

The SBFCA Board of Directors (SBFCA Board) is composed of 13 regular members, each of whom is an elected representative of a SBFCA member Agency. The SBFCA Board is the sole authorizing body for all SBFCA operations and actions. All SBFCA programs, projects, funding, financing, and policy decisions are approved by the SBFCA Board.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
2 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
As provided for in the SBFCA JPA, SBFCA may exercise a broad suite of powers within its jurisdictional boundaries, including, but not limited to:

1. Plan and implement the ways and means to control flood waters within SBFCA boundaries.

2. Enter into contracts.

3. Evaluate, rehabilitate, reconstruct, repair, replace, improve, or add to the facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control in the Central Valley.

4. Acquire, develop, control, construct, manage, maintain, improve, operate, repair, and replace flood control facilities within the SBFCA boundaries.

5. Enter into agreements with any agency/department of the United States of America, the State of California, or any other governmental agency to provide funding necessary for SBFCA projects and programs.

6. Acquire property, by eminent domain or otherwise, and to hold and dispose of property necessary for SBFCA projects and programs.

7. Incur debts, liabilities, or obligations.

8. Levy and collect special benefits assessments, special capital assessments, and issue revenue bonds.

9. Impose and collect property-related fees, special taxes, and general taxes.

10. Prescribe, revise, and collect fees as a condition of land development.

11. Apply for, accept, and receive Federal, State, or local licenses, permits, grants, loans or other aid from any agency of the United States of America or the State of California.

A benefit assessment district, compliant with California Proposition 218, was created in 2010 to fund specific SBFCA operations, projects, and programs. SBFCA has also sought and received grant funding through a variety of sources (primarily from State of California grant programs). These funding agreements were executed following the formation of the JPA and Assessment District.

The SBFCA adopted Strategic Plan, dated April 2018, formulates and articulates a vision for flood management within the Basin and describes an approach to achieve that vision. The plan is updated every five years, or more often if warranted. It describes the accomplishments planned for the subsequent 10 years and who will be involved in accomplishing the goals and objectives identified. The Strategic Plan was intended to be implemented and referenced by the SBFCA Board, staff, consultants, and member and partner agencies. It informs and promotes alignment among the interested public, the State of California (Executive and Legislative branches), and involved flood managers at Federal, State, and local levels.

The Regional LDIF, when coupled with the SBFCA Assessment District and grant funds, generates the funding necessary to implement the SBFCA adopted Strategic Plan.

Regional Fee
This study is being prepared for SBFCA, the Local Flood Management Agency (LFMA) responsible for planning, implementing, funding, and financing the levee improvement program for the Sutter Butte Basin. This study is being prepared as a regional fee with the intent that each Member Land Use Agency will individually approve

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
3 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
the Nexus Study, adopt the Regional LDIF, and collect and remit fees to SBFCA. Figure 1 shows the Regional LDIF Boundary.

While some portions of the Sutter Butte Basin levee improvement program have been completed, other portions must still be completed to provide the entire Sutter Butte Basin with the reduced flood risk described in the 2007 Nexus Study. At the time of the 2007 Nexus Study, and as late as the approval of SBFCA’s Assessment District in 2010, it was expected that improvements in the southern portion of the Basin would be completed by either the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) or California Department of Water of Resources (DWR). Because of this, assessments collected from all properties, including those in the southern portion of the Basin, were utilized to advance construction throughout the entire reach of the Feather River West Levee Project, benefitting all properties within the Basin. Since the adoption of the 2010 Assessment, it has become clear to SBFCA that DWR will not be leading the improvements benefitting the southern portion of the Basin as had been expected. Development projects in the northern portion of the Basin that benefit from the improvements advanced by revenues from the entire Basin must now generate additional funding so that the remainder of improvements can be completed for the benefit of the entire Sutter Butte Basin.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
4 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
Figure 1: Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Boundary

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
5 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
Authority and Procedures
Assembly Bill No. 1600: Mitigation Fee Act (1987)
This Nexus Study has been prepared to assist with the establishment of a Regional LDIF program in accordance with the provisions of Assembly Bill No. 1600, also known as the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), as codified in Government Code §66000 et. seq. AB 1600 sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that “a reasonable relationship,” or nexus, must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition. This Nexus Study documents that a reasonable relationship exists between the development impact fee to be levied on each land use category and the cost of facility improvements.

Nexus Study requirements include:

1. Identifying the purpose of the fee.

2. Identifying how the fee is to be used.

3. Determining how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

4. Determining how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

5. Demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

AB 1600 Requirement 1: Purpose of Fee
The Regional LDIF will provide funding for levee improvements to provide 200-year protection to the urban portion of the Sutter Butte Basin and 100-year protection to the remainder of the basin.

AB 1600 Requirement 2: Use of the Fee
The Regional LDIF will fund repairs, rehabilitations, and improvements including those beyond what is able to be completed solely with funding from the SBFCA Assessment District and State Grants to date. The Regional LDIF will fund:
• Improvements to the Feather River West Levee System including:
o Star Bend Setback Levee constructed by Levee District 11 o Feather River West Levee Project (FRWLP) Phase 1
o Gridley Bridge Erosion Repairs
o Laurel Avenue Flood System Repair Project
o Federal Sutter Basin Feasibility Study and Increment Constructed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (local sponsor costs only)
o Feather River West Levee repairs to Reaches 14 through 16 1 The scope and costs of the Star Bend Setback Levee includes only the local share funded by SBFCA.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
6 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
o Lower Feather River Repairs (remaining repairs between Highway 99 and the Sutter Bypass East Levee)
• Sutter Bypass East Levee Project Phases 1 through 3 (from Wadsworth Canal downstream to Feather River confluence)
o Includes critical repairs for 3 sub-reaches within Phase 1 • Urban Levee Design Criteria Compliance Projects
o Ongoing certification reporting and compliance for a period of 30 years consistent with the term of projections of development within a Nexus Study
o ULDC Compliance projects required to maintain an Urban Level of Protection All of the costs of the above projects/scope of work are included in the Regional LDIF and all local funding (SBFCA’s Benefit Assessment) and non-local funding (State Grants) that offset these costs are reflected in this Nexus Study. The net remaining costs are the basis for a Regional LDIF.

As previously noted, this Nexus Study provides the required findings needed to impose a development impact fee pursuant to AB 1600. AB 1600 requires that the fee be calculated by spreading the costs among the anticipated future development in proportion to the impact that development has on the services provided.

The 2007 Levee Fee was imposed and collected by Yuba City as a condition of new development’s approval only within a portion of the Sutter Butte Basin. SBFCA has prepared this fee study to be collected on a regional basis and requests that all of the member land use agencies collect the fee on its behalf.

To determine costs associated with the Project and the planned development upon which to allocate the costs, a 30-year planning horizon has been assumed and is generally consistent with the remaining time horizons of each of the member land use agencies’ General Plans.

AB 1600 Requirement 3: Relationship Between Use of Fees and Type of Development Development of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial land uses within the Sutter Butte Basin require improved flood control and flood protection services to protect use and life.

Flood risk has two aspects: the probability of flooding and the consequences that follow. An area could have a high probability of flooding, but minimal consequences because it is vacant and contains no infrastructure or people. In this case, flood risk would be considered low. Conversely, a highly urbanized community that has a moderate or low probability of flooding would be considered high risk because of the greater consequences of a flood in that location (i.e., loss of life, livelihood, property, health, and human suffering).

There are several ways to quantify flood risk including examining the risk of loss of life and risk of loss to property. The risk of loss to property can be expressed and quantified in terms of Expected Annual Damage (EAD). This Nexus Study uses EAD as a proxy for flood risk. EAD is the product of the probability of flooding (percent chance in any given year) and consequences (dollars of damage as a result of flooding). Without mitigation, additional development increases the EAD by increasing developed property at risk. To protect life and property, it is important for the LFMA to maintain a high level of service (in terms of maintaining low flood risk) within the Sutter Butte Basin as development increases. To maintain the current level of EAD and

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
7 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
reduce the level of flood risk to offset increased EAD, the LFMA must improve the flood protection facilities as development occurs.

Each development project will add to the necessity of flood protection due to the increased EAD because of that development. Additionally, each development project will benefit from the levee infrastructure already in place at the time of development. For the new development described in this Nexus Study to occur in the Sutter Butte Basin, levee improvements that reduce the probability of flooding are necessary.

AB 1600 Requirement 4: Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development As stated under Requirement 3, development of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial land uses within the Sutter Butte Basin require improved flood control and flood protection services to protect use and life.

Each development project will add to the necessity of flood protection due to the increased EAD as a result of that development. Additionally, each development project will benefit from the levee infrastructure already in place at the time of development. For the new development described in this Nexus Study to occur in the Sutter Butte Basin, levee improvements that reduce the probability of flooding are necessary.

AB 1600 Requirement 5: Relationship Between Amount of Fees and Cost of Facility This study includes the following components:

1. A determination of the amount of planned development upon which the costs of the fee funded facilities will be allocated.

2. The identification of costs associated with each improvement, facility, or program funded by the fee.

3. The development of a standard metric by which to proportionately allocate the costs of the facilities between land use categories.

4. A determination of the fee cost per acre for each land use category.

5. A determination of the fee per unit by land use category.

6. A discussion of how the program will be administered by the Land Use Agency.

The Regional LDIF is calculated on a gross developable acreage (GDA) basis then converted to a per unit fee.

The fee will be collected on a per unit basis for all types of development. For Single and Multi-Family Residential, a unit is a single dwelling unit. For Commercial and Industrial, a unit is 1,000 square feet of building. All development projects requiring a building permit within the Sutter Butte Basin will be categorized into one of the three development type categories and will be subject to the fee. At the option of each Land Use Agency, the fee may be calculated and collected either prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Fee will be charged at the then current rate at the time of calculation and collection. The details of the calculation and collection of the fee are further described within the Fee Program Administration section of this Nexus Study.

Table S-1 provides a summary of the proposed initial fee rates per 1,000 square foot through Fiscal Year 2022/2023.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
8 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
Assembly Bill No. 602 (2021)
Level of Service Identification Requirements
This Nexus Study has also been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Assembly Bill 602 (2021) (AB 602) as codified in Government Code § 65940.1, 66016.5, and 66019 and Health and Safety Code § 50466.5. AB 602 sets forth additional procedural requirements for the preparation of a Nexus Study and the adoption of a development impact fee. As it relates to the identification of level of service the following must be identified and provided:

1. The existing level of service;

2. The new level of service; and

3. An explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.

AB 602 Requirement 1: Existing Level of Service
Segments of the Feather River levees do not provide adequate protection against 100-year flood flows and could cause the Sutter Butte Basin to fall into higher-risk Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones. Ultimately this would result in FEMA requiring flood insurance on properties with a federally insured mortgage and issuing increased flood insurance rates accordingly. Many private lenders may also require flood insurance based on FEMA’s requirement. As discussed in the Regional Fee section above, some portions of the Sutter Butte Basin levee improvement program have been completed, while other portions must still be completed to provide the entire Sutter Butte Basin with the reduced flood risk described in the 2007 Nexus Study. Since the 2007 Nexus Study, it has become clear to SBFCA that DWR will not be leading the improvements benefiting the southern portion of the Basin as had been expected. Development projects in the northern portion of the Basin that benefit from the improvements advanced by revenues from the entire Basin must now generate additional funding so that the remainder of improvements can be completed for the benefit of the entire Sutter Butte Basin.

AB 602 Requirement 2: New Level of Service
The Regional LDIF, in combination with other funding sources, will provide funding for levee improvements to provide the urban portion of the Sutter Butte Basin protection against 200-year flood flows within the Feather River and protection against 100-year flood flows within the Feather River for the remainder of the basin.

AB 602 Requirement 3: Explanation of Why the New Level of Service is Appropriate Without the levee improvements, the Sutter Butte Basin would not be protected from 100-year or 200-year flood flows within the Feather River. This would result in increased risk of loss of use and life safety and may ultimately lead to the requirement of flood insurance as well increases to the FEMA flood insurance rates.

Housing Development Square Footage Basis Exemption Findings AB 602 requires that the calculation of the fee on a housing development project be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. This Nexus Study complies with the housing development square footage basis requirement.

Table S-1
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Summary of Initial Fee Rates per 1,000 Sq Ft by Land Use Category Land Use Cost Share Admin Fee
Fee Rate Per
1,000 Sq Ft [1]
Table 8 3%
Single Family $416 $12 $428
Multi-Family $261 $8 $269
Commercial $424 $13 $436
Industrial $271 $8 $279
[1] These initial Fee Rates are effective upon adoption through the end of FY 2022/2023 after which annual Fee escalation, as described in the Nexus Study, will be applied starting July 1, 2023. Rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Prepared by LWA
9 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
10 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
Procedural Requirements
The Member Land Use Agencies intend to adopt the Regional LDIF pursuant to the procedural requirements of both AB 1600 and AB 602. The procedures include the following:
• Conduct a Noticed Public Hearing to Adopt the Nexus Study: Each Member Land Use Agency shall conduct a noticed Public Hearing, to adopt this Nexus Study, at which oral or written presentations can be made, this may be part of a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting. This public hearing shall be noticed at least 30 days prior in accordance with Government Code § 66016.5(a)(7). • Conduct a Noticed Public Hearing to Adopt the Development Impact Fee: Each Member Land Use Agency shall conduct a noticed Public Hearing, to adopt the development fee associated with this Nexus Study, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. This public hearing shall be noticed by publication at least 10 days prior in accordance with Government Code § 6062(a). In addition, notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that any data required by Government Code § 66016(a) is available, shall be mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the Local Agency for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges.
• Provide Public Information: Each Member Land Use Agency shall provide public information, at least 10 days prior to their Public Hearing, including available public data indicating the amount of estimated costs required to provide the service for which the fee is to be levied. • Adopt a Resolution or Ordinance: AB 1600 requires that any action by a local agency to levy a new fee or service charge or to approve an increase in an existing fee or service charge shall be taken only by ordinance or resolution.

Note that Government Code § 66017 states that fees adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code § 66016 (those outlined above) are effective no sooner than 60 days after final action on the adoption of the new fee or increase to an existing fee.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
11 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

LAND USE CATEGORIES & NEW DEVELOPMENT
Land Use Categories
AB 1600 sets forth standards by which monetary exactions on development projects are measured. The need for a public facility must be reasonably related to the level of service required, which varies in proportion to a particular land use type.

The following is a list of the land use type categories utilized for the purpose of this Regional LDIF:
• Single-Family Residential: Includes structures that are single-family dwellings and duplexes. Halfplexes, rural homes, and mobile homes requiring a build permit are included in this category. • Multi-Family Residential: Includes structures that are occupied by three or more families living independently of each other, under one roof. This category includes condominiums, triplexes, fourplexes, apartment complexes. • Commercial: Includes offices, retail facilities, hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations and car washes, medical and dental offices, banks, and any other development typically serving and open to the general public.
• Industrial: Includes development occupied by manufacturing, warehouses, processing plants, heavy and light industry, lumberyards, storage, bulk plants, truck transfer terminals, and any other development typically serving the manufacturing, storage, or processing industries.

Further details with respect to the specifics of each land use category are discussed within the Fee Program Implementation and Fee Program Administration sections of this Nexus Study.

Sutter Butte Basin Land Uses
A central principle to determining a development impact fee is to consider the amount of anticipated future growth over the time horizon of the proposed program. In this case, the scope of facilities needed to provide enhanced flood protection within the Sutter Butte Basin are not necessarily functionally related to the amount of planned or existing development. The new facilities will provide a benefit to existing development. As described above, this Regional LDIF program is one of several sources of funding needed to construct the improvements. The facilities funded by this fee need not be allocated to existing development as a separate funding mechanism will cover the benefit received and service provided to existing development.

This fee only applies to planned development within the Sutter Butte Basin that benefits from the facilities providing reduced flood risk. For the purposes of determining the allocation base for the fee, planned development is all development that has been identified by the land use jurisdictions and is expected to obtain a building permit after the implementation of this fee program.

