Yuba City City Council
December 19, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The USACE regulates the filling or grading of Waters of the U.S. under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by “ordinary high-water marks” on opposing channel banks. All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.4.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

See b) below.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
There is no riparian habitat on the Project site or within the vicinity. According to the Yuba City General Plan EIR, the only designated special status vegetation species within Yuba City and its Sphere of Influence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5.

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

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

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

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

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

35 In response to AB 52, and SB 18 the City supplied the following Native American tribes with a Project description and map of the proposed Project area and a request for comments:
 United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria  Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
 Estom Yomeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria
 Mechoopda Indian Tribe
 Pakan’yani Maidu of Strawberry Valley
 Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians
 Ione Band of Miwok Indians
Additional details on tribal comments are provided in Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.

3.5.4. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.

The parcel has on it a single-family residence. However, as there is no development proposed, there is no proposal to remove the residence. However, development that could result from this GPA/RZ would likely require removal of the residence. The EIR prepared for the General Plan did not identify this residence as having historical significance. As a result, any potential impacts on any historical resources from a development that may result from this Project will be less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.

See a) above.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the proposed Project site. However, there still remains the potential for previously unknown sub-surface resources to be present. In order to avoid potential impacts to unknown remains, the mitigation measure provided in Section 3.18 is provided to ensure the impacts are less than significant.

36 3.6. Energy
Table 3.6: Energy
Would the project:

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

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

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

3.6.2. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences
d) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? Project construction that could result from this GPA/RZ would involve fuel consumption and use of other non-renewable resources. Construction equipment used for such improvements typically run on diesel fuel or gasoline. The same fuels typically are used for vehicles that transport equipment and workers to and from a construction site. However, construction-related fuel consumption would be finite, shortterm, and consistent with construction activities of a similar character. This energy use would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Electricity may be used for equipment operation during construction activities. It is expected that more electrical construction equipment would be used in the future, as it would generate fewer air pollutant

37 and GHG emissions. This electrical consumption would be consistent with construction activities of a similar character. Therefore, the use of electricity in construction activities would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption would be reduced.

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

New construction would be required to comply with CALGreen and with the building energy efficiency standards of California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 in effect at the time of Project approval.

Compliance with these standards would reduce energy consumption associated with Project operations, although reductions from compliance cannot be readily quantified. Overall, Project construction would typically not consume energy resources in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Following construction, the main sources of energy consumption would be ongoing residential activities and vehicle usage. However, associated vehicle traffic from the residences that could be constructed on this small parcel is not a large enough impact on air quality or GHG emissions to be considered significant.

Project impacts related to energy consumption are considered to be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? New construction that could result from this GPA/RZ will be required to be consistent with applicable state and local plans to increase energy efficiency. Thus, the Project’s impacts on energy usage will be less than significant.

38 3.7. Geology and Soils
Table 3.7: Geology and Soils
Would the project:

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

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

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

39 north. These sediments were transported downstream and subsequently laid down as a river channel, floodplain deposits, and alluvial fans.

Seismic Hazards: Earthquakes are due to a sudden slip of plates along a fault. Seismic shaking is typically the greatest cause of losses to structures during earthquakes. Earthquakes can cause structural damage, injury, and loss of life, as well as damage to infrastructure networks such as water, power, gas, communication, and transportation lines. Other damage-causing effects of earthquakes include surface rupture, fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground. Secondary impacts can include landslides, seiches, liquefaction, and dam failure.

Seismicity: Although all of California is typically regarded as seismically active, the Central Valley region does not commonly experience strong ground shaking resulting from earthquakes along known and previously unknown active faults. Though no active earthquake faults are known to exist in Yuba City, active faults in the region could generate ground motion felt within the County. Numerous earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater on the Richter scale have occurred on regional faults, primarily those within the San Andreas Fault System in the region. There are several potentially active faults underlying the Sutter Buttes, which are associated with deep-seated volcanism.

The faults identified in Sutter County include the Quaternary Faults, located in the northern section of the County within the Sutter Buttes, and the Pre-Quaternary Fault, located in the southeast of the City, just east of where Highway 70 enters into the County. Both Faults are listed as non-active faults but have the potential for seismic activity.

Ground Shaking: As stated in the Sutter County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, although the County has felt ground shaking from earthquakes with epicenters located elsewhere, no major earthquakes or earthquake related damage has been recorded within the County. Based on historic data and known active or potentially active faults in the region, parts of Sutter County have the potential to experience low to moderate ground shaking. The intensity of ground shaking at any specific site depends on the characteristics of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake fault, and on the local geologic and soils conditions. Fault zone maps are used to identify where such hazards are more likely to occur based on analyses of faults, soils, topography, groundwater, and the potential for earthquake shaking sufficiently strong to trigger landslide and liquefaction.

Liquefaction: Liquefaction, which can occur in earthquakes with strong ground shaking, is mostly found in areas with sandy soil or fill and a high-water table located 50 feet or less below the ground surface.

Liquefaction can cause damage to property with the ground below structures liquefying making the structure unstable causing sinking or other major structural damage. Evidence of liquefaction may be observed in "sand boils,” which are expulsions of sand and water from below the surface due to increased pressure below the surface.

Liquefaction during an earthquake requires strong shaking and is not likely to occur in the city due to the relatively low occurrence of seismic activity in the area; however, the clean sandy layers paralleling the Sacramento River, Feather River, and Bear River have lower soil densities and high overall water table are potentially a higher risk area if major seismic activity were to occur. Areas of bedrock, including the Sutter Buttes have high density compacted soils and contain no liquefaction potential, although localized areas of valley fill alluvium can have moderate to high liquefaction potential.

Landslides: Landslides are downward and outward movements of slope forming materials which may be rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of such materials. The size of landslides varies from those containing less than a cubic yard of material to massive ones containing millions of cubic yards. Large landslides may move down slope for hundreds of yards or even several miles. A landslide may move rapidly or so slow that a change of position can be noted only over a period of weeks or years. A similar,

40 but much slower movement is called creep. The susceptibility of a given area to landslides depends on a great many variables. With the exception of the Sutter Buttes, the Yuba City area is located in a landslidefree zone due to the flat topography. The Sutter Buttes are considered to be in a low landslide hazard zone as shown in Bulletin 198 by the California Division of Mines and Geology.

Soil Erosion: Erosion is a two-step process by which soils and rocks are broken down or fragmented and then transported. The breakdown processes include mechanical abrasion, dissolution, and weathering.

Erosion occurs naturally in most systems but is often accelerated by human activities that disturb soil and vegetation. The rate at which erosion occurs is largely a function of climate, soil cover, slope conditions, and inherent soil properties such as texture and structure. Water is the dominant agent of erosion and is responsible for most of the breakdown processes as well as most of the transport processes that result in erosion. Wind may also be an important erosion agent. The rate of erosion depends on many variables including the soil or rock texture and composition, soil permeability, slope, extent of vegetative cover, and precipitation amounts and patterns. Erosion increases with increasing slope, increasing precipitation, and decreasing vegetative cover. Erosion can be extremely high in areas where vegetation has been removed by fire, construction, or cultivation. High rates of erosion may have several negative impacts including degradation and loss of agricultural land, degradation of streams and other water habitats, and rapid silting of reservoirs.

Subsidence: Subsidence is the sinking of a large area of ground surface in which the material is displaced vertically downward, with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is usually a direct result of groundwater, oil, or gas withdrawal. These activities are common in several areas of California, including parts of the Sacramento Valley and in large areas of the San Joaquin Valley. Subsidence is a greater hazard in areas where subsurface geology includes compressible layers of silt and clay. Subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal generally affects larger areas and presents a more serious hazard than does subsidence due to oil and gas withdrawal. In portions of the San Joaquin Valley, subsidence has exceeded 20 feet over the past 50 years. In the Sacramento Valley, preliminary studies suggest that much smaller levels of subsidence, up to two feet may have occurred. In most of the valley, elevation data are inadequate to determine positively if subsidence has occurred. However, groundwater withdrawal in the Sacramento Valley has been increasing and groundwater levels have declined in some areas. The amount of subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal depends on several factors, including: (1) the extent of water level decline, (2) the thickness and depth of the water bearing strata tapped, (3) the thickness and compressibility of silt-clay layers within the vertical sections where groundwater withdrawal is occurring, (4) the duration of maintained groundwater level decline, (5) the number and magnitude of water withdrawals in a given area, and (6) the general geology and geologic structure of the groundwater basin.