Planned New Development
Planned new development within Sutter Butte Basin was estimated based on extensive research and coordination with the Counties of Butte and Sutter and the Cities of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak, and Yuba City.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
12 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
The details of the planned development estimated over the 30-year horizon of the fee program are documented in Appendix A. Table 1 provides a summary of planned new development by land use that is subject to the fee for the duration of the fee program. This table provides the total GDA by land use category as well as the total number of Single-Family and Multi-Family units and 1,000 building square feet for Commercial and Industrial development throughout the entire basin. The calculation of units and 1,000 square feet per acre is reflective of development throughout the basin and not specific to any individual Land Use Agency.

Table 1
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Planned Development Summary
Land Use
Gross Developable
Acreage (GDA)
1,000
Building Sq Ft
1,000 Sq Ft
Per Acre [1]
Reference Table A-1 Table A-2
A B C = B / A
Single-Family 3,612 35,235 9.75
Multi-Family 786 8,983 11.42
Commercial 736 6,504 8.84
Industrial 427 5,792 13.57
Total 5,561
Prepared by LWA
13 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
14 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECTS
Capital Costs Allocable to Planned Development
As described above and within the SBFCA Assessment District Final Engineer’s Report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff dated July 14, 2010 (2010 SBFCA Assessment ER), a series of improvements are needed to ensure that the levee system provides 200-year flood protection to the northern urban portion of the Sutter Butte Basin and 100-Year flood protection to the southern rural portion of the basin. A detailed cost estimate and financing plan has been prepared by SBFCA to demonstrate how the LFMA intends to generate the funds needed to implement its levee improvement program.

The Regional LDIF will fund repairs, rehabilitations, and improvements including those beyond what is able to be completed solely with funding from the SBFCA Assessment District and State Grants to date. The Regional LDIF will fund:
• Improvements to the Feather River West Levee System including:
o Star Bend Setback Levee constructed by Levee District 12 o Feather River West Levee Project Phase 1
o Gridley Bridge Erosion Repairs
o Laurel Avenue Flood System Repair Project
o Federal Sutter Basin Feasibility Study and Increment Constructed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (local sponsor costs only)
o Feather River West Levee repairs to Reaches 14 through 16 o Lower Feather River Repairs (remaining repairs between Highway 99 and the Sutter Bypass East Levee)
• Sutter Bypass East Levee Project Phases 1 through 3 (from Wadsworth Canal downstream to Feather River confluence)
o Includes critical repairs for 3 sub-reaches within Phase 1 • Urban Levee Design Criteria Compliance Projects
o Ongoing certification reporting and compliance for a period of 30 years consistent with the term of projections of development within a Nexus Study
o ULDC Compliance projects required to maintain an Urban Level of Protection All of the costs of the above projects/scope of work are included in the Regional LDIF and all local (SBFCA Assessment) and non-local funding (State Grants) that offset these costs are reflected in this Nexus Study.

The net remaining costs are the basis for a Regional LDIF.

The Regional LDIF will be only levied on Planned Development within the Sutter Butte Basin. This means that the portion of the costs allocable to existing development, will not be raised through this fee program. The 2 The scope and costs of the Star Bend Setback Levee includes only the local share funded by SBFCA.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
15 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
LFMA will use other local sources (SBFCA Assessment) and non-local (State Grants) to fund the balance of the costs not raised through this fee program.

Summary of Capital Improvements Funded by the Development Impact Fee The actual costs incurred and estimated costsfor the levee improvements are shown in Table 2. All estimated costs are in 2021 dollars. Appendix B provides details of State Grants and available SBFCA Assessment revenues. The total cost of capital improvements funded is approximately $625.2 million in 2021 dollars.

Other sources of funding are estimated to contribute approximately $603.9 million which fund existing development’s portion of the costs of the levee improvements. The estimated remaining $21.3 million will be funded by Planned Development through this Regional LDIF program. This amount is used as the basis for calculating the Regional LDIF.

Table 2
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Costs of Flood Control Capital Projects Covered by the Fee Item Total Cost
Program Expenditures
Feather River West Levee Project Ph 1 & 2
Star Bend Project Payments (to LD1) $2,222,242
Feather River West Levee Phase 1 (EIP / UFRR Project) $322,332,310 Gridley Bridge Erosion Repair $503,101
Laurel Avenue FSRP $11,102,697
Federal Project Feasibility Study & Construction (Local Share) $13,088,821 Reaches 14 to 16 Repairs $29,479,200
Lower Feather River Remainder Phase 2 $20,000,000
Sutter Bypass Improvements
Small Community Studies $999,969
Critical Repair Projects $30,000,000
Full Repair $190,000,000
ULDC Compliance Projects $5,500,000
Subtotal Program Expenditures $625,228,341
Program Revenues
Non-Local Funding Sources [2] $473,768,575
Local Funding Sources [3] $130,146,977
Subtotal Program Revenues $603,915,552
Total Cost Funded by the Levee Fee $21,312,789
Source: SBFCA Budget
[2] See Table B-1 for all grant funded sources.
[3] See Table B-2 for all available SBFCA assessment revenus and bond sale proceeds. [1] Assumed 30-year timeframe at $500,000 every 5 years.

Prepared by LWA
16 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
17 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

REGIONAL LDIF METHODOLOGY
In accordance with AB 1600, a calculation of development impact fees must be accompanied by an analysis with enough detail to justify that a thorough consideration was applied in the process of determining how the fee relates to the impacts from new development. Findings must ensure that a reasonable relationship exists between the proposed fee and the development upon which it will be levied. This section describes the methodology utilized in this report in accordance with the requirements of AB 1600.

The fee methodology utilized here includes the following steps:

1. Qualitatively determine and describe the land use categories utilized as the basis for the fee.

2. Quantify the projected growth within the benefiting area in each of the land use categories in terms of GDA.

3. Describe and estimate the capital improvement costs and their applicability to planned new development.

4. Estimate the total building footprint square feet in each land use category and the resulting damageable square feet of structure per acre for each land use category.

5. Use the estimated damageable square feet per acre, an assumed relative structure value per structure type, and the assumed flood damage percentage to estimate the average structure damage per acre per structure type.

6. Use an estimated relative land value per land use category and assumed flood damage percentage to estimate an average land damage per acre per land use category.

7. Use the estimated structure and land damages to determine an estimated total damage per acre per land use category.

8. Apply a Loss of Use and Life Safety Factor to adjust the total damage per acre to determine an adjusted damage per acre per land use category.

9. Determine a relative Flood Damage Index by relating the adjusted damage per acre for each land use category to that of the adjusted damage per acre for the Single-Family Residential land use category.

10. Utilize the Flood Damage index to determine the adjusted equivalent acreage which represents a weighted amount of planned development acreage by land use type within the Sutter Butte Basin.

11. Proportionately allocate the capital improvement costs to each land use category based upon the adjusted equivalent acreage.

12. Determine the cost per GDA by dividing the allocated costs by the GDA of each land use category.

13. Add to each cost per acre the costs of administration of the fee program.

14. Convert the per GDA fee to a per unit fee using assumed density and FAR data to determine the fee amount per unit per land use category to be collected by the land use agencies.

Cost Allocation and Calculation
The purpose of allocating the capital improvements costs among the various land uses is to provide an equitable method of funding the required improvements. The key to the cost apportionment of capital improvements to different land use types is the assumption that the benefits derived from the facilities are

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
18 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
related to land use type and that such benefits can be stated in relative terms. Only by relating the benefit received from the facilities and the services they provide to land use types can a reasonable nexus, or relationship, be established for the apportionment of costs to that land use.

Since the nature of the improvements in this Nexus Study relate to reducing the flood risk in the Sutter Butte Basin, the equivalency factor determined in Step 9 above is the Flood Damage Index. The Flood Damage Index is a relative factor that relates the adjusted property damages by land use to the property damage of an acre of Single-Family development. The greater the index value, the greater the impact in terms of property damage and loss of use and life associated with a possible flood. An index value closer to zero would indicate lower damage costs and loss of use and life associated with a flood. Given these facts, utilizing the Flood Damage Index as described above is a reasonable method to allocate costs proportionately based on land use.

The following describes the series of tables that calculate the Regional LDIF using the method described above.

Using the estimated total building square feet and the assumed average building stories, Table 3 determines the estimated building footprint square feet and the associated damageable square feet of structure per acre.

After calculating the damageable square feet of structure per acre for each land use category, the value is then multiplied by the relative structure value per square foot and the assumed flood damage percentage to find the average structure damage per GDA, as shown in Table 4. The relative structure value and assumed flood damage percentage are based upon the 2010 SBFCA Assessment ER. Table 5 uses the relative land value per acre and assumed flood damage percentage based upon the 2010 SBFCA Assessment ER to calculate the average land damage per acre.

By summing the average structure damage and average land damage per GDA values determined in Table 4 and Table 5, a total damage per GDA can be determined. The total damage is then adjusted by a Loss of Use and Life Safety Factor, a factor determined by how many hours per day individuals occupy structures in each land use category. This factor is multiplied by the total damage per acre to determine an adjusted damage per acre. The adjusted damage per acre amount is then used to the find the Flood Damage Index or equivalency factor, as illustrated in Table 6.

The Flood Damage Index from Table 6 is used to determine an adjusted equivalent acreage. This amount is used to allocate the local cost to each land use category on a proportional adjusted equivalent acreage basis for each land use category. The allocated cost is then divided by the total GDA in each land use category to find the cost share per GDA as shown in Table 7.

Table 8 shows the allocated costs per GDA of the fee and the Administrative Fee of 3% to determine the total fee amount on a per GDA basis for each land use type. Table 8 then calculates the Cost Share, Administrative Fee, and Fee Rate on a per unit or 1,000 building square feet basis based on the density of planned development shown in Table 1.

Appendix C shows the estimated allocated cost per unit for Residential and the estimated cost per 1,000 square feet for Non-Residential development by each Land Use Agency.

Table 3
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Damageable Square Feet of Structure Per GDA
Land Use
Gross
Developable
Acreage (GDA)
1,000 Square
Feet [1]
Estimated Total
Building Sq Ft
Assumed
Average Building
Stories
Estimated
Building
Footprint Sq Ft
Damageable
Structure Sq Ft
per GDA
Reference Table A-1 Table A-2
A B C = B*1,000 D E = C/D F = E/A
Single-Family [2] 3,612 35,235 35,234,973 1.17 30,201,406 8,361 Multi-Family [3] 786 8,983 8,983,350 2.00 4,491,675 5,711 Commercial 736 6,504 6,503,853 1.00 6,503,853 8,835
Industrial 427 5,792 5,792,371 1.00 5,792,371 13,572
Total 5,561 56,514,548 46,989,305
[1] Single-Family and Multi-Family shown in units; Commerical and Industrial shown in 1,000s of square feet. [3] Assumes average 900 square feet units.
[2] Assumes average 2,100 square foot units (all stories) and 1,800 square foot single story units, thus imputing an assumed avereage number of stories per building.

Prepared by LWA 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622
19

Table 4
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Relative Structure Damage Per GDA
Land Use
Relative
Structure Value
Per Sq Ft
Damageable
Structure Sq Ft
per GDA
Assumed Flood
Damage
Percentage
Average Structure
Damage Per GDA
Reference Table 3
A B C D = A*B*C
Single-Family [1] $60 8,361 35% $175,589
Multi-Family [1] $60 5,711 35% $119,939
Commercial $70 8,835 81% $500,949
Industrial $50 13,572 77% $522,520
[1] The Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency Engineer's Report does not distinguish Single-Family from Multi-Family in the Residential land use category therefore the same relative structure value and flood damage percentage were utilized for both land uses.

Source: SBFCA Assessment Final Engineer's Report date July 14, 2010 Prepared by LWA
20 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622

Table 5
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Relative Land Damage per GDA
Land Use
Relative Land
Value
Per GDA
Assumed Flood
Damage
Percentage
Relative Land
Damage
Per GDA
A B C = A*B
Single-Family $251,000 10% $25,100
Multi-Family $278,000 10% $27,800
Commercial $554,000 10% $55,400
Industrial $233,000 10% $23,300
Source: SBFCA Assessment Final Engineer's Report date July 14, 2010 Prepared by LWA
21 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622

Table 6
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Relative Flood Damage Index
Land Use
Average
Structure Value
Damage Per Acre
Average Land
Value Damage
Per Acre
Total Damage
Per Acre
Loss of Use
& Life Safety
Factor [1]
Adjusted
Total Damage
Per Acre
Relative Flood
Damage Index
Reference Table 4 Table 5
A B C = A+B D E = C*D F = E/$602,066
Single-Family $175,589 $25,100 $200,689 3.00 $602,066 1.00 Multi-Family $119,939 $27,800 $147,739 3.00 $443,218 0.74 Commercial $500,949 $55,400 $556,349 1.00 $556,349 0.92 Industrial $522,520 $23,300 $545,820 1.00 $545,820 0.91 [1] A ratio of 3:1 based on 24 hours of use for Residential and 8 hours of use for Commerical and Industrial.

Prepared by LWA 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622
22

Table 7
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Apportionment of Costs Per GDA
Land Use
Gross
Developable
Acreage
Flood
Damage Index
Adjusted
Equivalent
Acreage
Local Cost
Share
Percentage
Local
Cost Share
Cost Share
per GDA
Reference Table 1 Table 6 Table 2
A B C = A*B D = C/5,258 E = D*$21,312,789 F = E/A
Single-Family 3,612 1.00 3,612 68.7% $14,640,612 $4,053 Multi-Family 786 0.74 579 11.0% $2,346,651 $2,984
Commercial 736 0.92 680 12.9% $2,757,228 $3,746
Industrial 427 0.91 387 7.4% $1,568,299 $3,675
Total 5,561 5,258 100% $21,312,789
Prepared by LWA 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622
23

Table 8
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Development Fee Rate Summary
Land Use Cost Share Admin Fee Fee Rate Cost Share Admin Fee Fee Rate Reference Table 7 3% Table 1
A B = A * 3% C = A+B D E = A/D F = B/D G = C/D
Single-Family $4,053 $122 $4,175 9.75 $416 $12 $428
Multi-Family $2,984 $90 $3,073 11.42 $261 $8 $269
Commercial $3,746 $112 $3,858 8.84 $424 $13 $436
Industrial $3,675 $110 $3,785 13.57 $271 $8 $279
Per GDA 1,000 Sq Ft Per 1,000 Square Feet
Per Acre
Prepared by LWA 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622
24

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
25 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The Regional LDIF calculations presented in this Nexus Study are based on the best improvement cost estimates, administrative cost estimates, and land use information available at this time. If costs change significantly, if the type or amount of new projected development changes, or if other assumptions significantly change such as Federal or State standards, this Nexus Study and the program should be updated accordingly.

Regional LDIF Collection
It is expected that each Land Use Agency in the Sutter Butte Basin will individually adopt the Regional LDIF and collect and remit fees to SBFCA. It is expected that as part of the adoption of this Nexus Study by a City or County, the agency will enter into a collection agreement with SBFCA and pursuant to that agreement, SBFCA will support the efficient administration and collection of the fee. SBFCA will support collection by clarifying and specifying any conditions that would trigger the collection of the Regional LDIF or similarly clarifying and specifying any exemption of the Regional LDIF as further described in Exemptions from the Fee, below. SBFCA may also support each City or County as requested to specify appropriate development conditions to ensure imposition of the fee, as well as clarify any specifics as to the calculation and collection of the fee. A City or County, at its discretion, may also allow for variations in the method of payment as further described in this section.

Fee Triggers/Applicability
The Regional LDIF will apply to all Planned Development in the Sutter Butte Basin that creates a flood protection impact. Planned Development is defined as all development that is required to obtain a building permit within the Sutter Butte Basin. At the option of the Land Use Agency, the fee may be calculated and collected either prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to building permit final and/or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Fee will be charged at the then current rate at the time of calculation.

Regional LDIF Program Boundary
The Regional LDIF calculations are based upon the total costs of the levee improvement program and estimated amount of development within the floodplain in the Sutter Butte Basin which encompasses the entire benefit area. By virtue of the cost allocation process, this Regional LDIF program will generate a proportional amount of fee revenue from the share of Planned Development within each of the land use agencies. Figure 1 (page 4) illustrates the Regional LDIF Program Boundary.

Exemptions from the Fee
The following land uses and/or projects are exempt from the Regional LDIF:

1. Agricultural Exemption: Development on agricultural zoned land including development of rural residential parcels greater than 5 acres in size.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
26 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

2. Additions to Pre-Existing Structures: Development projects that 1) require a building permit and 2) are increasing the amount of new structure square footage by no more than 500 new square feet are exempt from the fee. If the project increases the structure by 500 square feet or more, only the incremental new square footage will be charged the fee on a proportionate basis. See details on the proportional basis in the Fee Program Administration, Number of Units section on page 28.

3. Replacement due to Damage (with or without Addition): If the proposed project is an in-kind replacement to a previously existing structure because of fire damage or other natural disaster, the project will be exempt from the fee so long as the replacement does not increase the amount of new structure by more than 300 square feet. If the project increases the structure by more than 300 square feet, the incremental new square footage will be charged the fee on a proportionate basis.

4. Structure raised above the 200-year Floodplain Elevation: Development projects with structures raised above the elevation of the 200-year flood as determined by the Land use agencies or structures removed from the 200-year floodplain by flood control improvements that meet the design standards applicable to the Federal-State flood control system as determined by the Land use agencies, shall be exempt from the fee. The “200-year flood” and “200-year floodplain” are determined without incorporating SBFCA’s completed Feather River West Levee improvements.

5. Open space.

6. Public Agency Owned Land (including Federal, State, and Land use agencies).

Written Waivers to the Fee
With written approval from the Land Use Agency having jurisdiction, any or all portions of the proposed fees may be waived if it can be determined that a proposed project will not derive permanent benefit from the improvements for which the fees are collected (i.e., it can be shown that the property does not benefit from the flood protection). Written fee waivers may be available on a case-by-case basis for certain temporary structures, such as a mobile temporary structure used for construction management purposes.

Coverage Period
Except as otherwise indicated as part of the Member Land Use Agency’s adoption process, the Regional LDIF is to be collected beginning the 61st day after the adoption of the resolution or ordinance approving the fee, as adopted by each Member Land Use Agency’s governing body and for 30-years thereafter, unless updated, amended, or repealed.

Administration Costs
The estimated costs of administration for the Regional LDIF have been included in the fee rates program shown on Table S1 and Table 8. The proposed administrative fee is 3% of the cost of the fee. However, to the extent each Land Use Agency has its own process for determining the administrative cost of the fee, this amount may be adjusted by each Land Use Agency accordingly. These administrative costs will cover the following:
• The development and administration of the Regional LDIF Program.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
27 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
• Accounting costs associated with the Regional LDIF.
• Any necessary or required annual review of the fee program costs, fees, and policies. • Any necessary or required annual reporting requirements associated with the fee program. • Any other ongoing and recurring administrative procedures associated with the program.

Variations in Method
The Land use agencies may allow for variations in the method of fee payment at the time of fee calculation, including:
• Use of any lawfully created Assessment District or Community Facilities District (CFD) to finance fee payment.
• Voluntarily accelerated payment of the fee at the time of filing of any application for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or an earlier land use application, at the then-applicable rate. • The collection of fees or other payments to fund improvements by the land use jurisdictions that are to be used, by agreement, to directly fund or reimburse the cost of the facilities funded by the fee.

The use of these alternative payment mechanisms and the collection of the Regional LDIF may vary among the Land use agencies, however, in any case, the alternative method of payment will be documented within an agreement or memorandum by the Land Use Agency.

Refunds and Appeals Process
An applicant who has paid the Regional LDIF may request that such fee be refunded at any time prior to commencement of the development, although, to do so would terminate any approved application or permit.

Refunds will be made according to the policies and procedures of Land Use Agency, as they are developed, and may reflect deductions to compensate for handling and administrative costs incurred by the land use agencies in processing the fee calculation, collection, and refund request.

Appeals regarding the determination of the applicability and amount of the LDIF are to be made in writing to the Land Use Agency. The Land Use Agency shall respond to the appeal request in writing within 30 days. The determination of the Land Use may be appealed pursuant to any adopted appeal procedures. Any determination by the Land Use Agency’s Board of Directors shall be considered final.

Annual Fee Escalation
To address inflationary costs, the base fee rates shown in this study shall escalate by either the escalation schedule defined by each Member land Use Agency’s fee adoption process, if not otherwise defined, each July 1st, commencing on July 1, 2023, or the next July 1st. The fee rates shall escalate by the percentage increase in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) 20-City Average Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the period ending April of the previous fiscal year. The base month for this adjustment shall be April of the year preceding adoption of the fee. The fee shall by the ratio of the most recent April index to the prior year’s April index.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
28 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

FEE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
The following describes the general procedures for the administration of the Regional LDIF. The staff of each Land Use Agency may develop more detailed administrative procedures or implement more specific policies after the adoption of the program to more efficiently administer the program and provide needed clarification in certain circumstances.

Fee Calculation
To calculate the Regional LDIF the following information is required:
• The land use category of the new development.
• The square footage of the development.
• The current fee rates.

The following provides detailed information on each requirement.

Land Use Categorization
The Development Services Department of the Member Land Use Agency will determine the correct Regional LDIF rate by classifying the proposed development into one of the following four land use categories:
• Single-Family Residential
• Multi-Family Residential
• Commercial
• Industrial
To classify the proposed development into one of the four land use categories, the agency will use the following information:
• The land use type from the zoning code that applies to the land upon which the development is proposed; and
• The descriptions of the four land use categories in this Nexus Study, found in the Land Use Categories discussion on page 11.

Total Square Footage of Development
For New Development of Vacant Land
In the case where a structure is being constructed on vacant land that has not previously been developed:

Residential Land Uses
• For all residential land uses, the fee is calculated proportionately to the square footage of the residential property. The total conditioned (habitable) square footage of the property is divided by 1,000 square feet to determine the total fee amount. Conditioned or habitable square footage

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
29 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
is livable space within a residential property excluding basements, garages, garden sheds, greenhouses, storage sheds, and covered patios.

Nonresidential Land Uses
• For nonresidential land uses, the total square footage of building space is divided by 1,000 square feet to determine the total fee amount.

For Development of Land with Pre-Existing Structures or Replacement Structures Residential Land Uses
• For a residential expansion project in excess of 500 new habitable square feet, the incremental new square footage will be charged the fee on a 1,000 square foot basis. • For residential replacement projects, if the project involves development of a new residential structure after the demolition of a pre-existing structure (regardless of the use of the pre-existing structure), and the new structure is larger than the demolished structure by 500 square feet or more, only the incremental new habitable square footage will be charged the fee per 1,000 square foot basis. The net new square footage in excess of 500 square feet will be determined by subtracting the documented habitable square footage of the previously existing structure from the new square footage.
• For residential expansion or replacement projects of less than 500 new square feet, no fee will be due.

Nonresidential Land Uses
• For nonresidential expansion projects of more than 500 new building square feet, the additional square footage will be charged the fee per 1,000 square foot basis. • For nonresidential replacement projects, if the project involves development of a new nonresidential structure after the demolition of a pre-existing structure (regardless of the use of the pre-existing structure) and the new structure is larger than the demolished structure by 500 square feet or more, only the incremental new square footage will be charged the fee on a 1,000 square foot basis. The net new building square footage in excess of 500 square feet will be determined by subtracting the documented habitable square footage of the previously existing structure from the new square footage.
• For nonresidential expansion or replacement projects of less than 500 new building square feet, no fee will be due.

Calculation Steps
The following steps are required to calculate the development fee:

1. Determine the land use category fee rate based on the characteristics of the development and the descriptions of the land use categories.

2. Determine the total square footage of development using the definitions above.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
30 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

3. Determine the total Regional LDIF by multiplying the fee rate from Step 1 and the proportionalsquare footage from Step 2.

This is the fee applicable to the New Development.

Fee Revenue Accounting
The revenues raised by payment of the Regional LDIF shall be placed in a separate fund established by Yuba City (Yuba LDIF Fund). Separate and special accounts may be established in the Yuba LDIF Fund and used to account for collected revenues, along with any interest earnings. Yuba City will remit the collected funds to SBFCA pursuant to the terms of the collection agreement executed between SBFCA and Yuba City.

Periodic Review and Cost Adjustment
SBFCA will periodically review actual project costs and Regional LDIF collections to determine if any updates to the program are warranted. The periodic review will occur no less than every five years. During these reviews, the following aspects will be analyzed:
• Changes to the improvements to be funded by the Regional LDIF program • Changes in the cost to update or administer the Regional LDIF program • Changes in annual financing costs
• Changes in assumed land uses
• Changes in development absorption
• Changes in other funding sources
Any changes to the Regional LDIF based on the periodic update will be presented to the SBFCA Board of Directors and/or the Member Land Use Agency as required for approval before an increase of the fee will take effect. SBFCA will send notice of the fee change to the member land use, pursuant to the terms of the collection agreement(s) between SBFCA and the Member Land Use Agencies.

The fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fee account or fund, and annually thereafter, each Land Use Agency is required to make all the following findings about that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended:
• Identify the purpose for which the fee is to be used. • Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. • Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to fulfill the levee improvements. • Designate the approximate dates that the funding referred to in the above paragraph is expected to be deposited in the appropriate account or fund.

SBFCA and/or the Member Land Use Agency must refund the unexpended or uncommitted revenue portion for which a need could not be demonstrated in the above findings unless the administrative costs exceed the amount of the refund.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
31 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
According to Government Code §66006, SBFCA is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in the prescribed manner.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
32 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630

NEXUS FINDINGS
Authority
This report has been prepared in support of the Regional LDIF in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in AB 1600, codified in California Government §66000 et. seq. This code section sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. The procedures require that a “reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.”
Specifically, each Land Use Agency imposing a fee must:

6. Identifying the purpose of the fee.

7. Identifying how the fee is to be used.

8. Determining that a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

9. Determining how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

10. Demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Summary of Nexus Findings
The Regional LDIF to be collected for each land use is calculated based on applicability of planned new development to the capital improvement project and standardized acreage proportion of the land use category to the total cost of the improvement. With this approach, the following findings are made regarding the Regional LDIF:

AB 1600 Requirement 1: Purpose of Fee
The capital improvements funded by the Regional LDIF are necessary to serve new residential and nonresidential development as described in Section 5 of the SBFCA adopted Strategic Plan.

AB 1600 Requirement 2: Use of the Fee
The Regional LDIF will be used to design and construct levee improvements in order to reduce the probability of flooding within the Sutter Butte Basin as further described in Section 5 of the SBFCA adopted Strategic Plan.

AB 1600 Requirement 3: Relationship Between Use of Fees and Type of Development Development of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial land uses within the Sutter Butte Basin will require improved flood control and flood protection services. This Regional LDIF, in conjunction with other funding sources, will fund the improved SBFCA flood protection system as described in Section 5 of the SBFCA adopted Strategic Plan .

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
33 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
AB 1600 Requirement 4: Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Each Residential, Commercial, and Industrial development project adds to the incremental need for flood protection because of the increase in damage that would occur as a result of an uncontrolled flood, and the increased burden that the damages will place on the Land use agencies and SBFCA. For the new development described in this Nexus Study to occur within the Sutter Butte Basin, the level of flood control needs to be improved to provide a reduced probability of flooding to the Basin as described in Section 5 of the SBFCA Strategic Plan.

AB 1600 Requirement 5: Relationship Between Amount of Fees and Cost of Facility The appropriate common use factor for allocating costs to each land use is the Relative Flood Damage Index.

Table 6 shows the respective Relative Flood Damage Index for each land use.

SBFCA, acting as LFMA, has estimated the total cost of the required facilities. The allocation of the costs based on the acres adjusted by the Relative Flood Damage Index have been presented in Table 7. The result is the cost of the improvements attributed to each acre of Residential, Commercial, and Industrial development.

This allocation demonstrates the relationship between the amount of fee and the cost of the portion of the facility attributed to the specific type of development upon which the fee is imposed.

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
Appendix A: Planned Development Details
Planned Development Details ......................................................................................................................... A-1 Table A-1: Total Developable Acreage............................................................................................................. A-3 Table A-2: Total Developable Dwelling Units and Square Feet ....................................................................... A-4

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
A-1 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
Planned Development Details
Summary of Planned Development
Development expected to occur within the Regional LDIF Boundary over the next 30 years is subject to the Fee. Generally, development build-out projections from the member Land Use Agency General Plans were analyzed in conjunctions with historical development rates and it was established that using 75% of build-out projections was appropriate to determine the amount of development expected to take place over the next 30 years. Details of projected development acres by development type and Land Use Agency can be found in Table A1. Details of projected units for residential and 1,000s of square feet for nonresidential development by Land Use Agency can be found in Table A2. It should be noted that, the densities and floor area ratios (FAR) utilized in the calculation of the Regional LDIF are an aggregate of the data across all land use agencies and are not specific to any individual agency.

City of Biggs
The City of Biggs General Plan dated January 2014 Land Use Element Table LU-4 provides low, medium, and high housing growth scenarios at 3.3%, 3.7%, and 4.1%, respectively, from 2010 through 2035. The Land Use Element also states that unless regional conditions change significantly, annual growth of 1% to 1.5% is more likely. Extrapolating 1.5 percent growth from 2010 through 2050 results in an increase of 398 units. This is consistence with using 75% of the 2035 increase in units based on the low growth scenario which in turn is also consistent with the methodology utilized for other land use agencies. City staff indicated that over the last four years, six homes had been built. Given this information, it was determined that using the 1.5% growth projected growth would be appropriate. Development was assumed to be low density residential at 6 dwelling units per acre as shown in Table LU-5.

City of Gridley
The City of Gridley 2030 General Plan Land Use Element Table Land Use-2 provides low and high estimated growth within the City Planned Growth Area by dwelling units for residential and by square feet for nonresidential development. Table Land Use-3 provides the same information for growth within the Existing City and SOI. City staff indicated that over the last ten years, 225 residential units and 15,000 square feet of commercial had been built. Given this information, it was determined that using 75% of the lower projected growth from the General Plan would be appropriate. For residential development, average dwelling units per acre as indicated in Table Land Use-5 were utilized. For nonresidential development, half of the maximum FAR was assumed as indicated in Table Land Use-5.

City of Live Oak
The City of Live Oak 2030 General Plan Land Use Element Table LU-1 provides low and high build-out estimates for the City. The low build-out data was reduced by the estimated established development. City staff indicated that over the next ten years, approximately 450 residential units are already planned to be built.

Given this information, it was determined that using 75% of the low build-out acreage estimates, reduced by

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
A-2 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
the estimated established development acreages, would be appropriate. To estimate total units for residential and 1,000s of square feet for nonresidential, per acre values were calculate based Table LU-1.

City of Yuba City
The City of Yuba City build-out estimates were developed through coordination with the Department of Development Services and use of the May 2018 General Plan Diagram and Water Master Plan in conjunction with GIS data. Build-out acreage estimates were reduced by the estimated established development acreages. To calculate total units for residential and 1,000s of square feet for nonresidential, the densities and FARs provided in the Land Use Classification section of the Yuba City General Plan dated April 8, 2004.

Butte County
Per Butte County Department of Development Services, Single-Family development is assumed to continue at a rate of 74 units per year for the next 30 years. The average lot size was calculated based the information found in the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element indicating that Single-Family units dispersed throughout the unincorporated County totaled approximately 30,000 units on 117,210 acres, or lot sizes of approximately 0.25 acres. Butte County encompasses approximately 1,064,421 acres, of which, approximately 71,737 acres are within the Regional LDIF Boundary, or about 6.75%. Therefore, development of 5 units per year for 30 years was assumed.

Sutter County
Per Sutter County Department of Development Services, Single-Family development is assumed to continue at an average rate of 21 units per year for the next 30 years. The average lot size for Single-Family Residences varies greatly within Sutter County, therefore, an average lot size of 0.25 acre was assumed, consistent with Butte County. Sutter County encompasses approximately 375,902 acres, of which, approximately 121,017 acres are within the Regional LDIF Boundary, or about 32.2%. Therefore, development of 7 units per year for 30 years was assumed.