The damaging effects of subsidence include gradient changes in roads, streams, canals, drains, sewers, and dikes. Many such systems are constructed with slight gradients and may be significantly damaged by even small elevation changes. Other effects include damage to water wells resulting from sediment compaction and increased likelihood of flooding of low-lying areas.

Expansive Soils: Expansive soils are prone to change in volume due to the presence of moisture. Soft clay soils have the tendency to increase in volume when moisture is present and shrink when it is dry (shrink/swell). Swelling soils contain high percentages of certain kinds of clay particles that are capable of absorbing large quantities of water, expanding up to 10 percent or more as the clay becomes wet. The force of expansion is capable of exerting pressure on foundations, slabs, and other confining structures.

Soils: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has mapped over 40 individual soil units in the county. The predominant soil series in the county are the Capay, Clear Lake, Conejo, Oswald, and Olashes soils, which account for over 60 percent of the total land area. The remaining soil units each account for smaller percentages the total land area. The Capay and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Yuba City General Plan, no active earthquake faults are known to exist in Sutter County, although active faults in the region could produce ground motion in Yuba City (Dyett & Bhatia, 2004). The closest known fault zone is the Bear Mountain Fault Zone, located approximately 20 miles northeast of Yuba City (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2015). Potentially active faults do exist in the Sutter Buttes, but those faults are considered small and have not exhibited activity in recent history. Because the distance from the City to the closest known active fault zone is large, the potential for exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects from fault rupture is low. Considering that the Building Code incorporates construction standards for minimizing earthquake damage to buildings, and the low potential for a significant earthquake activity in the vicinity, the potential for adverse impacts from an earthquake is less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
In the event of a major regional earthquake, fault rupture or seismic ground shaking could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. Ground shaking could potentially expose people and property to seismic-related hazards, including localized liquefaction and ground failure. However, all new structures are required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction, and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards. General Plan Implementing Policies 9.2-I-1 through 9.2-I-8 and the building codes reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The proposed Project is not located within a liquefaction zone according to the California Department of Conservation’s California Geologic Survey regulatory maps. Regardless, all new structures are required to adhere to current California Building Code standards. These standards require adequate design, construction, and maintenance of structures to prevent exposure of people and structures to major geologic hazards. Therefore, the potential impact from ground failure is less than significant.

43 iv. Landslides?
According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan, due to the flat topography, erosion, landslides, and mudflows are not considered to be a risk in the City limits or within the City’s Sphere of Influence.

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As a result of this GPA/RZ future development of the property would result in approximately 0.32 acres of ground being disturbed during site grading. Even though the area is relatively flat, during site grading a large storm could result in the loss of topsoil into the drainage system. However, as part of the grading and construction of the Project area, the applicant will be required to follow Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and provide erosion control measures to minimize soil runoff during the construction process.

Therefore, impacts from soil erosion are less than significant. b) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
See c) below.
c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The extreme southwest corner of the Yuba City Sphere of Influence is the only known area with expansive soils. The Project area is not located within that area and therefore will not be impacted by the presence of expansive soils.
d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Any new residences that could be constructed as a result of this GPA/RZ will be connected to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. No new septic systems will be utilized. As such, there will be no new impacts from septic systems.
e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature? Due to prior ground disturbances it is unlikely that any paleontological resources exist on the site.

However, the following mitigation measure shall apply if any paleontological resources are discovered:

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

Mitigation shall be conducted as follows:

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

2. Assess effects on identified sites;

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

4. Obtain comments from the researchers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The construction of multiple-family residences that could result from this action will create GHG emissions due to the use of motorized construction equipment. Once completed, vehicle traffic generated by residential auto use will contribute GHG gases. Due to the small size of the Project (less than an acre), it is not expected to create significant greenhouse gas emissions. However, on a cumulative scale, possible reasonable reductions could be applied to the project in order to further minimize those impacts.

Specifically addressing this proposal, the City’s Resource Efficiency Plan addresses greenhouse gas concerns and provides a description of greenhouse gas reduction measures. A mitigation measure is included that requires the Project incorporate the relevant greenhouse gas reduction measures. With this mitigation the impacts from greenhouse gases will be less than significant.

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

47 3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Table 3.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

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

X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 3.9.2 State Regulatory Setting
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA): The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991 by Governor’s Executive Order. The six boards, departments, and office were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of State resources. The mission of CalEPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
See b) below.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The hazardous materials associated the construction that could result from this GPA/RZ will be those materials associated with grading and construction equipment, which typically includes solvents, oil, and fuel. Provided that these materials are legally and properly used and stored, development that could occur as a result of this GPA/RZ will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. On an ongoing basis the only anticipated hazardous waste would be household hazardous waste. Assuming

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

52 3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 3.10: Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

55 All storm water runoff associated with the Project will drain into the City drainage system and into a system managed by the Sutter County Water Agency and ultimately into the Feather River. The water quality of the stormwater runoff is addressed through General Plan Implementing Policies 8.5-I-1 through

8.5-I-10 which require a wide range of developer and City actions involving coordination with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, protecting waterways, and following Yuba City’s adopted Best Management Practices for new construction.

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

56 would not be exposed to inundation by tsunami. Mudflows and landslides are unlikely to happen due to the relatively flat topography within the Project area. Thus, it is unlikely that the Project site would be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, mudflow or landslide. Therefore, the potential for significant impacts from any of these types of events is less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Regarding impacts on a groundwater management plan, the City primarily utilizes surface water, so any impact on groundwater would be less than significant. Regarding water quality, as noted in Part a) above, all new construction that may result from this Project will be required to utilize Best Management Practices. Assuming all required standards are met the impacts on water quality from stormwater from development of this property will be less than significant.

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

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

3.11.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The 0.32-acre property is flat with a single-family residence and an accessory building on it.

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

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

57 3.11.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Development that could result from this Project will not physically divide an established community as any new residential construction that would result from this GPA/RZ would be small and compatible with neighboring properties, most of which were recently rezoned to the same R-3 Zone Disrict. Therefore, the impact of new residences that could occur on neighboring properties that the City has recently changed to the multiple-family residential designation as a result of Housing Element policies is expected to be less than significant.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? This GPA/RZ is consistent with other general plan policies and programs that generally encourage more housing. The new construction that would result from this GPA/RZ must meet all City design and development standards. As such, the new development’s impacts on plans, policies and programs designed to avoid or mitigate environmental effects will be less than significant. This includes policies and programs in the recently adopted Housing Element which encourages additional multiple-family housing, and is also consistent with the City’s recently initiated and approved general plan amendment on neighboring properties for the same reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

59 3.13. Noise
Table 3.13: Noise
Would the project result in:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following goals and policies from the City of Yuba City General Plan1 are relevant to noise.

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

62 Figure 1: Noise Exposure

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.13.6 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The construction phase of any development that could result from this GPA/RZ would involve temporary noise sources. The noise sources would include typical grading and paving equipment and miscellaneous equipment. During construction, which would occur during daylight hours, Monday through Saturday, noise from construction activities would contribute to the residential noise environment in the immediate Project vicinity. Activities involved in construction could generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 2, ranging from 79 to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers) and ranging from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, with feasible noise control. There are several residences within 50 feet of the Project property line that could be effected. However, the GP/RZ will permit various types of residential development at varying densities and related uses. But because no development project has been proposed it would be to speculative at this time to analyze the noise impacts.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Table 3 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.

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

Without Feasible Noise Control (2) With Feasible Noise Control Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Scraper 88 80
Front End Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Truck 91 75
(1) US Environmental Protection Agency. “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances.” Figure IV.H‐4. 1971.
(2) Feasible noise control includes the use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds operating in accordance with manufacturers specifications

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

Vibration levels of construction equipment in Table 3 are at a distance of 25 feet from the equipment.

There are neighboring residences that could be impacted. But as noted above, construction activities would be limited to daylight hours. Further, construction-related vibrations would be short-term and temporary, and operation of heavy-duty construction equipment would be intermittent throughout the day during construction. Therefore, because of the very small site (1/3 acre) the short duration of several days at most for grading activities associated with development of the Project site, the temporary impact to any uses in the vicinity of development that could result from this Project would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Project is not within an airport land use plan nor are there any public or private airports or airfields located in this vicinity. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to the Project.

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

3.14.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The proposed Project is located in an urbanized area of the City, making it essentially an in-fill project. All City services already serve the property.

65 3.14.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the proposed Project.