Table A-1
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Total Developable Acreage
Area / Project Single-Family Multi-Family Subtotal Commercial Industrial Subtotal Total City of Biggs [1] 139 0 139 0 0 0 139
City of Gridley [2] 358 64 422 41 138 179 601
City of Live Oak [3] 1,653 171 1,824 361 0 361 2,186
City of Yuba City [4] 1,772 593 2,366 372 312 684 3,050 Butte County [5] 38 0 38 0 0 0 38
Sutter County [6] 53 0 53 0 0 0 53
Total Developable Land 4,013 828 4,841 775 449 1,224 6,065 Gross Acreage to GDA Factor 90% 95% 95% 95%
Total GDA 3,612 786 736 427 5,561
[6] Per Sutter County Department of Development Services, Single-Family average lot size varies greatly throughout the County, therefore, an average lot size of 0.25 acre was assumed which is consistent with Butte County. [5] Butte County 2030 General Plan Land Use Element states that Single-Family development is dispersed throughout the County with approximately 30,000 units on 117,210 acres, equating an average lot size of approximately 0.25 acres. [6] Per City of Yuba City Department of Development Serivces, 75% of build-out estimates devloped using the May 2018 General Plan Diagram and Water Master Plan less estimates of current development.

Residential Nonresidential
[2]City of Gridley 2030 General Plan Land Use Element Section, assumed 25% of the lower estimate of development identified would occur. For calculation of acreage, for Residential, the average dwelling units per acre were assumed; for Commerical and Industrial, half of the maximum FAR was assumed.
[3] City of Biggs January 2014 General Plan Land Use Element Section states that 1.5% annual growth is most likely. Growth based on the 2010 reported units of 634. Assumed low density development at 6 dwelling units per acre. [3] City of Live Oak 2030 General Plan Land Use Element Section, 75% of low build-out data less estimates of current development was assumed.

Prepared by LWA 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622
A-3

Table A-2
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Total Developable Dwelling Units and Square Feet
Area / Project Single-Family Multi-Family Total Commercial Industrial Total [1] [2]
City of Biggs [3] 836 0 836 0 0 0
City of Gridley [4] 3,898 894 4,793 806 2,400 3,206
City of Live Oak [5] 13,908 1,660 15,568 1,897 0 1,897
City of Yuba City [6] 15,837 6,429 22,266 3,801 3,392 7,193 Butte County [7] 315 0 315 0 0 0
Sutter County [8] 441 0 441 0 0 0
Total 35,235 8,983 44,218 6,504 5,792 12,296
[7] Per Butte County Department of Development Services, Single-Family development throughout the County is assumed to continue at a rate of 74 units per year. Approximately 6.75% of Butte County is within the SBFCA Boundary, therefore, 5 units per year for 30 years was assumed.
[8] Per Sutter County Department of Development Services, Single-Family development throughout the County is assumed to continue at a rate of 21 units per year. Approximately 32.20% of Butte County is within the SBFCA Boundary, therefore, 7 units per year for 30 years was assumed.
1,000s Square Feet 1,000s Square Feet
[5] City of Live Oak 2030 General Plan Land Use Element Section, 75% of low build-out data less estimates of current development was assumed.
[6] Per City of Yuba City Department of Development Serivces, 75% of build-out estimates devloped using the May 2018 General Plan Diagram and Water Master Plan less estimates of current development. [4] City of Gridley 2030 General Plan Land Use Element Section, assumed 75% of the lower estimate of development identified would occur. Assumed residential infill within existing City and SOI was 3:1 SFR:MFR. [3] City of Biggs January 2014 General Plan Land Use Element Section states that 1.5% annual growth is most likely. Growth based on the 2010 reported units of 634. Assumed low density development at 6 dwelling units per acre. [1] Assumes average 2,100 square foot units.
[2] Assumes average 900 square foot units.

Prepared by LWA 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622
A-4

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
Appendix B: Funding Sources Detail
Table B-1: Non-Local Funding Sources............................................................................................................. B-1 Table B-2: Local Funding Sources..................................................................................................................... B-2

Table B-1
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Non-Local Funding Sources
Item Total Cost
Feather River West Levee Project (Phases 1 & 2)
Sutter County Grant (Calpine Levee Funding) $1,300,000
EIP Design Grant (Prop 1E) $21,339,829
EIP/UFRR Construction Grant (Prop 1E) $234,748,777
FSRP Laurel Ave. - (Prop 1E & 84) $9,920,000
Gridley Bridge Erosion (Prop 13) $460,000
Prop 84/1E Emergency Work (R14 - 16) $25,000,000
Assumed State Funding for Lower Feather (75%) $15,000,000 Subtotal Feather River West Levee Project (Phases 1 & 2) $307,768,606 Sutter Bypass Improvements
Small Community Grants $999,969
Assumed State Funding for Critical / Full Repair (75%) $165,000,000 Subtotal Sutter Bypass Improvements $165,999,969
Total Non-Local Funding $473,768,575
Source: SBFCA Budget
Prepared by LWA
B-1
11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622

Table B-2
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Local Funding Sources
Item Local Funding
Projected Gross Annual Assessment Revenues
Estimated 2010-45 Capital Portion of Assessment [1] $204,125,000.00 Gross Bond / Debt Financing Proceeds (Project Funds made available) Combined Proceeds from Sutter, Yuba City and LD 1 Loans $5,606,406.00 2011 Line of Credit Draws $14,737,649.20
2013 Bonds Project Fund Deposit $40,000,000.00
2015 Bonds Project Fund Deposit (Net of 2011 repayment) $33,708,415.34 Subtotal Bond/Debt Financian Proceeds $94,052,470.54
Gross Debt Service Costs (Principal & Interest)
Loan Payments to Yuba City, Sutter County and LD 1 [2] $6,179,084.26 2011 Interest Costs $340,001.49
2013 Total Debt Service (P&I) $76,835,530.32
2015 Total Debt Service (P&I) $84,675,877.92
Subtotal Debt Service $168,030,493.99
Total Local Funding $130,146,976.55
[2] Actual interest cost on short-term loans paid back to Yuba City, Sutter County and LD1.

Proceeds and principal re-payment has been netted from this analysis. [1] Assessment Revenue includes additional proceeds: gained interest, settlements, etc. and an assumption that in later years, assessments are levied up to the required debt service limit.

Prepared by LWA
B-2
11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622

Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
June 30, 2023
11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report 2023 0630
Appendix C: Estimated Cost Allocation By Land Use Agency Table C-1: Residential Estimated Cost per Unit by Land Use Agency .............................................................. C-1 Table C-2: Commercial & Industrial Estimated Cost per 1,000 Sq. Ft. by Land Use Agency............................ C-2

Table C-1
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Residential Estimated Cost Per Unit by Land Use Agency
Area
Reference Table A-1 Table A-1 Table 7 Table A-2
A B C=(A*$4,053) + (B*$2,984) D=(C/$21,312,789) E F=C/E City of Biggs 125 0 $508,238 2.38% 836 $608
City of Gridley 322 60 $1,486,860 6.98% 4,793 $310
City of Live Oak 1488 162 $6,515,833 30.57% 15,568 $419 City of Yuba City 1595 564 $8,148,003 38.23% 22,266 $366 Butte County 34 0 $136,799 0.64% 315 $434
Sutter County 47 0 $191,519 0.90% 441 $434
Average
Allocated Cost
Single Family
Acreage [1]
Multi-Family
Acreage [1]
Total
Allocated Cost
Single &
Multi-Family
Cost Share
Percentage
Prepared by LWA 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622
C-1

Table C-2
SBFCA Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Program
Commercial & Industrial Estimated Cost Per 1,000 Square Feet by Land Use Agency Area
Reference Table A-1 Table A-1 Table 7 Table A-2
A B C=(A*$3,746) + (B*$3,675) D=(C/$21,312,789) E F=C/E City of Biggs 0 0 $0 0.00% 0 $0
City of Gridley 39 131 $627,232 2.94% 3,206 $196
City of Live Oak 343 0 $1,285,905 6.03% 1,897 $678
City of Yuba City 354 296 $2,412,409 11.32% 7,193 $335
Butte County 0 0 $0 0.00% 0 $0
Sutter County 0 0 $0 0.00% 0 $0
Average
Allocated Cost
Commercial
Acreage [1]
Industrial
Acreage [1]
Total
Allocated Cost
1,000
Square Feet
Cost Share
Percentage
Prepared by LWA 11225 SBFCA DIF Model 2022 0622
C-2

ATTACHMENT 3

Levee Improvement Impact Fee Comparison
Previous Yuba City Flood Protection Fee
Single Family Home Commercial Industrial
$3,950.79 / Flat Fee $0.63/SF $0.31/SF
Proposed SBFCA Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee Single Family Home Commercial Industrial
$428 / 1,000 SF $436 / 1,000 SF $279/1,000 SF
Sample Fee Calculations
Structure Type Previous Flood Proposed
____________________________ Protection Fee SBFCA LIPDIF 2,000 SF House $3,950.79 $856
4,000 SF House $3,950.79 $1,712
6,000 SF House $3,950.79 $2,568
5,000 SF Commercial Building: $3,160 $2,180
10,000 SF Commercial Building: $6,320 $4,360
5,000 SF Industrial Building: $1,580 $1,395
10,000 SF Industrial Building: $3,160 $2,790

Agenda Item 24

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 19, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services Summary
Subject: Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) Regional Levee Improvement Development Impact Fee Ordinance and Collection Agreement Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing; and
B. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City amending Title 8 of the Yuba City Municipal Code by establishing a new Chapter 11, the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee and procedures for the collection and transfer of fees to the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, and waive the first reading; and
C. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopting the levee program development impact fee to be collected for authorized development per the Ordinance; and
D. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City delegating authority to the City Manager to execute the Collection Agreement, substantially in the form attached, with the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, the Counties of Butte and Sutter and the Cities of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak and Yuba City Fiscal Impact: Re-establishes a reduced development impact fee for flood protection Purpose:

Consideration to adopt the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Leveee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee and fee collection agreement.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item meets the Council’s Public Safety Strategic Goal.

Background:

The Sutter Butte Basin Nexus Study dated June 30, 2023, prepared by Larsen Wurzel and Associates, Inc. for the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency provides the basis for a proposed Regional Levee Improvement Development Impact Fee to ensure that new development pay its proportionate share of the levee improvement costs needed to provide 200-year flood protection to the Urban (Northern)

portion of the Sutter-Butte Basin and 100-year protection to the rural (southern) portion of the Basin.

The Nexus Study provides the program cost estimate that would be collected to continue providing the funding necessary to pay for the levee system improvements. It was prepared as a regional fee with the intent that each of the local agencies individually adopt the Regional LDIF and collect and remit the fees to the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA). The nexus study and proposed fee have been adopted by partner agencies, Butte County, Sutter County and the Cities of Biggs, Gridley, and Live Oak.

In coordination with SBFCA, a public workshop on the proposed nexus study and development impact fee was conducted on September 12, 2023, in the City Council Chambers.

Analysis
The proposed Ordinance establishes a new Chapter 11 in Title 8 of the City Municipal Code for the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee and specifies the purpose of the fee, applicable projects where the fee will be collected with exemptions and exclusions.

Fees collected will be placed in a new Flood Protection Improvement Fund. Staff proposes the fee be applicable to new development projects that complete City discretionary entitlements (subdivision maps, development plans, etc.) after the effective date of the proposed Ordinance. Projects with existing approved discretionary entitlements completed before the effective date of this Ordinance will not be subject to the fee.

The proposed Resolution establishes the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Program Development Impact Fee and includes Exhibit A, which sets the fee rates consistent with the approved Nexus Study and Exhibit B, which is a Collection Agreement (explained below) specifying the collection of the fee from all participating agencies and the necessary transfer of monies to SBFCA.

The context and background for including the purpose and reason for the Regional LDIF is further detailed within the staff report for Nexus Study in this Agenda, which was prepared in support of adoption of the proposed fee.

Fee Collection Agreement
To facilitate collection of the Regional LDIF, SBFCA proposes to enter into the attached Collection Agreement with each land use jurisdiction within the Sutter-Butte Basin (Cities of Yuba City, Biggs, Gridley and Live Oak, and Counties of Butte and Sutter) to administer and collect the Regional LDIF.

The fee will apply to new development in the Sutter-Butte Basin that creates a flood protection impact.

As proposed, the Resolution adopting the Agreement delegates authority to the City Manager, after consultation with the City Attorney, to execute an Agreement substantially in the form attached to this staff report. The following is a summary of the Agreement:
• On July 1, 2023, or soon thereafter, the fee becomes effective within each Land Use Agency consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, the Land Use agencies will commence collection of the Regional LDIF.
• The Land Use Agencies will deposit all Regional DIF revenues collected, including any interest earned on funds collected less 3% Administrative costs of collection, with SBFCA. • SBFCA will provide a 60-day notice to the Land Use Agencies of any needed proposed changes to the Regional LDIF including regular escalation of the Fee. • The agreement addresses reimbursement of the Regional LDIF in the event of collection errors or building permit cancelation, appeals of Regional LDIF calculations or applicability, indemnity,

notice and other standard legal agreement provisions.

Fiscal Impact:

Establishment of the Regional LDIF, as collected by the local land use agencies, is anticipated to generate approximately $21 million from development projects and these funds will be used to partially fund the required improvements to the Sutter Butte Basin levee systems. Complete funding for the required improvements will require additional funding sources as described SBFCA’s adopted Strategic Plan. Costs are established to be:

Single Family Residential: $428 per 1,000 square feet.

Commercial: $436 per 1,000 square feet.

Industrial: $279 per $1,000 square feet.

Recommendation:

A. Conduct a Public Hearing; and
B. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City amending Title 8 of the Yuba City Municipal Code by establishing a new Chapter 11, the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee and procedures for the collection and transfer of fees to the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, and waive the first reading; and C. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopting the levee program development impact fee to be collected for authorized development per the Ordinance; and D. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City delegating authority to the City Manager to execute the Collection Agreement, substantially in the form attached, with the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, the Counties of Butte and Sutter and the Cities of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak and Yuba City.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Ordinance

2. Proposed Resolution Adopting Levee Impact Fee

3. Proposed Resolution Adopting Fee Collection Agreement Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

Attachment 1

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE YUBA CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, PLANNING AND ZONING, BY ESTABLISHING A NEW CHAPTER 11, SUTTER BUTTE

BASIN REGIONAL LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, the City Council of the City of Yuba City (“Council”) approved and adopted the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) prepared by the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (“SBFCA”) and dated June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Study dated June 30, 2023, has been reviewed and considered by the Council and by reference is hereby entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing on this Ordinance was published in the Appeal Democrat, a newspaper of general circulation on December 9, 2023; and WHEREAS, the findings required by the State of California Mitigation Fee Act (also known as “AB 1600,” Government Code sections 66000, et seq.) are made by Council with this action as contained in the administrative record and hereby incorporated by reference herein; and
WHEREAS, the Council did use its independent judgment and considered all of said reports including but not limited to the Nexus Study, recommendations and other evidence in the administrative record, all of which is hereby incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public hearing of the Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings.

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

1. Approval of Nexus Study and findings. The City Council of the City of Yuba City does hereby approve the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee Nexus Study report dated June 30, 2023 and incorporated herein by this reference, and Council hereby adopts this new fee based on findings required by the State of California Mitigation Act (also known as “AB 1600,” Government Code Sections 66000, et seq.), specifically Council hereby makes all of the following finds:

1. The purposes of the Regional LDIF imposed by this Ordinance are necessary to fund design and construction of Levee System Improvements for the Sutter Butte Basin; collected fees may be used for no other purpose.

2. The geographic area in which the fees will be imposed is the urban (Northern) portion of the Sutter Butte Basin and the rural (Southern) Portion of the Basin, as illustrated by the Regional LDIF Boundary Map within Exhibit “B.”

3. The estimated reasonable costs for providing the Levee System improvements are contained in the Nexus Study report.

4. There is a reasonable relationship between the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed and the uses of the fees for off-site Levee system improvements.

5. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the cost of the specified public improvement attributable to the development projects on which the fee is imposed.

2. Approval of Fee. The City Council of the City of Yuba City, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record of proceedings and pursuant to its independent review and consideration, hereby establishes the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee.

The Council may take future action to make other revisions to these fees. These fees shall be in addition to any fees previously imposed by the City. These fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and collected and administered consistent with Title 8, Planning and Zoning, of the Municipal Code.

These fees shall be effective sixty (60) days after the adoption of this Ordinance.

3. Addition to the Municipal Code. A new Chapter 11 is added to Title 8 of the Yuba City Municipal Code to read as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

4. Publication. Within fifteen (15) days after its final passage, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in full accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code.

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

6. Effective Date of Resolution. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (60) days after its final passage andadoption.

Introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yuba City on the 19th day of December, 2023, and adopted at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of January, 2024 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recused:

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Shannon L. Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

01248.0005/938717.1
EXHIBIT “A”

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY, DOES AMEND THE CITY OF YUBA CITY CODE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 11 TO TITLE 8 PLANNING AND ZONING, AND ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

CHAPTER 11: SUTTER BUTTE BASIN REGIONAL LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE.

Section 8-11.100. - Title.

This Chapter shall be known as the “Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee” (Regional LDIF) regulation of the City. This Chapter shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the City.

Section 8-11.101. – Operative Date.

The “Operative Date” of this chapter begins on the 60th day following the adoption of the ordinance codified in this Chapter and continuing for 30 years thereafter at which time, unless the Operative Date is amended prior to that date, the collection of the impact fee pursuant to Chapter shall cease.

Section 8-11.102. – Purpose.

This Chapter is adopted to impose a levee improvement development impact fee (Levee Fee) to ensure that new development, which is defined as having completed discretionary entitlement processing after the effective date of this ordinance, within the Sutter Butte Basin portion of the City of Yuba City pays its proportionate share of the levee improvement costs needed to provide 200-year level of protection to the urban (Northern) portion of the Sutter Butte Basin and 100-year level of protection to the rural (Southern) portion of the Basin. This Levee Fee, in combination with other sources of funding described within the Regional LDIF Nexus Study dated June 30, 2023 (Nexus Study), as may be updated by resolution from time to time, will fund the project to provide flood protection to the Sutter Butte Basin as detailed in the Nexus Study.

Section 8-11.103. – Fee Rate.

The Regional LDIF for the Sutter Butte Basin Levee System, based on the acreage of a project, is detailed within the Nexus Study. A Levee Fee as set forth in the Nexus Study is imposed consistent with this Chapter.

Section 8-11.104. – Total Square Footage of Development. (a) For new development of vacant land. In the case where a new development is being constructed on vacant land or land that has not previously been developed:
(1) Residential land uses. For all residential land uses, the Levee Fee is calculated proportionately to the square footage of the residential property. The total conditioned (habitable) square footage of the property is divided by 1,000 square feet to determine the total Levee Fee amount.

Conditioned or habitable square footage is livable space within a

01248.0005/938717.1
residential property excluding basements, garages, garden sheds, greenhouses, storage sheds, and covered patios.
(2) Nonresidential land uses. For nonresidential land uses, the total square footage of building space is divided by 1,000 square feet to determine the total Levee Fee amount.
(b) For development of land with existing or pre-existing structures or replacement structures:
(1) Residential land uses:
(i) For a residential expansion project in excess of 500 new habitable square feet, the incremental new square footage will be charged the Levee Fee on a 1,000 square foot basis.
(ii) For residential replacement projects, if the project involves development of a new residential structure after the demolition of a pre-existing structure (regardless of the use of the pre-existing structure), and the new structure is larger than the demolished structure by 500 square feet or more, only the incremental new habitable square footage will be charged the Levee Fee per 1,000 square foot basis. The net new square footage in excess of 500 square feet will be determined by subtracting the documented habitable square footage of the previously existing structure from the new square footage. (iii) For residential expansion or replacement projects of less than 500 new square feet, no Levee Fee will be charged.
(2) Nonresidential land uses:
(i) For nonresidential expansion projects of more than 500 new building square feet, the additional square footage will be charged the Levee Fee per 1,000 square foot basis.
(ii) For nonresidential replacement projects, if the project involves development of a new nonresidential structure after the demolition of a pre-existing structure (regardless of the use of the pre-existing structure) and the new structure is larger than the demolished structure by 500 square feet or more, only the incremental new square footage will be charged the Levee Fee on a 1,000 square foot basis. The net new building square footage in excess of 500 square feet will be determined by subtracting the documented habitable square footage of the previously existing structure from the new square footage. (iii) For nonresidential expansion or replacement projects of less than 500 new building square feet, no Levee Fee will be charged.

Section 8-11.105. Exemptions and Exclusions.

The following land uses and/or development projects are exempt from the Levee Fee:
(a) Agricultural: Development projects on land zoned Agricultural Holding District (AH). (b) Additions to pre-existing structures: Development projects that require a building permit and are not increasing the amount of new structure square footage are exempt from the

01248.0005/938717.1
Levee Fee if the project involves adding less than 500 new square feet. If the project increases the structure by 500 square feet or more, only the incremental new square footage will be charged the Levee Fee on a proportionate basis. (c) Replacement due to damage (with or without addition): If the proposed project is an inkind replacement to a previously existing structure because of fire damage or other natural disaster, the project will be exempt from the Levee Fee so long as the replacement does not increase the amount of new structure by more than 300 square feet. If the project increases the structure by more than 300 square feet, the incremental new square footage will be charged the Levee Fee on a proportionate basis. (d) Structures raised above the 200-year floodplain elevation: Development projects with structures raised above the elevation of the 200-year flood as determined by the land use agencies or structures removed from the 200-year floodplain by flood control improvements that meet the design standards applicable to the Federal-State flood control system as determined by the land use agencies, shall be exempt from the Levee Fee. The “200-year flood” and “200-year floodplain” are determined without incorporating SBFCA’s completed Feather River West Levee improvements. Detailed mapping to assist in making this determination can be found on page 4-4 of SBFCA's Final Engineer's Report dated July 14, 2010.
(e) Open space: Any development project located on land designated by the Yuba City General Plan as Parks, Recreation and Open Space..
(f) Public agency owned land (including federal, state, and local agencies): Any development project located on land owned by a Public agency and is to be used solely for public use.

Section 8-11.106. Fee Revenue Accounting.

All proceeds of the Levee Fee imposed under this Chapter shall be placed in a separate fund established by the City (Flood Protection Improvement Fund). Separate and special accounts may be established in the Flood Protection Improvement Fund and used to account for collected revenues, along with any interest earnings. Except for temporary borrowing from one City fund to another, the revenue (and interest) shall be used only for the purposes for which the Flood Protection Improvement Fund was collected.

Section 8-11.107. – Severability.

If any provision of this Chapter or the application thereof to any entity or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Chapter and the application of such provision to other entities or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

EXHIBIT B

4 11201 SBFCA DIF Nexus Report ϮϬϮϯ ϬϲϯϬ
Figure 1: Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Boundary

Attachment 2

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

ESTABLISHING THE SUTTER BUTTE BASIN REGIONAL LEVEE

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (Act) (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) authorizes a local agency to impose impact fees as a condition of approval of development projects to help defray the costs of public infrastructure and facilities that will be needed to serve the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (“SBFCA) has directed Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc. to prepare the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee dated June 30, 2023 (“Nexus Study”); and
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Yuba City (“Council”) has adopted a Resolution approving the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, Section 6602(a) of the Act, notice was published in the Appeal Democrat on December 8, 2023, providing 10 days’ notification of the time and place for a public hearing to consider and adopt the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee (“Regional LDIF”). Notice of the hearing was also provided 14 days prior to the public hearing to those interested parties who requested, in writing, notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 19, 2023, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to hear and consider the adoption of the Regional LDIF; and
WHEREAS, the development impact fee will fund levee improvements to provide 200-year level of protection in the urban (Northern) portion of the Sutter Butte Basin and 100-year level of protection in the rural (Southern) portion of the Basin while offsetting the increase in damageable property that will be placed in the levee-protected floodplain as new development occurs in the area.

WHEREAS, the Council has adopted an Ordinance amending the City of Yuba Municipal Code, Title 8 Planning and Zoning, by the addition of a new Chapter 11 Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public hearing of the Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public hearings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yuba City as follows:

1. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are

true and correct and establishes the factual basis for the Council’s adoption of this Resolution.

2. The City Council based on substantial evidence in the administration record of proceedings and pursuant to its independent review and consideration, hereby establishes the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee hereto as reflected in Exhibit “A” to this Resolution.

3. The adoption of this Resolution is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it is in furtherance of the creation of a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the resolved actions may have a significant effect on the environment, in that this Resolution contains no provisions modifying the physical design, development, or construction of residences or nonresidential structures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).

4. This Resolution shall take effect 60 days after adoption of the Ordinance amending Title 8 of the Yuba City Municipal Code by the addition of a new Chapter 11.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of December 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
Shannon Chaffin,
City Attorney
Aleshire &
Wynder, LLP

EXHIBIT “A”

REGIONAL LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (SUTTER BUTTE BASIN, 200-YEAR AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN)
1) See the City of Yuba City Municipal Code Title 8.

Land Use
Regional
Fee Rates
Single Family Residential $428 Per 1,000 Square Feet (1) Multi-Family Residential $269 Per 1,000 Square Feet (1) Commercial $436 Per 1,000 Square Feet (1)
Industrial $279 Per 1,000 Square Feet (1)

Attachment 3

01248.0005/938730.1
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN

AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF THE SUTTER BUTTE BAIN

REGIONAL LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (Act) (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) authorizes a local agency to impose impact fees as a condition of approval of development projects to help defray the costs of public infrastructure and facilities that will be needed to serve the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (“SBFCA) has directed Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc. to prepare the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee dated June 30, 2023 (“Nexus Study”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yuba City (“Council”) has adopted a Resolution approving the Nexus Study; and

WHEREAS, notice was published in the Appeal Democrat on December 8, 2023, providing 10 days’ notification of the time and place for a public hearing to consider and adopt the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee (“Regional LDIF”). Notice of the hearing was also provided 14 days prior to the public hearing to those interested parties who requested, in writing, notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 19, 2023, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Yuba City to hear and consider the adoption of the Regional LDIF; and
WHEREAS, the development impact fee will fund levee improvements to provide 200-year level of protection in the urban (Northern) portion of the Sutter Butte Basin and 100-year level of protection in the rural (Southern) portion of the Basin while offsetting the increase in damageable property that will be placed in the levee-protected floodplain as new development occurs in the area.

WHEREAS, the Council has adopted an Ordinance amending the City of Yuba Municipal Code, Title 8 Planning and Zoning, by the addition of a new Chapter 11 Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, SBFCA has requested that the four cities and two counties enter into an agreement to collect the proposed development impact fees as a condition of issuing building permits for new development in the Sutter Butte Basin within each party’s respective land use authority and provide those funds to SBFCA; and WHEREAS, SBFCA has prepared a Collection Agreement for Collection of the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee (Collection Agreement), attached hereto as Exhibit A, for the Counties of Sutter and

01248.0005/938730.1
Butte and the cities of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak, and Yuba City to execute.

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public hearing of the Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public hearings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yuba City as follows:

1. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct and establishes the factual basis for the Council’s adoption of this Resolution.

2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Collection Agreement reflected in Exhibit A, substantially in the form attached, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, and take whatever other actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

3. The adoption of this Resolution is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it is in furtherance of the creation of a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the resolved actions may have a significant effect on the environment, in that this Resolution contains no provisions modifying the physical design, development, or construction of residences or nonresidential structures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).

4. This Resolution shall take effect 60 days after adoption of the Ordinance amending Title 8 of the Yuba City Municipal Code by the addition of a new Chapter 11.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of December 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

01248.0005/938730.1

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
Shannon Chaffin,
City Attorney
Aleshire &
Wynder, LLP

EXHIBIT A

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

SUTTER BUTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY,

CITY OF BIGGS,

CITY OF GRIDLEY,

CITY OF LIVE OAK,

CITY OF YUBA CITY,
COUNTY OF BUTTE, and

COUNTY OF SUTTER

FOR COLLECTION OF SUTTER-BUTTE BASIN REGIONAL LEVEE IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
This Agreement for Collection of Sutter-Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the Effective Date provided below by Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (“SBFCA”), the Cities of Biggs (“Biggs”), Gridley (“Gridley”), Live Oak (“Live Oak”), and Yuba City (“Yuba City”), and the Counties of Butte (“Butte”) and Sutter (“Sutter”). Each signatory is a party and collectively all signatories are parties. Any of Biggs, Gridley, Live Oak, or Yuba City are a City and are collectively referred to as Cities. Any of Butte and Sutter are a County and are collectively referred to as Counties.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, SBFCA is a joint powers authority formed in 2008 for the purpose of improving flood protection in the Sutter-Butte Basin; and WHEREAS, each of the four Cities and two Counties is a member agency of SBFCA and has authority to prescribe, revise, and collect fees as a condition of development of land for the purpose of financing flood control facilities, including the authority to make such fees applicable to development land within their boundaries.

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee
WHEREAS, each of the Cities and/or Counties has expressed an intent to exercise this authority or has exercised this authority to provide funding for flood protection, by adopting a resolution for the purpose of assisting in the funding for levee improvements to provide 200-year protection to the urban portion of the Sutter-Butte Basin and 100-year protection to the remainder of the basin and to thereby offset the increase in damageable property that is placed in the leveeprotected floodplain as new development occurs in this area.

WHEREAS, in its role as a joint powers authority planning and implementing flood control activities in the Sutter-Butte Basin, SBFCA has prepared a Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) which is attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is intended to be used as a template by each of the cities and counties, and that describes and determines the applicable development impact fee within a City or County (“DIF”) and sets forth the required findings required by Government Code Section 66000 et. seq.

WHEREAS, SBFCA has requested that the four Cities and two Counties, as a condition of issuance of a building permit for new development within the Cities and Counties, collect and transmit to SBFCA the applicable DIF for the development project for which such building permit is to be issued.

WHEREAS, the undersigned Cities and Counties are willing and desire to collect the DIF and to transmit the DIF to SBFCA, and the Cities and Counties and SBFCA desire to set forth the standards applicable to the collection of the DIF through this Agreement.

COVENANTS
In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated in this Agreement by reference.

2. Collection and Transmission of DIF. Following the adoption of the DIF by a City or County, whether by separate adoption or incorporation into a more comprehensive development program, the City or County shall collect the DIF as a condition of issuance of a building permit

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee
for any building, for which a building permit is required, located in the City’s or County’s jurisdiction. The City or County shall transmit to SBFCA all amounts of the DIF that have been collected minus administrative costs, all as provided in Section 8 below. With the transmission of DIF revenues collected by the City or County, the City or County shall provide a report in mutually agreed upon format of the fee-paying units to facilitate the tracking of fee revenues. The methodology for computing the DIF together with other procedural criteria are specified in a Nexus Study.

3. Deposit of DIF. SBFCA shall establish a separate capital facilities account into which City or County shall, either quarterly or at least annually during the month of September of each year, deposit the DIF funds collected by City or County. Any interest earned on the DIF while held by a City or County shall also be deposited by City or County.

4. Periodic Update of the DIF. SBFCA shall, within 60 days of any adjustments it proposes to make to the DIF, promptly notify the Cities and Counties of such proposed changes.

The Cities and Counties agree to exercise best efforts to respond to any such proposed changes within 30 days. Alternatively, the Cities or Counties may adopt the DIF into their current process for periodic updates and provide the process and timeline to SBFCA.

5. Refunds. In the event that a City or County collects the DIF or a portion of the DIF in error or a building permit expires without construction taking place, the City or County will recalculate the correct DIF amount and process a refund to the applicant, if necessary. A City or County shall net any refunded amounts from any current DIF not yet remitted to SBFCA under Section 2. If there are insufficient collections held by a City or County not yet transmitted to SBFCA, then SBFCA shall promptly refund any amount due to a City or County to facilitate refunds to the applicant.

6. Payment of DIF under Protest. Pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 9 of the California Government Code, commencing with §66020, any aggrieved applicant shall be entitled to pay the applicable DIF under protest. The protest procedures set forth therein shall apply to the DIF paid under protest.

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

7. Appeal. A City or County shall hear all appeals for waiver or reduction in a City’s or County’s DIF, and shall follow any applicable existing policy in hearing such appeals. The City or County shall, within 60 days of any modification to the DIF resulting from any such appeal, notify SBFCA of such modification.

8. Compensation of Cities and Counties. In consideration for collecting the DIF, SBFCA shall reimburse each City and County for its cost of time and materials for calculating, reporting, collecting, and processing functions. Such costs shall include the time and materials expended by, but not limited to, employees of the relevant Development Services, Finance and Information Technology Departments and any other impacted departments. The Parties agree that a charge of 3% of the DIF is a reasonable estimate of each City’s and County’s cost of time and materials for calculating, reporting, collecting, and processing of the DIF.