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

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

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

In the greater Sacramento region, which includes the City of Yuba City, SACOG has the responsibility of developing and approving an RHNA and a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) every eight years (Government Code, Section 65580 et seq.). This document has a central role of distributing the allocation of housing for every county and city in the SACOG region. Housing needs are assessed for very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate households2 As described above, SACOG is the association of local governments that includes Yuba City, along with other jurisdictions comprising the six counties in the greater Sacramento region. In addition to preparing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region, SACOG approves the distribution of affordable housing in the region through its RHNP. SACOG also assists in planning for transit, bicycle networks, clean air and serves as the Airport Land Use Commission for the region.

3.14.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed GPA/RZ could result in the construction of between four and nine new residences. The existing infrastructure that serves this area, including streets, water, sewer, drainage, etc., is adequate to accommodate this change. This Project includes a general plan amendment and rezoning that is being scrutinized by this process for consistency with all plans, ordinances, and programs. As such, it is by

66 definition, planned growth. Therefore, Project’s impacts that would be caused by un-planned growth are less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Although there is a residence on the property, it is not proposed to be removed as part of this GPA/RZ.

But a future project that may result from this GPA/RZ would likely cause the house to be removed.

Removal of the house that is within the urban area would not be expected to necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. It would also be likely that, due to the proposed residential zoning, a future project on this site would result in additional housing over an above the loss of one residence. As such the potential impacts from displacing substantial numbers of people is less than significant.

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

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

3.15.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Fire Protection Association: The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international nonprofit organization that provides consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education on fire prevention and public safety. The NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 such

67 codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks. The NFPA publishes the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, which provides requirements to establish a reasonable level of fire safety and property protection in new and existing buildings

3.15.3 State Regulatory Setting
California Fire Code and Building Code: The 2013 California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provision of the Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service features such as fire apparatus access roads, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland urban interface areas.

California Health and Safety Code (HSC): State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California HSC, which includes regulations for building standards (as set forth in the CBC), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.

California Master Mutual Aid Agreement: The California Master Mutual Aid Agreement is a framework agreement between the State of California and local governments for aid and assistance by the interchange of services, facilities, and equipment, including but not limited to fire, police, medical and health, communication, and transportation services and facilities to cope with the problems of emergency rescue, relief, evacuation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

3.15.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection: The Fire Department reviewed the proposal and did not express concerns. Since all new development pays development impact fees intended to offset the cost of additional fire facilities and equipment costs resulting from this growth, the impacts on fire services will be less than significant.

Police Protection: The Police Department reviewed this proposal and did not express concerns. Since new development that may result from this Project will pay development impact fees intended to offset the cost of additional police facilities and equipment resulting from this growth, the impacts on police services will be less than significant.

Schools: New residences that may result from this GPA and RZ must pay the Yuba City Unified School District adopted school impact fees that are intended to provide their fair share for expanded or new educational facilities needed to accommodate this new growth. Therefore, the impact on schools will be less than significant.

Parks: The City charges a park impact fee for each new residence that is utilized to purchase parkland and construct new parks. Therefore, the impact on parks from this Project will be less than significant.

68 Other Public Facilities: The Project will be connected to City water and wastewater systems. Each new connection to those systems must pay connection fees that are utilized for expansion of the respective systems. The City also collects development impact fees for County services that are provided to the new development, such as the library system and justice system. Accordingly, the Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to the provision of water, sewer and other public services.

3.16. Recreation
Table 3.16: Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X

3.16.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Yuba City has 22 City-owned parks and recreational areas, managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. This consists of four community parks, 15 neighborhood parks, and three passive or mini parks.

3.16.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
There are no federal regulations regarding parks and open space that are applicable to the proposed Project.

3.16.3 State Regulatory Setting
State Public Park Preservation Act: The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is the Public Park Preservation Act of 1971. Under the PRC section 5400-5409, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non-park use unless compensation or land, or both, are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides no net loss of parkland and facilities.

Quimby Act: California Government Code Section 66477, referred to as the Quimby Act, permits local jurisdictions to require the dedication of land and/or the payment of in-lieu fees solely for park and recreation purposes. The required dedication and/or fee are based upon the residential density and housing type, land cost, and other factors. Land dedicated and fees collected pursuant to the Quimby Act may be used for developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities.

69 3.16.4 Local Regulatory Setting
The Yuba City General Plan and the City’s Parks Master Plan provide a goal of providing 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents, while it also requires 1 acre of Neighborhood Park for every 1,000 residents.

The City’s development impact fee program collects fees for new development which is allocated for the acquisition and development of open space in the City.

3.16.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The four to nine new residences that could be constructed as a result of this GPA/RZ will incrementally increase the use of City parks. However, for each new residence development impact fees for new or expanded parks and recreation facilities will be paid. These fees mitigate any incremental impacts new residential development would have on public recreational facilities. Therefore, the impact on the City park system from this Project is less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As there is no proposed development it is not known whether any new recreational facilities will be included. However, the small size of any development that could result from this action, plus the fact that a recreation facility would be located on-site, the impacts from an on-site recreational facility would be less than significant. Regarding impacts on existing City parks, the potential for four to nine new residences would be paying impact fees to offset any impacts on the existing park system. Therefore, the impact on park expansion caused by development that may result from this Project will be less than significant.

70 3.17. Transportation/Traffic
Table 3.17: Transportation Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

3.17.1 Federal Regulatory Setting
Federal Highway Administration: FHWA is the agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the Federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway network and portions of the primary State highway network. FHWA funding is provided through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficiency Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA- LU can be used to fund local transportation improvement projects, such as projects to improve the efficiency of existing roadways, traffic signal coordination, bikeways, and transit system upgrades.

Several federal regulations govern transportation issues. They include:
 Title 49, CFR, Sections 171-177 (49 CFR 171-177), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles.
 Title 49 CFR 350-399, and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways.

3.17.2. State Regulatory Setting
The measurement of the impacts of a project’s traffic is set by the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15064.3 of the Guidelines states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. VMT is a metric which refers to the amount of distance of automobile traffic that is generated by a project. Per the Guidelines “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” “Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant environmental impact.” The CEQA Guidelines also states that the lead agency (Yuba City) may “choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled …”. As this is a new form of calculating significant traffic events, the City has not yet determined its own methodology to calculate levels of significance for VMT. Until that methodology is determined, for purposes of this initial study the

71 information provided by the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) and the CA Office of Planning and Research is utilized. A review of these studies indicates several factors that may be utilized for determining levels of significance. One is that if the project will generate less than 110 vehicle trips per day, it is assumed that with the small size of the project, the impact is less than significant. A second criteria is that for a project, on a per capita or per employee basis, the VMT will be at least 15 percent below that of existing development is a reasonable threshold for determining significance.

As this is a new methodology, future projects may utilize different criterion as they become available.

3.17.3. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Development that could result from this Project will not be a large traffic generator, that being the traffic generated by 4 to 9 new multiple-family or duplex residences. Butte House Road, which the site fronts, is within the City’s acceptable level of service standard of D or better. Any development that could result from this GPA/RZ will be required to provide any needed on-site Butte House Road improvements for auto, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. This includes right-of-way dedications, curb, gutters and sidewalks of Butte House Road and Blevins Road and driveways at the maximum distance from the corner. As such, the potential impacts on nearby streets due to this Project will be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? This CEQA section describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). SACOG, in “Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” provides two criteria for which if the project meets either of them, the traffic impacts are considered less than significant. One criterion is that the project generates less than 110 vehicle trips per day is considered to be less than a significant impact.

Although there is no development proposed, no more than nine residences could be constructed on this site. This would not be expected to generate more than 90 trips per day. Since the Project will not exceed the 110 trip per day criteria, the impacts from VMT will be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Because of the small size of the property, development that may result from this GPA/RZ will generate little additional traffic flow. Public Works Department review of the Project did not indicate that there are any street design issues on nearby streets. Additionally, per the Public Works Department, any development that may result will be required to dedicate the appropriate right-of-way and improve the streets to full City standards, as well as placement of new driveways in the safest locations. Therefore, any increase in street hazards generated by development that would result from this Project are less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the Project plans and did not express concerns about emergency access to the property. As such the potential for significant impacts on emergency access to this area will be less than significant.

72 3.18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Table 3.18: Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project cause of substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X

3.18.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). The following analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to TCRs is derived primarily from the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Yuba City General Plan (2004) and consultation record with California Native American tribes under Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.

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

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
 That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
 That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

73  That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or  That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

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

3.18.3 State Regulatory Setting
Assembly Bill 52: Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.

Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.

Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.

Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their TCRs and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies initiate consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs.

Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.