9. Indemnification of each City and County by SBFCA. To the full extent permitted by law, SBFCA agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless each City and County executing this Agreement and each of its elected and appointed officers, officials, agents, employees, consultants, attorneys and representatives (“Indemnitees”): (i) from and against any and all actions, proceedings, claims, damages, losses, costs, penalties, fines, obligations, errors, omissions, forfeitures, and liabilities, whether actual or threatened (“Claims and Liabilities”), against Indemnitees arising from or related in any way to the collection or establishment of DIF or the transfer of DIF to SBFCA; (ii) from and against any Claims and Liabilities arising from or related to this Agreement. The Cities and Counties shall promptly notify SBFCA of any such Claim and Liability, and, at the option of the City or County, SBFCA shall either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City’s or County’s associated legal costs or advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City or County. In the event the City or County opts for SBFCA to undertake defense of the matter, the City or County will cooperate reasonably in the defense, but retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without SBFCA’s consent. The provisions of this section shall survive termination of this Agreement.

10. Notices. Notice to be provided to any Party to this Agreement arising out of matters pertaining to this Agreement shall be addressed as follows:

Page
5 of 16
Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee
SBFCA Contact Information County of Butte Contact Information Executive Director Michael Bessette, PE Liaison Dawn Nevers Address 1445 Butte House Rd. #B Address 25 County Center Drive, Ste 200 City, State &
Zip Yuba City, CA 95993-2749
City, State
& Zip Oroville, CA 95965-3365
Telephone 530.415.0983 Telephone 530.552.3336
Email [email protected] Email [email protected] County of Sutter Contact Information City of Biggs Contact Information Director Neal Hay
Address 1130 Civic Center Blvd Address
City, State &
Zip Yuba City, CA 95993
City, State
& Zip
Telephone 530-822-7400 Telephone
Email [email protected] Email
City of Gridley Contact Information City of Live Oak Contact Information Address Address
City, State &
Zip
City, State
& Zip
Telephone Telephone
Email Email
City of Yuba City Contact Information
Address
City, State &
Zip
Telephone
Email

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee
Any party may change the address to which subsequent notice and/or other communications can be sent by giving written notice designating a change of address to the other Parties, which shall be effective upon receipt.

11. Term and Effective Date.
a. This Agreement shall become effective upon the execution of the Agreement by SBFCA and the first City or County to execute it (“Effective Date”). It shall be effective for each additional city or county that executes it upon the date of that City’s or County’s execution.
b. This Agreement shall remain in effect for each City and each County until either (i) the City or County eliminates the DIF, or (ii) SBFCA or the City or County terminates it in accordance with Section 12.

12. Termination. Each City or County may terminate this Agreement as effective for the City or County by giving SBFCA at least six (6) months written notice of withdrawal. In such event the City or County shall, within 10 days of effective withdrawal, cause to be deposited into SBFCA’s separate capital facilities account all DIF funds collected prior to withdrawal. SBFCA may terminate this Agreement by giving all Cities and Counties that are parties to the Agreement at least (2) months written notice of withdrawal.

13. Modifications. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the Parties and no alteration, amendment, variation, or waiver of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both Parties. Waiver by either Party of any default, breach or condition precedent shall not be construed as a waiver of any other default, breach or condition precedent, or any other right hereunder.

14. Governing Laws And Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed and to be performed within the State of California and shall be construed and governed by the laws of the State of California. Any legal proceedings arising out of or relating to this Agreement shalt be brought in the Superior Court of Sutter County, California.

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

15. Assignment; Binding on Successors. The rights and duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the written consent of the other Parties. Any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this Agreement shall be null and void. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the Parties hereto, respectively. Any approved assignment or delegation shall be consistent with the terms of any contracts, resolutions, indemnities and other obligations of SBFCA then in effect.

16. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been prepared equally by all of the Parties, and the Agreement and its individual provisions shall not be construed or interpreted more favorably for one Party on the basis that another Party prepared it.

17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire contract between the Parties regarding the collection, deposit, and reporting of the DIF. Any prior agreements, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement are hereby terminated effective immediately upon full execution of this Agreement.

18. Severability. Should any part, term or provision of this Agreement be decided by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected thereby.

19. Duplicate Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year indicated with each Party’s signature executing the agreement below.

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

SUTTER BUTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY
__________________________________________
_______________________________
By: Michael Bessette
Executive Director
Date: __________________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

SBFCA Counsel
_____________________________
By: Scott L. Shapiro
Title: General Counsel

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

CITY OF BIGGS
_______________________________________
By:

Title:

Date: __________________________________
_____________________________
By:

Title:

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

CITY OF GRIDLEY
_______________________________________
By:

Title:

Date: __________________________________
_____________________________
By:

Title:

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

CITY OF LIVE OAK
_______________________________________
By:

Title:

Date: __________________________________
_____________________________
By:

Title:

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

COUNTY OF BUTTE
_______________________________________
Tod Kimmelshue Date
Chair of the Board
Butte County Board of Supervisors
_______________________________________
Andy Pickett Date
Chief Administrative Officer
Butte County Administration
Approved as to Form

BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL
By: _____________________________________
Date
Reviewed for Contract Policy Compliance
By: _____________________________________
General Services Date
Contract Division

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

COUNTY OF SUTTER
__________________________________
By:

Title:

Date: __________________________________
_____________________________
By:

Title:

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

CITY OF YUBA CITY
_______________________________________
By:

Title:

Date: __________________________________
_____________________________
By:

Title:

Agreement for Collection of Sutter Butte Basin
Regional Development Impact Fee

EXHIBIT A
DIF Nexus Study

Agenda Item 25

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 19, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;City of Yuba City From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services Summary
Subject: Bains-Butte House - General Plan Amendment 23-03, Rezone 23-03, and Environmental Assessment 23-06
Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing, and
B. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Environmental Assessment 23-06 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03 re-designating 0.32-acres Low-Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation to the MediumHigh Density Residential (HDR) designation for the Bains – Butte House project, located on the northeast corner of Butte House Road and Blevin Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 059-020-013)
C. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Rezone (RZ) 23-03 rezoning 0.32 acres from the Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, for the Bains – Butte House project, located on the northeast corner of Butte House Road and Blevin Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 059-020-013), by title only and waive the first reading
Fiscal Impact: The cost for processing land use entitlements is funded by the project applicant through the payment of application fees
Purpose:

To consider General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03 and Rezone (RZ) 23-03 for the Bains – Butte House project.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

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

Background:

The applicant, Jaswant Bains, filed an application for GPA 23-03 and RZ 23-03 to change the land use and zoning from Low-Medium Density (R-2) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-3).

On September 27, 2023, the Yuba City Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing, and the Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt Resolution PC 23-26 recommending approval of GPA 23-03 and RZ 23-03 to the City Council together with Environmental Assessment 23-06. There

was no opposition expressed by the public at the Planning Commission meeting.

Analysis
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03 and Rezoning (RZ) 23-03 (Project):
• GPA 23-03 proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element map for a 0.32-acre parcel (approximately 14,000 square feet) from the Low-Medium Density (MDR) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation. The MDR designation allows for a residential density range of 6 to 14 residences per acre. The HDR designation allows for a density range of 12-36 residences per acre. The new designation provides for a full range of attached housing types including duplexes, and multiple-family housing types. For this property this translates to a potential of 4 to 11 residences that could constructed on this property; and • RZ 23-03 proposes to rezone the same 0.32 acres from the Two-Family (R-2) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District. The R-3 Zone District provides for a similar range of housing types as the corresponding HDR General Plan designation.

There is no specific development project proposed at this time. Any future development will need to occur consistent with the proposed General Plan designation and Zoning.

Compatibility with neighboring uses:

Traffic
The current MDR land use designation of the site would allow for the potential of 2 to 4 residences being able to be developed on the property. Changing this 0.32 acre parcel from MDR to HDR will result in the potential for 4 to 11 residences being able to be developed on the property in the future. Due to the lot configuration, required setbacks, parking, standard building practices, etc. the actual build is expected to be in the 4 - 6 unit range. Notable effects on traffic impacts from this proposed change in density is anticipated to be minimal with the sites proximity to Butte House, a major arterial.

Environmental Considerations:

An environmental assessment (EA 23-06) was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This process included the distribution of requests for comment from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. On September 8, 2023 a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies and published in the Appeal Democrat. This

commenced a 20-day comment period that ended on September 27, 2023. During this comment period the City did not receive comments.

Based upon the attached environmental assessment and the list of identified mitigation measures, staff has determined that there is no evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for this project. The finding of the mitigated negative declaration is that, with the proposed mitigations for Greenhouse Gases and Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources, this GPA/RZ will not create any significant environmental impacts. As a result, the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The proposed mitigations are included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Alternatives:

1. Deny the application to approve General Plan Amendment 23-03 and Rezone 23-03

2. Provide staff with alternate direction
Recommendation:

A. Conduct a Public Hearing, and:

B. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Environmental Assessment 23-06 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03 re-designating 0.32-acres Low-Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation for the Bains – Butte House project, located on the northeast corner of Butte House Road and Blevin Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 059-020-013).

C. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Rezone (RZ) 23- 03 rezoning 0.32 acres from the Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District to the MultipleFamily Residential (R-3) Zone District, for the Bains – Butte House project, located on the northeast corner of Butte House Road and Blevin Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 059- 020-013), by title only and waive the first reading.

Attachments:

1. Bains-Butte House CC Resolution

2. Bains-Butte House CC Ordinance

3. Planning Commission Staff Report Packet, dated September 27 2023 Prepared By: Submitted By:

Aaron Brown
Assistant Planner
Diana Langley
City Manager

1 ATTACHMENT 1

2 RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 23-06 BY ADOPTING A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 23-03 RE-DESIGNATING 0.32-ACRES LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE MEDIUMHIGH DESNITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) DESIGNATION FOR THE BAINS-BUTTE

HOUSE PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUTTE HOUSE ROAD AND BLEVIN ROAD (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 059-020-013).

WHEREAS, the City received an application from Jaswant Bains for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from an MDR land use designation to a HDR designation, and a Rezoning for this property revising the zoning from a R-2 Zone District to a R-3 Zone District. Development that could result from this action will be provided full City services; and
WHEREAS, this property is within Yuba City’s city limits and the property owner wished to develop their property to urban levels; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared an Initial Study proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 23-06) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applications, GPA 23-03, RZ-23-03, as well as Environmental Assessment (EA) 23-06, at which time it received input from City Staff, the applicant; public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed all associated documents prepared for the Project, including that related to the applications, and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopt a resolution approving EA 23-06 and GPA 23-03, and adopt an ordinance approving RZ 23-03.

WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider the GPA 23-03, Rezone (RZ) 23-03, and EA 23-06, and received both oral testimony and written information presented at the hearing regarding the same; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said recommendations of the Planning Commission on the matter and after review and consideration of the Environmental Assessment, the City Council now desires to approve the project; and WHEREAS, due to the limitations of State law that limit the number of General Plan amendments that can occur each year, and to comply with this requirement, individual projects

3 proposing amendments to the General Plan may be contingently approved based on a final consolidated approval of all such project by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt EA 23-06 and contingently approve GPA 23-03, with RZ 23-03 to be adopted by separate ordinance.

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

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

2. CEQA Finding. The City Council finds and determines that there is no substantial evidence in the record that General Plan Amendment 23-03 and Rezone 23-03, may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the MND prepared in Environmental Assessment 23-06. Additionally, the City Council finds and determines as follows:
a. an environmental assessment/initial study was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis. The process included the distribution of requests for comments from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. Preparation of Environmental Assessment 23-06 necessitated a thorough review of the proposed project and relevant environmental issues and considered previously prepared environmental and technical studies. While the proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, based on its independent judgement and analysis, the City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur, and there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are potentially significant or adverse. The proposed project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the “Mandatory Findings of Significance” contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project-specific mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects are set forth in the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment. As such, the City Council also finds and determines that in light of the entire administrative record and the substantial evidence before it, the project has been adequately environmentally assessed as required by CEQA per Environmental Assessment 23-06.

3. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based on the foregoing, the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 23-06) prepared for the project, including the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as the project will not result in any significant, adverse environmental impacts with the mitigations proposed. The Yuba City Development Services Department is located at 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, CA 95993, and is recommended to be designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decision is based. The City Council authorizes the Director, or designee, to execute and file with the Sutter County Clerk, as appropriate, a Notice of Determination for approval of the project that complies with the CEQA Guidelines.

4 4. General Plan Findings. The City Council finds that the public necessity, general welfare, good planning practices, public interest, and convenience warrant approval of General Plan Amendment 23-03, including the following:
a. The proposed HDR land use designation, when used in conjunction with the proposed rezoning and the accompanying development standards, will limit the residential density to be compatible with existing neighboring higher density residential land use designations.
b. The Project will not generate significant amounts of new traffic that would cause a decrease in levels of service for nearby General Plan streets including Butte House Road and Blevins Road, and any new residences that result from this Project will pay their fair share of traffic development impact fees, making the project consistent with the Transportation Element.
c. Increasing the allowable residential density is consistent with the Housing Element’s goals and policies that are intended to expand housing opportunities within the City. d. The environmental document prepared for the Project (EA 23-06) found that the Project will not create significant environmental impacts on water quality, air quality, biological resources, agricultural lands, open space, and archaeological resources, making the Project consistent with the Environmental Conservation Element of the General Plan. e. The Project will connect to all City services including water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage, making it consistent with the Public Utilities Element, and the Police and Fire Departments determined that the Project will not cause any safety or emergency response issues. As such the Project will be consistent with the Noise and Safety Element. f. Any new residences that will be constructed as a result of this Project will pay all applicable park and school development impact fees, making it consistent with the Parks, Schools, and Community Facilities Element.

5. Approval of General Plan Amendment 23-03. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City approves General Plan Amendment 23-03, per the attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference. This approval is contingent upon the following:

6. Effective: This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of December, 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

5 ABSENT:
_____________________________
Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
_________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit A: General Plan Maps, GPA 23-03

6 EXHIBIT A

7

ATTACHMENT 2

1 ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 23-06 BY ADOPTING A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 23-03 RE-DESIGNATING 0.32-ACRES LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE MEDIUMHIGH DESNITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) DESIGNATION FOR THE BAINS-BUTTE

HOUSE PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUTTE HOUSE ROAD AND BLEVIN ROAD (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 059-020-013).

WHEREAS, the City received an application from Jaswant Bains for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from an MDR land use designation to an HDR designation, and a Rezoning for this property revising the zoning from a R-2 Zone District to a R-3 Zone District. Development that could result from this action will be provided full City services; and
WHEREAS, this property is within Yuba City’s city limits and the property owner wished to develop their property to urban levels; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared an Initial Study proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 22-06) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2023, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applications, GPA 23-03, RZ-23-03, as well as Environmental Assessment (EA) 23-06, at which time it received input from City Staff, the applicant; public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed all associated documents prepared for the Project, including that related to the applications, and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopt a resolution adopting EA 23-06, approve GPA 23-03, and adopt an ordinance approving RZ 23-03.

WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider the GPA 23-03, RZ-23-03, and EA 23-06, and received both oral testimony and written information presented at the hearing regarding the same; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Yuba City considered said recommendations of the Planning Commission on the matter and after review and consideration of the Environmental Assessment, the City Council now desires to approve the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve RZ 23-03.

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

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

2. CEQA Findings: The City Council of the City of Yuba City has concurrently approved EA 23- 06 by adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment. No further CEQA is required, as CEQA has been completed for this project.

3. Rezone Findings. The City Council finds that Rezone 23-03 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 23-03. The City Council finds that Rezone 23-03 i) is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as amended and as further described in the City Council’s Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 23-03; ii) is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to promote and protect the public’s health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare; iii) the project would provide open space, light, air, privacy, convenience, access, aesthetic values, protection of environmental values, and protection of public and private improvements; and iv) the project will allow for the creation of quality economic growth and development for the City.

4. Approval of RZ 23-03. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City adopts an Ordinance approving RZ 23-03 and reclassify the zone districts for those districts as depicted in Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference.