Senate Bill 18: Effective March 2005, it requires city and county governments to consult with California Native American tribes early in the planning process with the intent of protecting traditional tribal cultural places. The purpose of involving the tribes at the early stage of planning efforts is to allow consideration

74 of tribal cultural places in context of broad local land use policy before project-level land use decisions are made by a local government. As such, SB 18 applies to the adoption or substantial amendment of general or specific plans. As the later adopted AB 52 provides for a similar review process for all discretionary reviews including general plan amendments and specific plan amendments, the provisions of SB 18 fall within the SB 52 review process for purposes of this document.

3.18.4 Cultural Setting
The Nisenan (also referred to as Southern Maidu) inhabited the General Plan area prior to large-scale European and Euroamerican settlement of the surrounding area. Nisenan territory comprised the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American Rivers, and the lower drainages of the Feather River. The Nisenan, together with the Maidu and Konkow, their northern neighbors, form the Maiduan language family of the Penutian linguistic stock (Shipley 1978:89). Kroeber (1976:392) noted three dialects:

Northern Hill Nisenan, Southern Hill Nisenan, and Valley Nisenan. Although cultural descriptions of this group in the English language are known from as early as 1849, most of our current cultural knowledge comes from various anthropologists in the early part of the 20th century (Levy 1978:413; Wilson and Towne 1978:397).

The basic subsistence strategy of the Nisenan was seasonally mobile hunting and gathering. Acorns, the primary staple of the Nisenan diet, were gathered in the valley along with seeds, buckeye, salmon, insects, and a wide variety of other plants and animals. During the warmer months, people moved to mountainous areas to hunt and collect food resources, such as pine nuts. Bedrock and portable mortars and pestles were used to process acorns. Nisenan settlement patterns were oriented to major river drainages and tributaries. In the foothills and lower Sierra Nevada, Nisenan located their villages in large flats or ridges near major streams. These villages tended to be smaller than the villages in the valley. (Wilson and Towne 1978:389–390.)
Trade provided other valuable resources that were not normally available in the Nisenan environment.

The Valley Nisenan received black acorns, pine nuts, manzanita berries, skins, bows, and bow wood from the Hill Nisenan to their east, in exchange for fish, roots, grasses, shells, beads, salt, and feathers (Wilson and Towne 1978). To obtain, process, and utilize these material resources, the Nisenan had an array of tools to assist them. Wooden digging sticks, poles for shaking acorns loose, and baskets of primarily willow and redbud were used to gather vegetal resources. Stone mortars and pestles were used to process many of the vegetal foods; baskets, heated stones, and wooden stirring sticks were used for cooking. Basalt and obsidian were primary stone materials used for making knives, arrow and spear points, clubs, arrow straighteners, and scrapers (Wilson and Towne 1978).

Nisenan settlement locations depended primarily on elevation, exposure, and proximity to water and other resources. Permanent villages were usually located on low rises along major watercourses. Village size ranged from three houses to 40 or 50 houses. Larger villages often had semi-subterranean dance houses that were covered in earth and tule or brush and had a central smoke hole at the top and an entrance that faced east (Wilson and Towne 1978:388). Early Nisenan contact with Europeans appears to have been limited to the southern reaches of their territory. Spanish expeditions intruded into Nisenan territory in the early 1800s. In the two or three years following the gold discovery, Nisenan territory was overrun by immigrants from all over the world. Gold seekers and the settlements that sprang up to support them were nearly fatal to the native inhabitants. Survivors worked as wage laborers and domestic help and lived on the edges of foothill towns. Despite severe depredations, descendants of the Nisenan still live in their original land area and maintain and pass on their cultural identity.

75 3.18.5 Summary of Native American Consultation
In response to AB 52 and SB 18 the City supplied the following Native American tribes with a Project description and map of the proposed project area and a request for comments:
 United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria  Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
 Estom Yomeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria
 Mechoopda Indian Tribe
 Pakan’yani Maidu of Strawberry Valley
 Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians
 Ione Band of Miwok Indians

3.18.6 Thresholds of Significance
AB 52 established that a substantial adverse change to a TCR has a significant effect on the environment.

The thresholds of significance for impacts to TCRs are as follows:

Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR, defined in Section 21074 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a Native American tribe that are:
 Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
 Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision k of Section 5010.1; and/or
 Determined by the City to be significant, as supported by substantial evidence, including:
o A cultural landscape with a geographically defined boundary; o A historical resource as described in Section 21084.1 (either eligible for or listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or listed on a local registry); o A unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2; and/or o A non-unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2.

In assessing substantial adverse change, the City must determine whether or not the project will adversely affect the qualities of the resource that convey its significance. The qualities are expressed through integrity. Integrity of a resource is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association [CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)]. Impacts are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired [CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)]. Accordingly, impacts to a TCR would likely be significant if the project negatively affects the qualities of integrity that made it significant in the first place. In making this determination, the City need only address the aspects of integrity that are important to the TCR’s significance.

76 3.18.7 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal resource, defined in Public Resources Code 21074 as either a site, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place or object with cultural value to a California Native Ameurican tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or There is one residence on the property. The City solicited consultation with culturally affiliated California Native American tribes regarding the proposed Project in accordance with AB 52 and AB 18. No response was received. As it is very unlikely that the house that is of recent vintage has cultural significance to Native American tribes, the impact to the cultural value of a Native American tribe is less than significant.
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The City solicited consultation with culturally affiliated California Native American tribes (regarding the proposed Project) in accordance with AB 52 and AB 18. No response was received, but there remains a potential for an unknown site to exist. As such the “Unanticipated Discoveries” mitigation is utilized since there still remains the potential for previously unknown sub-surface resources to be present. In order to avoid potential impacts to unknown remains, the mitigation measure is provided below to ensure impacts on tribal cultural resources are less than significant.

3.18.8 Tribal Cultural Mitigation Measures
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation 1: Post Ground Disturbance A minimum of seven days prior to beginning earthwork, clearing, and grubbing, or other soil disturbing activities, the applicant shall notify lead agency of the proposed earthwork start-date. The lead agency shall contact the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) with the proposed earthwork start-date and a UAIC Tribal Representative or Tribal Monitor shall be invited to inspect the project site, including any soil piles, trenches, or other disturbed areas, within the first five days of groundbreaking activity, or as appropriate for the type and size of the project. During this inspection, a UAIC Tribal Representative or Tribal Monitor may provide an on-site meeting for construction personnel information on TCRs and workers awareness brochure.

If any TCRs are encountered during this initial inspection, or during any subsequent construction activities, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find and measures included in the Unanticipated Discoveries Mitigation Measure 2 shall be implemented. Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA and UAIC protocols, and every effort must be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign.

77 The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by CEQA lead agency to be necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize significant effects to the resources, including the use of paid Native American Monitor during ground disturbing activities.

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation 2: Unanticipated Discoveries: If any suspected TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find, or an agreed upon distance based on the project area and nature of the find. A Tribal Representative from a California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a TCR (PRC 21074). The Tribal Representative will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary.

Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA and UAIC protocols, and every effort must be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign. Culturally appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, returning objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. The Tribe does not consider curation of TCR’s to be appropriate or respectful and request that materials not be permanently curated, unless approved by the Tribe.

The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by the CEQA lead agency to be necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the resource, including but limited to, facilitating the appropriate tribal treatment of the find, as necessary. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a Tribal Cultural Resource may include Tribal monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil.

Work at the discovery location cannot resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the discovery under the requirements of CEQA, including AB 523 has been satisfied.

78 3.19. Utilities and Service Systems
Table 3.19: Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water or wastewater
treatment or storm drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projected demand in addition to the existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

3.19.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wastewater: Yuba City owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that provides sewer service to approximately 60,000 residents and numerous businesses. The remainder of the residents and businesses in the Yuba City Sphere of Influence (SOI) are currently serviced by private septic systems. In the early 1970s, the City’s original sewage treatment plant was abandoned, and the current Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) was constructed.

Water: The water supply source for the City is surface water from the Feather River with use of a backup groundwater well. The City of Yuba City is a public water agency with approximately 18,045 connections.

City policy only allows areas within the City limits to be served by the surface water system.

Reuse and Recycling: Solid waste generated in Yuba City is collected by Recology Yuba-Sutter. Recology offers residential, commercial, industrial, electronic, and hazardous waste collection, processing, recycling, and disposal, as well as construction and demolition waste processing, diversion, and transfer to a disposal facility. The City’s municipal solid waste is delivered to the Ostrom Road Landfill; a Statepermitted solid waste facility that provides a full range of transfer and diversion services. As of June 2021,

79 the Recology Ostrom Road Landfill Remaining Site Net Airspace is 33,764,000 cy; and has a remaining capacity of 21,297,000 tons; and remaining landfill service life is 53 years.