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

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

7. Effective Date of Resolution. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption and the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopts a final resolution authorizing amendment of the General Plan and identifying General Plan Amendment 23-03 as a component of the same.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced by the City Council after waiving reading, except by Title, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of December 2023, and adopted the Ordinance after the second reading at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of January 2024, by the following roll call vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

3 Recused:

CITY OF YUBA CITY
_____________________________
Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
_________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit A: Rezone Map, RZ 23-03
I, ______________________________, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Yuba City, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Ordinance passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City on the date and by the vote indicated herein.

4 EXHIBIT A

5

ATTACHMENT 3

CITY OF YUBA CITY

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Date: September 27, 2023
To: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Development Services Department
Presentation by: Benjamin Moody, Development Services Director Subject: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03, Rezone (RZ) 23-03, BainsButte House.

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

B. Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City recommending the City Council approve Environmental Assessment 23-06 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the Mitigation Measures, approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03 re-designating 0.32-acres Low-Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation, and adopt an Ordinance approving Rezone (RZ) 23-03 rezoning the same 0.32 acres from the Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, for the Bains – Butte House project, located on the northeast corner of Butte House Road and Blevin Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 059-020-013).

Applicant/Owner: Jaswant Bains
Project Location: The 0.32-acre parcel is located on the northeast corner of Butte House Road and Blevin Road. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 059-020-013 (See Figure 1).

General Plan: Existing: The property is within the Low-Medium Density Residential (MDR) Land Use Designation, which provides for a density range of 6 to 14 residences per acre.

Proposed: Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation which provides for a density range of 12 to 36 residences per acre.

Zoning: Existing: The project is within the Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District.

Proposed: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District.

Planning Commission
September 27, 2023
2 Project Description
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03 and Rezoning (RZ) 23-03 (Project):
• GPA 23-03 proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element map for a 0.32- acre parcel (approximately 14,000 square feet) from the Low-Medium Density (MDR) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation. The MDR designation allows for a residential density range of 6 to 14 residences per acre.

The HDR designation allows for a density range of 12-36 residences per acre. The new designation provides for a full range of attached housing types including duplexes, and multiple-family housing types. For this property this translates to a potential of four to 11 residences that could constructed on this property; and • RZ 23-03 proposes to rezone the same 0.32 acres from the Two-Family (R-2) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District. The R-3 Zone District provides for a similar range of housing types as the corresponding HDR General Plan designation.

There is no specific development project proposed at this time. Any future development will need to occur consistent with the proposed General Plan designation and Zoning.

Background

There is no recent history with this small parcel. Several parcels on the east side of this property and a parcel to the east across Blevin Road were recently rezoned to the same R-3 Zone District as part of the General Plan Housing Element update. Housing Element policies encourage additional higher density housing be constructed within the City.

Analysis
Compatibility with neighboring uses:

With no development proposed it is not possible to fully analyze the compatibility of the differing uses. However, re-designating this property high density residential would align with the similar Table 2: Bordering Information and Uses
General Plan
Land Use Classification Zoning ExistingLand Use
Project
Site
Low-Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
Two-Family
Residential (R-2) Vacant Land
North MDR R-2 Single-family residence
East Medium-High Density
Residential (HDR)
Multiple-Family
Residential (R-3) Single-family residence
West Low Density Residential
(LDR)
One-Family
Residence (R-1)
Blevin Road and a single-family
residence across the street.

South Business, Technology and
Light Industrial (BTLI)
Heavy
Commercial/ Light
Industrial (CM)
Butte House Road and a vacant
parcel across the street.

Planning Commission
September 27, 2023
3 recent changes to neighboring parcels. The general plan and zoning revisions to the neighboring properties was a result of the City implementing the updated Housing Element, which calls for more properties designated for multiple-family development. Due to those changes, it is expected that this area will be transitioning over time from several single-family residences to higher density multiple-family uses.

Traffic
Changing this small one-third acre parcel from MDR to HDR will result in the potential for four to 11 residences being able to be developed on the property in the future. This change should not have any notable effects on traffic.

Environmental Considerations:

An environmental assessment (EA 23-06) was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This process included the distribution of requests for comment from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. On September 8, 2023 a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies and published in the Appeal Democrat. This commenced a 20-day comment period that ended on September 27, 2023.

During this comment period the City did not receive comments.

Based upon the attached environmental assessment and the list of identified mitigation measures, staff has determined that there is no evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for this project. The finding of the mitigated negative declaration is that, with the proposed mitigations for Greenhouse Gases and Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources, this GPA/RZ will not create any significant environmental impacts. As a result, the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The proposed mitigations are included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program.

Recommended Actions:

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

B. Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City recommending the City Council approve Environmental Assessment 23-06 by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the Mitigation Measures, approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03 re-designating 0.32-acres Low-Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation, and adopt an Ordinance approving Rezone (RZ) 23-03 rezoning the same 0.32 acres from the Two-Family Residential (R-2) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District, for the Bains – Butte House project, located on the northeast corner of Butte House Road and Blevin Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 059-020-013).

Planning Commission
September 27, 2023
4 Attachments:

1. Bains-Butte House Location Map

2. Planning Commission Resolution (GPA 23-03, RZ 23-03) Exhibit A: General Plan Map, GPA 23-03
Exhibit B: Rezone Map, RZ 23-03

3. Environmental Assessment 23-06 and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ATTACHMENT 1

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community
B
L
E
V
NI R
D

BUTTE HOUSE RD
QUEENS AVE Bains - Butte House Road
I!
GPA 23-03, RZ 23-03, EA 23-06 | Location Map
Project Site

ATTACHMENT 2

Item 8
PC 23-26 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-26

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY (PLANNING COMMISSION) RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 23-06 BY ADOPTING A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SUBJECT TO THE MITIGATION MEASURES, APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 23-03 RE-DESIGNATING 0.32-

ACRES LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) LAND USE

DESIGNATION TO THE MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) DESIGNATION, AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING REZONE (RZ) 23- 03 REZONING THE SAME 0.32 ACRES FROM THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE DISTRICT, FOR THE BAINS – BUTTE HOUSE PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE

NORTHEAST CORNER OF BUTTE HOUSE ROAD AND BLEVIN ROAD
(ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 059-020-013).

WHEREAS, the City received an application from Jaswant Bains for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from an MDR land use designation to a HDR designation, and a Rezoning for this property revising the zoning from a R-2 Zone District to a R-3 Zone District. Development that could result from this action will be provided full City services; and
WHEREAS, this property is within Yuba City’s city limits and the property owner wished to develop their property to urban levels; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared an Initial Study proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 23-06) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed related EA 23-06 considering a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project, which provided mitigation measures that reduce potential significant impacts to less than significant; and WHEREAS, all development that may result from this action will be provided a full range of City services; and
WHEREAS, the City on September 8, 2023, published a legal notice and a public hearing notice was mailed to each property owner within at least 300 feet of the project site in compliance with State law concerning the Planning Commission’s consideration on September 27, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all associated documents prepared for the project, including that related to the applications, and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, a review of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations determined that the proposed GPA 23-03 and RZ 23-03 are consistent with the other elements of the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and considered all of the project and environmental information, at which time it received

Item 8
PC 23-26 2
input from City Staff, the applicant; the public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopt a resolution adopting Environmental Assessment 23-06, approving GPA 23-03, and adopting an ordinance approving RZ 23-03; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

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

2. CEQA Finding. The Planning Commission finds and determines, and recommends that the City Council find and determine, that there is no substantial evidence in the record that General Plan Amendment 23-03 and Rezone 23-03, may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the MND prepared in Environmental Assessment 23-06.

Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and determine that an environmental assessment/initial study was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis. The process included the distribution of requests for comments from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. Preparation of Environmental Assessment 23-06 necessitated a thorough review of the proposed project and relevant environmental issues and considered previously prepared environmental and technical studies. While the proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, based on its independent judgement and analysis the Planning Commission recommends the City Council find that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur, and there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are potentially significant or adverse. The proposed project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the “Mandatory Findings of Significance” contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The projectspecific mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects are set forth in the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment. As such, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council also find and determine that in light of the entire administrative record and the substantial evidence before it, the project has been adequately environmentally assessed as required by CEQA per Environmental Assessment 23-06.

3. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 23-06) prepared for the project, including the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as the project will not result in any significant, adverse environmental impacts with the mitigations proposed. The Yuba City

Item 8
PC 23-26 3
Development Services Department is located at 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, CA 95993, and is recommended to be designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decision is based. The Planning Commission further recommends the City Council authorize the Director, or designee, to execute and file with the Sutter County Clerk, as appropriate, a Notice of Determination for approval of the project that complies with the CEQA Guidelines.

4. General Plan Findings. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find that the public necessity, general welfare, good planning practices, public interest, and convenience warrant approval of General Plan Amendment 23-03, including the following:
a. The proposed HDR land use designation, when used in conjunction with the proposed rezoning and the accompanying development standards, will limit the residential density to be compatible with existing neighboring higher density residential land use designations.
b. The Project will not generate significant amounts of new traffic that would cause a decrease in levels of service for nearby General Plan streets including Butte House Road and Blevins Road, and any new residences that result from this Project will pay their fair share of traffic development impact fees, making the project consistent with the Transportation Element.
c. Increasing the allowable residential density is consistent with the Housing Element’s goals and policies that are intended to expand housing opportunities within the City. d. The environmental document prepared for the Project (EA 23-06) found that the Project will not create significant environmental impacts on water quality, air quality, biological resources, agricultural lands, open space, and archaeological resources, making the Project consistent with the Environmental Conservation Element of the General Plan. e. The Project will connect to all City services including water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage, making it consistent with the Public Utilities Element, and the Police and Fire Departments determined that the Project will not cause any safety or emergency response issues. As such the Project will be consistent with the Noise and Safety Element. f. Any new residences that will be constructed as a result of this Project will pay all applicable park and school development impact fees, making it consistent with the Parks, Schools, and Community Facilities Element.

4. Recommendation of Approval of the General Plan Amendment. Based on the information provided above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of Yuba City adoption of a resolution approving GPA 23-03 as provided in Exhibit “A.”

5. Rezone Findings. The Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find and determine, that Rezone 23-03 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 23-03. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that Rezone 23-03 i) is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as amended and as further described above; ii) is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to promote and protect the public’s health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare; iii) the project would provide open space, light, air, privacy, convenience,

Item 8
PC 23-26 4
access, aesthetic values, protection of environmental values, and protection of public and private improvements; and iv) the project will allow for the creation of quality balanced neighborhoods that provide housing options for the City.

6. Recommendation of Approval of the Rezone. Based on the information provided above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council of Yuba City adoption of an ordinance approving RZ 23-03 and reclassify the zone districts as depicted in Exhibit “B” to be shown on the zoning map for the City of Yuba City.

7. Effective Date of this Resolution. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

The foregoing resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on September 27, 2023, by Commissioner _______ who moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Commissioner _______ and carried by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recused:

By order of the Planning Commission of the City of Yuba City.

Jackie Sillman, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

Benjamin Moody, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Attachments:

Exhibit A: General Plan Map, GPA 23-03
Exhibit B: Rezone Map, RZ 23-03

EXHIBIT A

Service Layer Credits:

BUTTE HOUSE RD

QUEENS AVE
B
L
E
V
NI R
D
L
A
B
R
E
A
WAY

EL VERANO WAY
S
H
AY
WAY

LA ENTRADA WAY
E
L
G
R
A
N
E
R
O
WAY
G
R
A
N
A
D
A
WAY
E
S
P
L
A
N
A
D
E
WAY
HARTER
RD

JAYNE CT DOMAIN WAY
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-01
Henson Farms Apartments | RZ 23-01, DP 23-01, EA 23-02
Project Site
Project Site
Bains - Butte House Road
GPA 23-03, RZ 23-03, EA 23-06 | General Plan Map

BUTTE HOUSE RD

QUEENS AVE
B
L
E
V
NI R
D
L
A
B
R
E
A
WAY

EL VERANO WAY

LA ENTRADA WAY
E
L
G
R
A
N
E
R
O
WAY
S
H
AY
WAY
HARTER
RD
Proposed Land Use Designation
Existing Land Use Designation
Project Site
General Plan

DESIGNATION
Business, Technology & Light Industry
Community Commercial
Low Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
Medium/Low Density Residential
Office & Office Park

I!

EXHIBIT B

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

BUTTE HOUSE RD

QUEENS AVE
B
L
E
V
NI R
D
L
A
B
R
E
A
WAY

EL VERANO WAY

LA ENTRADA WAY
S
H
AY
WAY
Existing Zoning District
Project Site
Bains - Butte House Road
GPA 23-03, RZ 23-03, EA 23-06 | Rezone Map
R-2
R-1
C-M
C-O
R-3
PD

BUTTE HOUSE RD

QUEENS AVE
B
L
E
V
NI R
D
L
A
B
R
E
A
WAY

EL VERANO WAY

LA ENTRADA WAY
HARTER
RD
S
H
AY
WAY
THARP
RD
Proposed Zoning District
R-3
R-2
Project Site

I!
ATTACHMENT 3

Environmental Assessment 23-06
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 23- 03, Rezoning 23-03, Bains-Butte House: A request to amend the General Plan for

0.32 acres from Low-Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation to MediumHigh Density Residential Designation and to rezone the same property from a TwoFamily Residential Zone District to a Multiple-Family Residential Zone District.

Prepared for:

City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
Prepared By:

Denis Cook
Land Use Planning Consultant
and
City of Yuba City
Development Services Department
Planning Division
September 8, 2023

1 This page intentionally left blank.

2 Table of Contents

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

2. Project Description ....................................................................................................................6 Project Title................................................................................................................................... 6 Lead Agency Name and Address .................................................................................................. 7 Contact Person and Phone Number............................................................................................. 7 Project Location............................................................................................................................ 7 Project Applicant .......................................................................................................................... 7 Property owner............................................................................................................................. 7 General Plan Designation ............................................................................................................. 7 Zoning ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Description .....................................................................................................................11

2.10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting............................................................................................11

2.11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required ........................................................11

2.12. California Native AmericanTribes...............................................................................................11

2.13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:..............................................................................13

2.14. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: .......................................................................................14

3. Environmental Checklist and Impact Evaluation........................................................................15 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................15 Agricultural and Forestry Resources...........................................................................................18 Air Quality...................................................................................................................................22 Biological Resources...................................................................................................................29 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................33

3.6. Energy .........................................................................................................................................36

3.7. Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................38

3.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................................44

3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................................47

3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................................52

3.11. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................56

3.12. Mineral Resources......................................................................................................................57

1.1. 1.2.

1.3. 1.4.

1.5. 2.1.

2.2. 2.3.

2.4. 2.5.

2.6. 2.7.

2.8. 2.9.

3.1. 3.2.

3.3. 3.4.

3.5.

3 3.13. Noise...........................................................................................................................................59

3.14. Population and Housing .............................................................................................................64

3.15. Public Services............................................................................................................................66

3.16. Recreation...................................................................................................................................68

3.17. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................70

3.18. Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................................72

3.19. Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................................................78

3.20. Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................82

3.21. Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................................84

4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference..............................................................86

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

1. Introduction
Introduction
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to identify any potential environmental impacts in the City of Yuba City, California (City) from proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03 and Rezoning (RZ) 23-03 (collectively “Project”). The request includes:

General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03, Bains-Butte House: proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element map for a 0.32-acre parcel (approximately 14,000 square feet) from the Low-Medium Density (MDR) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation. The existing MDR designation allows for a residential density range of 6 to 14 residences per acre, which for this property allows for 2-4 new residences. The proposed HDR designation increases the allowed density range to 12-36 residences per acre. This translates to a range of 4 to 11 residences that could constructed on this property. The new designation provides for a full range of attached housing types including duplexes, and multiple-family housing types; and RZ 23-03: proposes to rezone the same 0.32 acres from the Two-Family (R-2) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District. The R-3 Zone District provides for a similar range of housing types as the corresponding HDR General Plan designation.

There is no specific development project proposed at this time. Any future development will need to occur consistent with the proposed General Plan designation and Zoning.

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

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

Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is an environmental assessment document prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, §15000 et seq.), commonly referred to as the CEQA Guidelines - Section 15064(a)(1) states an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant. A negative declaration may be ~
~

1.1. 1.2.

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

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

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

Purpose of Document
The proposed GPA/RZ will undergo a public review process by the Planning Commission that will result in a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council and a decision by the City Council. This public review process is needed to assure that the Project will be compatible with existing or expected neighboring uses and that adequate public facilities are available to serve the project.

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

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

1.3. 1.4.

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

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

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

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

The Draft IS/ND and associated appendices will be available for review on the City of Yuba City website at http://www.yubacity.net. The Draft IS/MND and associated appendixes also will be available for review during regular business hours at the City of Yuba City Development Services Department (1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, California 95993). The 20-day review period will commence on September 8, 2023 and will end on September 27, 2023 at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing.

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

City of Yuba City
Development Services Department
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
[email protected]
Phone: (530) 822-4700

2. Project Description
Project Title
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-03 and Rezoning (RZ) 23-03, Bains-Butte House.

1.5. 2.1.

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

Yuba City, CA 95993
Contact Person and Phone Number
Doug Libby, AICP
Deputy Director of Development Services
(530) 822-3231
[email protected]
Project Location
The 0.32-acre parcel is located on the northeast corner of Butte House Road and Blevins Road. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 059-020-013.

Project Applicant
Bains 05 Family Revocable Trust/Jaswant Bains
833 Tudor Road
Yuba City, CA 95991
Property owner
Bains 05 Family Revocable Trust/Jaswant Bains
833 Tudor Road
Yuba City, CA 95991
General Plan Designation
Existing: Low-Medium Density (MDR) Land Use Designation (6-14 residences per acre).

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

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

Proposed: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District.

2.2. 2.3.

2.4. 2.5.

2.6. 2.7.

2.8.

8 Figure 1: Location Map

9 Figure 2: General Plan Amendment 23-03
:t:

Existing Land Use 'Designation
0 "' z

QUEENS AVE

EL VERANO WAY
i ~ m J Project Site I ~ w
z
i
" iii
Proposed Land Use 'Designation ,.

General Plan

DESIGNATION
6\ISI"""- T!=CMCiogy & Ugtl lncklu;j'
- cornmt.nty commerc1a1
l<!W Densty ReSldert.:'a!
1111 Medk11n.'HgbDen61!yRfft(l=f"l'J31
MedlUlll/WM Denslt)' Resiele'lllal
~ce & omoe ?an
0 "' z
~ _,
m
.,
~

QUEENS AVE
El VERANO WAY
~ l Project Site I ffi /?, ~
"' " iii

10 Figure 3: Rezone 23-03
----
) R-3
C·O
1-----
j
I
C-0
F<-1 0:
z
~ ..J
..

C·M
,--
7"---,--f"i--.:.:_-~..,J.llliiial,i,jll!.---_-_-- _-_- _"11 EL vEAAHo WAY
Project Site
-----

11 Project Description
Proposed is the Bains-Butte House General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (collectively “Project”). The proposal includes:

Bains-Butte House GPA 23-03 proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element map for a 0.32- acre parcel (approximately 14,0000 square feet) from the Low-Medium Density (MDR) land use designation to the Medium-High Density Residential (HDR) designation. The existing MDR designation allows for a residential density range of 6 to 14 residences per acre, which for this property allows for 2-4 new residences. The proposed HDR designation increases the allowed density range to 12-36 residences per acre. This translates to a range of four to 11 residences that could constructed on this property. The new designation provides for a full range of attached housing types including duplexes, and multiple-family housing types; and
Bains-Butte House RZ 23-03 proposes to rezone the same 0.32 acres from the Two-Family (R-2) Zone District to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone District. The R-3 Zone District provides for a similar range of housing types as the corresponding HDR General Plan designation.

There is no specific development project proposed at this time. Any future development will need to occur consistent with the proposed General Plan designation and Zoning.

2.10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Setting: The 0.32-acre parcel is flat and has a single-family residence and accessory building on the site.

There are several mature trees on the property. The neighborhood around the parcel consists of singlefamily residences on the north, east and west. To the south across Butte House Road is vacant property zoned for heavy commercial and light industrial uses.

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

2.12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Table 1: Bordering Uses
North: Single-family residence.

South: Butte House Road, across the street is vacant, zoned for heavy commercial and light industrial uses.

East: Single-family residence.

West: Blevins Road with a single-family residence across the Street.

2.9.

12 All geographically relevant Native American tribes were timely notified of the project, and consultation was not requested.

2.13. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

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

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

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

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

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

D I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, ~ ~\ 2023
~ o Date"\
Doug Libby, AICP, Deputy Director of Development Services I
13

14 2.14. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aesthetics
Table 3.1: Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:

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

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

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

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

3.1.

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

In addition to the City’s General Plan, the City provides Design Guidelines. The goal of the City’s design guidelines is to ensure the highest quality of building design: designs that are aesthetically pleasing; designs that are compatible with the surroundings in terms of scale, mass, detailing, and building patterns; designs that accommodate the pedestrian, automobile, bicycle, and transit circulation; and designs that consider public safety, public interaction, and historic resources. As there is no actual development proposed, the design guidelines do not apply. They will be applied when a development is proposed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, this GPA/RZ will not create any significant impacts on the scenic views. When a development is proposed it will be evaluated on its own merits.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

This vacant property is unremarkable in that it is flat with no topographic features, rock outcroppings, large heritage type trees or buildings. The GP/RZ will permit various types of residential development at a wide range of densities, and related uses. As no development project is proposed, it would be speculative at this time to analyze impacts to scenic resources. When a development is proposed it will be evaluated on its own merits.
c) In nonurbanized areas substantially degrade the existing visual character of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The site is within the urbanized area. The GP/RZ will permit a wide range of residential development and related uses. As no development project has been proposed it would be speculative at this time to analyze any impacts that may result from conflicts with any scenic quality standards. When a development is proposed it will be evaluated on its own merits. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

18 The site is within the urban area where exterior lighting is already prevalent. The GP/RZ will permit various types of residential development and related uses. As no development project has been proposed it would be speculative at this time to analyze any impacts from exterior lighting. When a development is proposed it will be evaluated on its own merits.

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

Table 3.2: Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project:

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

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

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

3.2.

19 3.2.2. Federal Regulatory Setting
Farmland Protection Policy Act: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the agency primarily responsible for implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The FPPA was enacted after the 1981 Congressional report, Compact Cities: Energy-Saving Strategies for the Eighties indicated that a great deal of urban sprawl was the result of programs funded by the federal government. The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize federal programs’ contribution to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. Federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and procures to implement the FPPA every two years (USDA-NRCS, 2011). 2014 Farm Bill: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the Act), also known as the 2014 Farm Bill, was signed by President Obama on Feb. 7, 2014. The Act repeals certain programs, continues some programs with modifications, and authorizes several new programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA).

Most of these programs are authorized and funded through 2018.

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

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

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

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

The list below provides a comprehensive description of all the categories mapped by the DOC. Collectively, lands classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland is referred to as Farmland.

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

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

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

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act): The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is promulgated in California Government Code Section 51200‐51297.4, and therefore is applicable only to specific land parcels within the State of California. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Private land within locally designated agricultural preserve areas is eligible for enrollment under Williamson Act contracts. However, an agricultural preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. In order to meet this requirement two or more parcels may be combined if they are contiguous, or if they are in common ownership.

The Williamson Act program is administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC), in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10‐year period, or a 20-year period for property restricted by a Farmland Security Zone Contract, wherein no conversion out of agricultural use is permitted. Each year the contract automatically renews unless a notice of non‐renewal or cancellation is filed. In return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted market value. An application for immediate cancellation can also be requested by the

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

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

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

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

3.2.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The approximately 0.32-acre site is located on land that the 2018 Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map for Sutter County identifies as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” As such the Project site is not considered to be Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland. The site is within the boundaries of the Yuba City urban area, surrounded by urban uses. The property is also very small, and has a residence on it, making it unviable for agricultural use. Therefore, there will be no loss of agricultural land.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The proposed Project site is currently zoned for urban type uses and is not under a Williamson Act contract. There will therefore be no impact related to a Williamson Act contract. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4256), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? The proposed Project is located in the Sacramento Valley in a relatively flat area that may have at one time been utilized for agriculture but was developed many years ago for urban uses. There is no timberland located on the Project site or within the vicinity. There will be no impact on existing zoning of forestland, nor will the proposed Project 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. Therefore, there will be no impact on forest land.

22 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The proposed Project involves a small urban sized parcel within an area already served by City services and developed with a residence on it and on three sides. There are no forestlands on the Project site or in the vicinity. No properties within the area are under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, there will be no impacts on agricultural lands from this proposal.

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

Table 3.3: Air Quality
Would the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X

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

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

3.3.

23 exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit and winter lows occasionally below freezing. Average annual rainfall is about 20 inches with snowfall being very rare. The prevailing winds are moderate in strength and vary from moist clean breezes from the south to dry land flows from the north.

In addition to prevailing wind patterns that control the rate of dispersion of local pollutant emissions, the region experiences two types of inversions that affect the vertical depth of the atmosphere through which pollutants can be mixed. In the warmer months in the SVAB (May through October), sinking air forms a "lid" over the region. These subsidence inversions contribute to summer photochemical smog problems by confining pollution to a shallow layer near the ground. These warmer months are characterized by stagnant morning air or light winds with the delta sea breeze arriving in the afternoon out of the southwest. Usually, the evening breeze transports the airborne pollutants to the north and out of the SVAB. During about half of the day from July to September, however, a phenomenon called the “Schultz Eddy” prevents this from occurring. Instead of allowing the prevailing wind patterns to move north carrying the pollutants out of the valley, the Schultz Eddy causes the wind pattern to circle back south.

This phenomenon exacerbates the pollution levels in the area and increases the likelihood of violating federal or State standards. The Schultz Eddy normally dissipates around noon when the Delta sea breeze begins. In the second type of inversion, the mountains surrounding the SVAB create a barrier to airflow, which can trap air pollutants in the valley. The highest frequency of air stagnation occurs in the autumn and early winter when large high-pressure cells lie over the valley. The air near the ground cools by radiative processes, while the air aloft remains warm. The lack of surface wind during these periods and the reduced vertical flow caused by less surface heating reduces the influx of outside air and allows air pollutants to become concentrated in a stable volume of air. These inversions typically occur during winter nights and can cause localized air pollution "hot spots" near emission sources because of poor dispersion. The surface concentrations of pollutants are highest when these conditions are combined with smoke from agricultural burning or when temperature inversions trap cool air and pollutants near the ground. Although these subsidence and radiative inversions are present throughout much of the year, they are much less dominant during spring and fall, and the air quality during these seasons is generally good.”
Local Climate: The climate of Sutter County is subject to hot dry summers and mild rainy winters, which characterize the Mediterranean climate of the SVAB. Summer temperatures average approximately 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and 50 degrees Fahrenheit at night. Winter daytime temperatures average in the low 50s and nighttime temperatures are mainly in the upper 30s. During summer, prevailing winds are from the south. This is primarily because of the north- south orientation of the valley and the location of the Carquinez Straits, a sea-level gap in the coast range that is southwest of Sutter County.

Criteria Air Pollutants: Criteria air pollutants are a group of pollutants for which federal or State regulatory agencies have adopted ambient air quality standards. Criteria air pollutants are classified in each air basin, county, or in some cases, within a specific urbanized area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with State and federal standards. If a pollutant concentration is lower than the standard, the area is classified as “attainment” for that pollutant. If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classified as “non-attainment” for that pollutant. If there is not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated “unclassified.” Ambient Air Quality Standards: Both the federal and state government have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health. The 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

24 identified later in this section. The air pollutants for which federal and State standards have been promulgated and which are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the air basins include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants are of concern in Sutter County. Each of these pollutants is briefly described below.

Ozone (O3): is a gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust and other processes undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant.

Carbon Monoxide (CO): is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, with little to no wind, when surfacebased inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the SVAB. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX): is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are colorless and odorless.

However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) along with particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOX are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuels.

Nitrogen oxides can also be formed naturally.

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter. Some sources of suspended particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, occur naturally. However, in populated areas, most fine suspended particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, and combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of the burning of high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal, and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries.

Lead: occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combustion of leaded gasoline is the primary source of airborne lead. Since the use of leaded gasoline is no longer permitted for on-road motor vehicles, lead is not a pollutant of concern in the SVAB.

Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs): are known to be highly hazardous to health, even in small quantities. TACs are airborne substances capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs can be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations.

TAC impacts are assessed using a maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) that estimates the probability of a potential maximally exposed individual (MEI) contracting cancer as a result of sustained exposure to 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

25 10 people out of 1 million to be excessive. For stationary sources, if the incremental risk of exposure to project-related TAC emissions meets or exceeds the threshold of 10 excess cancer cases per 1 million people, the CARB and local air district require the installation of best available control technology (BACT) or maximum available control technology (MACT) to reduce the risk threshold. To assess risk from ambient air concentrations, the CARB has conducted studies to determine the total cancer inhalation risk to individuals due to outdoor toxic pollutant levels. The CARB has conducted studies to determine the total cancer inhalation risk to individuals due to outdoor toxic pollutant levels. According to the map prepared by the CARB showing the estimated inhalation cancer risk for TACs in the State of California, Sutter County has an existing estimated risk that is between 50 and 500 cancer cases per 1 million people.

A significant portion of Sutter County is within the 100 to 250 cancer cases per 1 million people range.

There is a higher risk around Yuba City where the cancer risk is as high as 500 cases per 1 million people.

There are only very small portions of the County where the cancer risk is between 50 and 100 cases. This represents the lifetime risk that between 50 and 500 people in 1 million may contract cancer from inhalation of toxic compounds at current ambient concentrations under an MEI scenario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Global Warming Solutions Act: Established in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) requires that California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This will be implemented through a statewide cap on GHG emissions, which will be phased in beginning in 2012. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to monitor global warming emissions level.

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

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

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

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

27 implemented through the California Health and Safety Code. Districts in the NSVPA are required to update the Plan every three years. The TAQAP is formatted to reflect the 1990 baseline emissions year with a planning horizon of 2020. The Health and Safety Code, sections 40910 and 40913, require the Districts to achieve state standards by the earliest practicable date to protect the public health, particularly that of children, the elderly, and people with respiratory illness.

Health and Safety Code Section 41503(b): Requires that control measures for the same emission sources are uniform throughout the planning area to the extent that is feasible. To meet this requirement, the NSVPA has coordinated the development of an Attainment Plan and has set up a specific rule adoption protocol. The protocol was established by the Technical Advisory Committee of the Sacramento Valley Basin-wide Air Pollution Control Council and the Sacramento Valley Air Quality Engineering and Enforcement Professionals, which allow the Districts in the Basin to act and work as a united group with the CARB as well as with industry in the rule adoption process. Section 40912 of the Health and Safety Code states that each District responsible for, or affected by, air pollutant transport shall provide for attainment and maintenance of the state and federal standards in both upwind and downwind Districts.

This section also states that each downwind District’s Plan shall contain sufficient measures to reduce emissions originating in each District to below levels which violate state ambient air quality standards, assuming the absence of transport contribution
Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants: The District recommends the following best management practices:
 Implement the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
 Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed FRAQMD Regulation III, Rule 3.0,  Visible Emissions limitations (40 percent opacity or Ringelmann 2.0).  The contractor shall be responsible to ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained prior to and for the duration of onsite operation.  Limiting idling time to 5 minutes – saves fuel and reduces emissions.  Utilize existing power sources or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.  Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites.
 Portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, may require California Air Resources Board (ARB) Portable Equipment Registration with the State or a local district permit. The owner/operator shall be responsible for arranging appropriate consultations with the ARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.

28 3.3.5. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The GP/RZ will permit various types of residential development and related uses. Since no development project has been proposed it would be speculative at this time to analyze the impacts on air quality. When a development is proposed it will be evaluated on its own merits. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The GP/RZ will permit various types of residential development and related uses. Therefore it would be speculative at this time to analyze the impacts on on air quality standards because no development project has been proposed. When a development is proposed it will be evaluated on its own merits. 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. d) Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
For any development that may result from this Project, site grading and construction of new residences typically do not generate objectionable odors. Ongoing residential uses typically also do not generate odors. As such, the impact of the Project towards creating local offensive odors would be less than significant.

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

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

3.4.1. Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The approximately 0.32-acre level parcel is within the Yuba City urbanized area with a single-family residence on it. The small property is surrounded by suburban development. There are no riparian areas or known critical habitat areas on-site or in the vicinity.

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

3.4.