3.19.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Discharge of treated wastewater to surface water(s) of the U.S., including wetlands, requires an NPDES permit. In California, the RWQCB administers the issuance of these federal permits. Obtaining a NPDES permit requires preparation of detailed information, including characterization of wastewater sources, treatment processes, and effluent quality. Any future development that exceeds one acre in size would be required to comply with NPDES criteria, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the inclusion of BMPs to control erosion and offsite transport of soils.

3.19.3 State Regulatory Setting
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): Waste Discharge Requirements Program. State regulations pertaining to the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, CCR, Section 20005 et seq. (hereafter Title 27). In general, the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Program (sometimes also referred to as the “Non-Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program”) regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 20230 of Title 27. Several programs are administered under the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs.

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle): The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track the 76 million tons of waste generated each year in California. CalRecycle develops laws and regulations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.

The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40050 et seq. or Assembly Bill (AB 939, codified in PRC 40000), administered by CalRecycle, requires all local and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills.

This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.

Regional Water Quality Control Boards: The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The State Board sets statewide policy for the implementation of state and federal laws and regulations. The Regional Boards adopt and implement Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans), which recognize regional differences in natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into water of the United States. In

80 California, it is the responsibility of Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve and enhance the quality of the state’s waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge requirements (WDRs). WDRs for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits.

California Department of Water Resources: The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is a department within the California Resources Agency. The DWR is responsible for the State of California's management and regulation of water usage.

3.19.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? See b) below.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Development that could result from this Project will connect to both the City’s water and wastewater treatment systems. The Yuba City Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) has available capacity to accommodate new growth. The WWTF current permitted capacity is 10.5 mgd (annual average dry weather flow). The existing average influent flow to the WWTF is approximately 6 mgd. The remaining treatment capacity at the WWTF can be used to accommodate additional flow from the future developments.

The City’s Water Treatment plant (WTP), for which its primary source of water is from the Feather River, also has adequate capacity to accommodate this project. The WTP uses two types of treatment systems, conventional and membrane treatment. The permitted capacity of the conventional WTP is 24 million gallons per day (mgd). The membrane treatment system has a permitted capacity of 12 mgd. Water produced from the conventional and the membrane treatment plants are blended for chlorine disinfection. Operating the conventional and membrane treatment facilities provides a total WTP capacity of 36 mgd. The City is permitted to draw 30 mgd from the Feather River. The current maximum day use is 26 mgd. The City also has an on-site water well at the water plant that supplements the surface water when needed.

For both facilities there are City adopted master plans to expand those plants to the extent that they will accommodate the overall growth of the City.

The ongoing expansions of those plants to accommodate growth beyond this project are funded by the connection fees paid by each new connection. Therefore, the impact on the water and wastewater treatment facilities will be less than significant.

Stormwater drainage in this area is provided by a combination of Yuba City drainage lines and the Sutter County Water Agency. As the Sutter County Water Agency did not comment on the Project, the impacts from development that may be due to this GPA/RZ on the stormwater drainage system will be less than significant.

81 The extension of electric power facilities, natural gas facilities and telecommunication facilities are provided by private companies, none of which have voiced concerns over the extensions of their services to this Project site. With these considerations the impacts on these types of facilities are expected to be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the existing commitments?
See Parts a) and b), above.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

See e) below.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Recology Yuba-Sutter provides solid waste disposal for the area as well as for all of Sutter and Yuba Counties. There is adequate collection and landfill capacity to accommodate the proposed development.

82 3.20. Wildfire
Table 3.20: Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X

3.20.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wildland fires are an annual hazard in Sutter County, particularly in the vicinity of the Sutter Buttes, and, to a lesser degree due to urbanized development, Yuba City. Wildland fires burn natural vegetation on undeveloped lands and include rangeland, brush, and grass fires. Long, hot, and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100°F add to the County’s fire hazard. Human activities are the major causes of wildland fires, while lightning causes the remaining wildland fires. Irrigated agricultural areas, which tend to surround Yuba City, are considered a low hazard for wildland fires.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program identifies fire threat based on a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard). These two factors are combined in determining the following Fire Hazard Severity Zones: Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. These zones apply to areas designated as State Responsibility Areas – areas in which the State has primary firefighting responsibility.

The Project site is not within a State Responsibility Area and therefore has not been placed in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

3.20.2 Impact Assessment/ Environmental Consequences
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As discussed in Section 3.17 of this Initial Study, redevelopment of this parcel that could result from this GPA/RZ is not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area. Therefore, the impacts of the Project related to emergency response or evacuations would be less than significant.

83 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The Project site is in a level urban area with no native vegetation remaining, and the urban area is surrounded by irrigated farmland. This type of environment is generally not subject to wildfires. In light of this, the exposure of potential new residences that may be constructed as a result of this GPA/RZ to wildfire is less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
As discussed above, the site is not near any wildland areas and the Project itself does not propose any development. As such the Project will not be constructing or maintaining wildfire related infrastructure such as fire breaks, emergency water sources, etc. Thus, the Project will not generate any impacts. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The Project site is in a topographically flat area. There are no streams or other channels that cross the site. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides.

Impacts of the Project related to these issues would be less than significant.

84 3.21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Table 3.21: Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number, or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important example of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
X
c) Have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X

3.21.1 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The Project site was stripped many years ago of native vegetation, likely for agricultural uses and more recently for urban uses. Therefore any development that could occur as a result of this Project will not significantly degrade the quality of the natural environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the proposed Project, with its mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the local environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when

85 viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

This amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan was compared to policies in other elements of the General Plan. As such the potential traffic generated by development that may result from this GPA/RZ is within what was anticipated in the General Plan which considered anticipated future growth of the area. The City has adequate water and wastewater capacity, and the potential development will utilize those services. Stormwater drainage will also meet all City standards. There will be no loss of agricultural land. The Yuba City Unified School District has not indicated that they lack capacity to provide proper educational facilities to the new students. The FRAQMD also did not comment that the Project would create any significant cumulative impacts on air quality. Therefore, there are no impacts that will be individually limited but that will create significant cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The development that may result from this proposed Project in and of itself would not create a significant hazard that has not been mitigated to the public or the environment. Construction-related air quality, noise, and hazardous materials exposure impacts would occur for a very short period and only be a minor impact during that time period. Therefore, the proposed PGPA/RZ would not have any direct or indirect significant adverse impacts on humans.

86 4. Section References and/or Incorporated by Reference According to Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, an ND may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public record. The incorporated language will be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the ND. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at, or can be obtained through, the City of Yuba City Development Services Department located at the address provided above. The following documents are incorporated by reference:

Fehr & Peers, Inc. September 2020. SB 743 Implementation Guidelines for City of Yuba City.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, November 2017. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Hex Maps. Work VMT-2020 MTP/SCS (Adopted).

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland 2012. August 2014.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (CDC DLRP). 2013. Sutter County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014.

Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.

Yuba City, City of. 2016. City of Yuba City Municipal Code. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/yuba_city/codes/code_of_ordinances Dyett & Bhatia. 2004. City of Yuba City General Plan. Adopted April 8, 2004.

Yuba City General Plan, 2004 Environmental Impact Report. (SCH #2001072105).

Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 1995. Yuba-Sutter Bikeway Master Plan. December 1995. “Determination of 1-in-200 Year Floodplain for Yuba City Urban Level of Flood Protection Determination,” prepared for Yuba City by MBK Engineers, November 2015.

Sutter County General Plan.

Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) CEQA Significance Thresholds.

Yuba Sutter Transit Route Map.

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. “Fault Zone Activity Map.” AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor. Available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

87 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Sutter County Important Farmland Map.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

Carollo. 2011. City of Yuba City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.

City of Yuba City Wastewater Master Plan.

Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, April 1994.

Yuba County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Sept. 2010.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System website. Updated September 7, 2011. Available at
http://dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm

88 Appendix A

MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PLAN
Bains-Butte House General Plan Amendment and
Rezone
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 23-06 For General Plan Amendment 23-03 and Rezone 23-03

89 City of Yuba City

MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PLAN
For Jaswant Bains General Plan Amendment & Rezoning
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 23-06 For General Plan Amendment 23-03 and Rezoning 23-03
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party Timing

3.7 Geology
and Soils
Paleontological Mitigation Measure 1:

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

Mitigation shall be conducted as follows:

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

2. Assess effects on identified sites;

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

4. Obtain comments from the
researchers;

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

In considering any suggested mitigation
proposed by the consulting
paleontologist, the City’s Community
Development Department Staff shall
determine whether avoidance is
necessary and feasible in light of factors
such as the nature of the find, project
design, costs, Specific or General Plan
policies and land use assumptions, and
Developer Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services Dept.

During grading
phase

90 other considerations. If avoidance is
unnecessary or infeasible, other
appropriate measures (e.g., data
recovery) shall be instituted. Work may
proceed on other parts of the project site
while mitigation for paleontological
resources is carried out.

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

Developer Development
Services Dept.

Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.

3.18. Tribal
Cultural
Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation 1:

Unanticipated Discoveries: If any
suspected TCRs are discovered during
ground disturbing construction
activities, all work shall cease within
100 feet of the find, or an agreed upon
distance based on the project area and
nature of the find. A Tribal
Representative from a California Native
American Tribe that is traditionally and
culturally affiliated with a geographic
area shall be immediately notified and
shall determine if the find is a TCR (PRC
21074). The Tribal Representative will
make recommendations for further
evaluation and treatment as necessary.

Preservation in place is the preferred
alternative under CEQA and UAIC
protocols, and every effort must be
made to preserve the resources in
place, including through project
redesign. Culturally appropriate
treatment may be, but is not limited to,
processing materials for reburial,
minimizing handling of cultural objects,
leaving objects in place within the
landscape, returning objects to a
location within the project area where
they will not be subject to future
impacts. The Tribe does not consider
curation of TCR’s to be appropriate or
respectful and request that materials
Developer Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services Dept.

During
construction
phase

91 not be permanently curated, unless
approved by the Tribe.

The contractor shall implement any
measures deemed by the CEQA lead
agency to be necessary and feasible to
preserve in place, avoid, or minimize
impacts to the resource, including but
limited to, facilitating the appropriate
tribal treatment of the find, as
necessary. Treatment that preserves or
restores the cultural character and
integrity of a Tribal Cultural Resource
may include Tribal monitoring,
culturally appropriate recovery of
cultural objects, and reburial of cultural
objects or cultural soil.

Work at the discovery location cannot
resume until all necessary investigation
and evaluation of the discovery under
the requirements of CEQA, including AB
523 has been satisfied.

Agenda Item 26

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 19, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Diana Langley, City Manager
Summary
Subject: Annual Report from the Downtown Yuba City Business Improvement District and Proposed Levy of Annual Assessment for 2024
Recommendation: A. Adopt a Resolution Accepting and Approving the 2023-2024 Annual Report of the Downtown Yuba City Business Improvement District
B. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy and Collect 2024 Annual Assessments and set a Public Hearing for January 16, 2024
Fiscal Impact: None related to levy and collection of annual assessments Purpose:

To provide notice and opportunity for comment regarding the 2024 Assessment Levy for the Downtown Yuba City Business Improvement District.

Council's Strategic Goal:

This item addresses Council's Strategic Goals of Business Friendly and Fiscal Responsibility.

Background:

Pursuant to Chapter 9, Title 3 of the Yuba City Municipal Code, the Downtown Yuba City Business Association (DBA) has submitted its Annual Report. The report highlights accomplishments for the past year and identifies activities and improvements to be funded for the coming year. The boundaries of the District and the assessments to be collected are consistent with previous years.

Annually, renewal of the DBA’s Business Improvement District (BID) is accomplished in a two-part process. First, the adoption of a Resolution declaring the City’s intent to levy an assessment and ordering a Public Hearing. At a subsequent meeting, a Public Hearing is held in consideration of a Resolution confirming the Annual Report and levying the assessments for 2024.

Revenue from the assessments levied in the BID is used to fund improvements and activities to promote the District. The types of activities to be funded include: promotion of public events, promotion of tourism, and activities that benefit businesses located and operating in the BID.

The DBA is charged with carrying out the activities of the BID and their key focus continues to be establishing a strong leadership structure, marketing Downtown and creating new and improved events on Plumas Street. Economic success of the downtown is a priority achieved through the combined efforts of all the businesses in the district.

Analysis:

The attached Downtown Business Association Annual Report outlines the accomplishments during the 2023 calendar year, as well as the budget for 2024. In the coming calendar year, on behalf of the DBA, the City anticipates collecting approximately $29,595 in assessments from both members and associate members. The BID is crucial to the economic success of the downtown merchants, especially as the economy has weathered increased inflation. The assessment district’s funds will market the downtown whereas some individual merchants would not be able to market on their own. The DBA is currently managing the marketing efforts for downtown and will continue to do so for the district and the future of the downtown. It is the expressed desire of the DBA that the BID assessments continue.

Fiscal Impact:

While there is no direct fiscal impact to the City related to the levy and collection of annual assessments, the funds generated through the BID are used to promote the downtown merchants, which provide sales tax revenue to the City.

Alternatives:

1. Do not levy assessments.

2. Identify alternate funding source for Downtown improvements and activities.

Recommendation:

A. Adopt a Resolution Accepting and Approving the 2023-2024 Annual Report of the Downtown Yuba City Business Improvement District.

B. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy and Collect 2024 Annual Assessments and set a Public Hearing for January 16, 2024.

Attachments:

1. Resolution - DBA Annual Report-2023-24

2. Yuba City Downtown Annual Report 2023

3. Resolution - Intention to Levy 2023-2024
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Diana Langley
City Manager
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. ____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE 2023-2024 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

DOWNTOWN YUBA CITY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Parking & Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, California Streets & Highway Code Section 36500 et seq. (the “Act”), the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-98 which became effective on January 1, 1999, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and Section 3.9.020 of the Yuba City Municipal Code added by Ordinance No. 06-98, the City Council established a certain described parking and business improvement area named the Downtown Yuba City Business Improvement District (“District”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.9.030 of the Yuba City Municipal Code added by Ordinance No. 06-98, the City appointed the elected officers of the Yuba City Downtown Business Association to serve as an advisory board to the City Council (the “Advisory Board”) and authorized the City to enter into an agreement with the Advisory Board to carry out the purposes of the Act and Chapter 9 of the Yuba City Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board has filed the 2023-2024 Annual Report with the City Clerk for consideration by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:

1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. Revenue from the assessments levied in the District shall be used to fund improvements and activities to promote the District. The types of activities to be funded include promotion of public events in the District, promotion of tourism within the District, and activities that benefit businesses located and operating in the District.

3. The 2023-2024 Annual Report contains a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided, the boundaries of the District and boundaries of each separate benefit zone within the District, and the proposed assessments to be levied upon the businesses within the area. A true and correct copy of the Annual Report is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Yuba City, which is approved by the City Council.

4. This Resolution is effective on its adoption.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was 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 was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

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(s):

1. Exhibits A-I – Annual Report 2023-2024

ATTACHMENT 2
EXHIBITS A – I

Annual Report
2023-2024

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Cc: Diana Langley, City Manager
From: Board ofDirectors-Yuba CityDowntown BusinessAssociation RE: 2023-2024 Annual Report
Date: December 19, 2023

1.NAME: Yuba City Downtown Business Association

2. FISCAL YEAR: January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024

3. BOUNDARY/ZONE CHANGES: There are no proposed changes in the boundaries of the District. (See existing boundaries on Exhibit A)

4. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF YUBA CITY DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION DURING 2023: (See Exhibit B)

5.LIST OF 2023-24 YCDBA DIRECTORS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS (See Exhibit C)

6.LIST OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERS (See Exhibit D)

7.PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES (FY2023/24) (See Exhibit E)

8.ESTIMATED 2023 EXPENSES (See Exhibit F)

9.ESTIMATED BUDGET (FY2023) (See Exhibit G)

10. AGING ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE-COLLECTIONS (See Exhibit H)

11. BASIS OF ASSESSMENT (FY2023) (See Exhibit I)

EXHIBIT A
There are no proposed changes in the boundaries of the District.

EXHIBIT B
Christmas Stroll
Yuba City Downtown Business Association
Mission of the Organization:

To preserve promote and encourage aspiring businesses and provide a safe, clean center of culture and community life for residents and visitors alike.

Accomplishments for 2022/2023
Marketing Committee:
• Coordinated with City on Clean California Grant to include the following:
o Downtown arch (Plumas Street/Bridge Street)
o Center Street Lighting
o YC Water Tower Park Feature
• Decreased building vacancy from 40% to 10% working with landlords and recruiting small business owners to downtown.

Events Committee:
• Enhanced current smaller events
o Trick-or-Treat attendance was over 1,100 children
o Bunny Hop attendance was over 500 children
• Creating additional smaller entertainment events
o 2023 Holiday Preview Passport for retail merchants
o Sutter Buttes Brewing 2024 Octoberfest scheduled
• Partnering with other local events to be a destination • Implemented online application for the Summer Stroll and Winter Stroll to comply with the City’s Special Event Ordinance

EXHIBIT C
List of 2024 Directors and Committee Members
Yuba City Downtown Business Association
YCDBA Officers
President –Ryan Henshaw, State Farm Insurance
Vice President –Natalie Syverson, Natalie Syverson Photography Treasurer –Scott Sargent, Sutter Buttes Brewing
Secretary -Stacie Bedford, Plumas Interiors (Marketing Chair) Past President – Sandee Drown, The Happy Viking
YCDBA Board of Directors
Teresa Schmidt, Twin Cities Flooring (Events Chair)
Ken Wood, New Wave Hearing
Marni Sanders, Blue Zones
Justin Rankin, E & J Music Lounge
Tiffani Heyford, Creative Interiors

EXHIBIT D
Associate Members
• The DBA has 16 Associate Member businesses. These are businesses that are not located downtown; however, t h e y want to be a part of and show their support for the downtown district. The following are DBA Associate Members:
• City of Yuba City
• County of Sutter
• 5 Guys Printing, Inc.
• Budget Blinds of Yuba City
• Cookie Tree
• Daniel Gaines Insurance Agency, Inc.
• Enterprise Rancheria
• Express Personnel
• Harkey House Bed & Breakfast
• Holycross
• Recology Yuba-Sutter
• Results Radio
• Twin Rivers Polaris
• Visual Impact
• Wheeler Chevrolet
• Yuba Sutter Chamber of Commerce

EXHIBIT E
Proposed Improvements and Activities
• Hire new DBA Coordinator
• Tree Light Designs on Plumas Street
• Historic Downtown Signage
• DBA Strategies Board Meeting in January, 2024

EXHIBIT F
Estimated 2 0 2 3 E x p e n s e s
YCDBA 2023 Budget 2023 Projected 2023 Actual Marketing Summer Summer Summer Committee Stroll Stroll Stroll 23
Assooiation Income Budget Actual Budget
DBA Members $ 29,500.00 $ 29,869.15 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Associate Member Dues $ 4,000.00 $ 4,750.00
Collection on Delinquent Account $ 1,500.00
Income from Event Insurance $ 2,400.00 $ 1,170.00 $ 600.00 $ 1,170.00 $ 1,900.00 Income From Downtown Events $ 30,000.00 $ 37,888.00 $ 5,500.00 $12,925.00 $13,000.00 Income from Kids events $ 2,700.00 $ 1,733.00 $ 300.00 $ 1,733.00 $ 1,700.00 Income from Food and Beverage $ 2,900.00 $ 2,380.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,380.00 $ 2,400.00 Income from Sublet $ - $ - $ 300.00 $ -
Sponsorships $ 30,000.00 $ 28,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $15,000.00 $14,000.00 Total Association Receipts $ 103,000.00 $ 106,290.15 $ 2,000.00 $ 25,800.00 $35,208.00 $35,000.00 Association Expenses
Credit Card Processing Fees $ 500.00 $ 449.32 $ 167.00 $ 212.50 $ - Board Training and Seminar Expenses $ 600.00 $ 246.62
Dues and Subscriptions $ 1,500.00 $ 2,126.55
Insurance and Permits $ 12,000.00 $ 3,904.25 $ 1,300.00 $ 2,101.62 $ 2,500.00 Office and Computer Supplies $ 500.00 $ 400.53
P.O. Box, Postage and Mailing $ 300.00 $ 294.20 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Collections/ Small Claims Expense $ 1,000.00
Commercial Marketing/ Advertising and Promotion $ 1,200.00 $ 117.98 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 496.61 $ 500.00 Employeee Exp 15 Hours a week @ $25 per hour $ 19,500.00 $ 11,412.50 Contracted Employee - Judy $ 8,537.50
Employee Exp. 10 hours @$25 per hour per event $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Employee Taxes $ 1,780.50
Employee - Worksman Comp $ 1,020.51
Event Entertainment $ 13,000.00 $ 11,661.50 $ 8,000.00 $14,038.00 $17,000.00 Event Expense - Other - signs $ 385.04
Event Expense - Other - Kids zone /Bock Capt $ 1,300.00 $ 3,500.00 Event Expense - Refund Christmas Stroll $ 24,506.84
Equipment Rental $ 13,000.00 $ 6,507.98 $ 8,700.00 $ 1,949.00 $ 2,500.00 Maintenance $ 500.00 $ 400.00
Mixer/ Annual Meeting $ 650.00 $ 804.67
Newsletter $ 457.00
Non-Profit Status Fees and Costs $ 35.00 $ 25.00
Printing and Reproduction $ 300.00 $ 425.36 $ 250.00 $ 375.00 $ 187.53 $ 350.00 Police $ 7,000.00 $ 3,412.95 YC $ 3,412.95 $ 3,500.00
Rent $ 4,800.00 $ 3,910.00
Security $ 1,000.00 $ 360.00
Miscellaneous - Drew, lights $ 6,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Bad Debt Expenses $ 4,757.62
Community Relations Expense - Savemart $ 49.72
Street Décor $ 8,500.00 $ 540.39 $ 500.00
Landscape and Flower Bowl maintenance $ 2,700.00 $ 675.00 Telephone and Internet $ 2,400.00 $ 2,449.90
Tax Preparation $ 400.00 $ 289.00
Website and Social Media $ 2,400.00 $ 1,400.00
Total Association Expenses $ 100,285.00 $ 96,948.43 $ 1,250.00 $ 20,202.00 $24,348.21 $30,750.00 Estimated Operation gain/loss Per category $ 2,715.00 $ 9,341.72 $ 750.00 $ 5,598.00 $10,859.79 $ 4,250.00 Total Budget $ 2,000.00

EXHIBIT G
Estimated Budget FY 2024
YCDBA 2024 Budget

EXHIBIT H
Aging Accounts Receivable – Collections

EXHIBIT I
District Assessment Formula
The Business Improvement District (BID) is a self-initiated business district funded by an annual assessment based on a formula developed by the Downtown Yuba City Business Improvement District Formation Committee. The assessments will be used to fund improvements and activities in the BID designed for economic stimulation and business enhancement for the businesses in the BID. The assessment formula is based on type, size and location of businesses in order to offer a fair and equitable charge for each business in the BID.

Retail, Restaurant and Service Businesses: Includes businesses that buy and resell goods such as clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, businesses that sell prepared foods and drinks, general office, news and advertising media, printers, photographers, personal care facilities and outlets, contractors, builders, service stations, repairing and servicing businesses, renting and leasing businesses, utilities, vending machine businesses, household finance companies, theaters and entertainment-oriented businesses, and other similar businesses not otherwise defined in the other categories.

Professional Business: Includes attorneys, architects, accountants, engineers, surveyors, physicians, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors and others in a medical/health service field, consultants, real estate brokers, financial advisors, laboratories (including dental and optical), hearing aid services, artists and designers, and similar businesses.

Lodging Businesses: Includes inns, hotels, motels, RV parks, and other similar businesses.

Financial Institutions: Includes banks, savings & loans, credit unions, and similar businesses.

Associate Members: Businesses outside the BID boundaries that would like to participate will be charged.

Note: Retail and restaurant businesses will be assessed on size which will be determined by number of employees, either full-time or the equivalent made up of multiples of part-time employees.

Business Size Annual Assessment Zone Business Type (Number of Employees) A B Small (1-4) $385 $180
Medium (5-9) $560 $285
Retail, Restaurant and
Service
Large (10+) $735 $380
Professional Business $350 $180
Lodging Business $560 $285
Financial Business $875 $725

ATTACHMENT 3

RESOLUTION NO. ____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2024 IN THE DOWNTOWN YUBA CITY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
JANUARY 16, 2024
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Parking & Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, California Streets & Highway Code Section 36500 et seq. (the “Act”), the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-98 which became effective on January 1, 1999, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and Section 3.9.020 of the Yuba City Municipal Code added by Ordinance No. 06-98, the City Council established a certain described parking and business improvement area named the Downtown Yuba City Business Improvement District (“District”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.9.030 of the Yuba City Municipal Code added by Ordinance No. 06-98, the City appointed the elected officers of the Yuba City Downtown Business Association to serve as an advisory board to the City Council (the “Advisory Board”) and authorized the City to enter into an agreement with the Advisory Board to carry out the purposes of the Act and Chapter 9 of the Yuba City Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board has filed the Annual Report for calendar year 2023-2024 with the City Clerk.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:

1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. The City Council does, at the request of the Advisory Board, and pursuant to the Act, declare its intention to levy and collect assessments within the District for calendar year 2024. The District is generally located in the downtown area of Yuba City, as more specifically depicted in Attachment 2.

3. Revenue from the assessments levied in the District shall be used to fund improvements and activities to promote the District. The types of activities to be funded include promotion of public events in the District, promotion of tourism within the District, and activities that benefit businesses located and operating in the District.

4. The 2023-2024 Annual Report contains a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided for in calendar year 2024, the boundaries of the District and boundaries of each separate benefit zone within the District, and the proposed assessments to be levied upon the businesses within the area. A true and correct copy of the Annual Report is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Yuba City, which has been approved by the City Council.

5. A public hearing to levy the annual assessment is hereby set for Tuesday, January 16, 2024, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, before the City Council of the City of Yuba City at the Council Chambers located at 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City,

California.

6. At the public hearing the testimony of all interested persons, for or against the levying of the proposed assessment will be heard. A protest against the levying of the proposed assessment may be made orally or in writing. An oral protest shall be made at the public hearing. The form and manner of protests must comply with Sections 36524 and 36525 of the Act.

7. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record, valid written protests by the owners of the businesses within the District that will pay fifty percent (50 percent) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, no further proceedings, to levy the proposed assessment shall be taken for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of the finding of the majority written protest by the City Council.

8. Further information regarding the Downtown Yuba City Business Improvement District may be obtained from the City Clerk of the City of Yuba City at 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, California, or from the President of the Yuba City Downtown Business Association, Ryan Henshaw, State Farm Insurance, 799 Plumas Street, Yuba City, California.

9. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Yuba City no less than seven (7) days before the hearing.

10. This Resolution is effective on its adoption.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was 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 was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

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

Agenda Item 27

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 19, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Diana Langley, City Manager
Summary
Subject: Public Hearing No. 2 for Updating of City Councilmember District Boundaries for Annexed Property
Recommendation: Conduct a Public Hearing to receive public input on district boundaries to account for property annexed to the City
Fiscal Impact: None
Purpose:

To receive a report on the districting process for annexed property and permissible criteria to be considered to modify district boundaries; and conduct a Public Hearing to receive public input on district boundaries.

Council's Strategic Goal:

Including recently annexed areas into the City Council District Boundaries addresses the City Council's overarching goal of quality of life.

Background:

Prior to the November 2022 election, City Councilmembers were elected at-large in which every voter in the City voted for each member of Council, regardless of where the voter or the candidate is registered to vote in the City. Under a district-based system of elections, the City is divided into districts, candidates may only run for the seat representing the district in which they are registered to vote, and voters may only vote for a candidate from their district. One of the reasons for the transition is that district elections are consistent with the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), which encourages district elections for communities with a significant population of minority groups.

Between September 21, 2021, and February 1, 2022, the City Council held five public hearings to establish a District-Based System of Elections for members of the City Council. On February 1, 2022, City Council adopted an Ordinance adding Sections 2-9.04, 2-9.05, and 2-9.06 to Chapter 2, Title 9 of the Yuba City Municipal Code to establish a District-Based System of Elections for members of the City Council. The Ordinance is based on the National Demographics Corporation (NDC) Green Map (NDC Green Map),which is based on data from the 2020 census, and includes election sequencing to transition to a District-Based System of Elections.

Since the adoption of the current boundary maps, there have been significant annexations in the southwest and southern portions of Yuba City, adjacent to Council Districts 4 and 5. The annexed areas are currently primarily vacant agricultural land. The Council District Boundary Maps need to be modified to incorporate the annexed areas and be adopted prior to April 2024.

On November 7, 2023, a Public Hearing was held to receive input from the community regarding updating the District Boundaries to include annexed properties. One member of the public spoke and recommended that the boundaries for Districts 4 and 5 be split at Highway 99.

Analysis:

Process
The City Council typically chooses where the district lines will be drawn every 10 years based on the latest U.S. Census. Between these regular 10-year updates changes to district boundaries are typically not allowed under the Elections Code. However, there is an exception for circumstance here, as new territory has been annexed into the City and the total annexed territory contains less than 25% of the City's population. In such cases the City Council may update the district boundaries to allow for the new members of the community to vote in City elections, etc.

State laws set strict criteria for the updates of the district boundaries in such circumstances.

Specifically the City Council is required to add the new territory "to the nearest existing Council district without changing the boundaries of other Council district boundaries." Even though the criteria for setting the boundaries for annexed property is constrained by State law, the default procedures for redistricting boundaries still apply. Under these procedures the public will have the opportunity to draw and submit district maps for Council's consideration, and the City may develop its own maps for consideration. By law, the City must hold at least four public hearings that enable community members to provide input on the drawing of district maps:
• One Public Hearing was held on November 7, 2023, to invite public input regarding the composition of the City's voting districts before any draft maps are drawn. • Three Public Hearings will be held to invite public input regarding the composition of the City's proposed modifications to the voting districts after the draft maps are drawn. These hearings are currently scheduled for December 19, 2023, and January 16 and February 6, 2024. • After the Public Hearings, the City Council will introduce an ordinance establishing a map with the modified voting division boundaries scheduled for February 20, 2024, and the ordinance will then be presented for final adoption on March 5, 2024.

Mandatory Criteria for Creating Districts
While public input concerning the composition of the City's voting divisions will be considered, as noted above there are several mandatory criteria that the City must comply with when the actual divisions are created:

1. Any annexed property must be added to the nearest existing Council district; and

2. No other changes to existing Council districts can occur.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact to modifying the boundaries other than staff time to prepare the necessary staff reports and modify the district boundary maps.

Alternatives:

Decline to hold a Public Hearing at this time.

Recommendation:

Conduct a Public Hearing to receive public input on district boundaries.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Council Districts Map with Annexations

2. Attachment 2 - Council Districts Map with Proposed Boundary Modifications Prepared By: Submitted By:

Diana Langley
City Manager
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

District 5
District 4
District 3
District 2
District 1
District 4
Proposed
District 4
Proposed
District 5
Proposed

QUEENS AVE
S
W
ALTO
N
AVE
CLA
R
K
AVE
G
R
AY
AVE

BUTTE HOUSE RD

FRANKLIN AVE
PLUMAS
BLV
SUN SW
D

EETBLVD

RICHLAND RD
N W
ALT
ON AVE
PLU
M
A
S
S
T

RICHLAND RD

LINCOLN RD

OHLEYER
R
D

SHANGHAIBEND RD
HA
R
TER PK
W
Y
THA
RP R
D
S
W
ALTO
N
AVE
HO
OPER
R
D

STEWART RD
S

TABLER LN

BRIDGE ST
TIER
R

A BUENA
R
D
R
AILR
O
A
D
AVE
G
R
AY

AVE LIVE
OAK
BLVD
CLA
R
K
AVE
S
T
O

WNSHIP R
D
S
GEO
R
GE W
A
S
HIN
G
TO
N
BLV
D

LINCOLN RD

PEASE RD

FRANKLIN RD
GA
R
D
E
N
H
WY
N T
O

WNSHIP R
D

BOGUE RD

QUEENS AVE
RO
Y
O
RA
N
C
HERO
R
D
¯
Council Districts

Agenda Item 28

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 19, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Shon Harris, Mayor
Summary
Subject: Appointments to City Council Regional Boards and Committees Recommendation: Approve the City Council Assignments to Regional Boards and Committees for Calendar Year 2024
Fiscal Impact: None
Below are City Council Assignments to Regional Boards and Committees for Calendar Year 2024:

Items marked with an asterix (*) are Mayoral appointments; items with a double asterix (**) are recommendations.

Attachments:

1. 2024 - Council Assignments 12.19.23 FINAL
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ciara Wakefield
City Clerk Administrator
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

Page | 1
City Council
2024 Boards and Commission Assignments
Commission Members Date/Time/Location Contact 700
Form Stipend
Advisory Board Screening
Committee
Shon Harris (Mayor)
Dave Shaw (Vice-Mayor)
As needed – to fill term
ending dates June & Dec
1201 Civic Center Blvd YC
Ciara Wakefield
City Clerk Administrator
(530) 822-4817
[email protected]
NO None
Beale Military Liaison Marc Boomgaarden
Michael Pasquale (Alt)
Volunteer/Advocacy
As needed
Janice Nall – Beale AFB
(530) 218-2121
[email protected]
N/A None
Blue Zones Shon Harris TBD / As needed
Marni Sanders
Executive Director
[email protected]
NO None
Countywide Redevelopment
Oversight Board*
(Mayoral appointment)
Dave Shaw
Michael Pasquale (Alt)
As needed - Sutter County
1160 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City, CA 95993
Steve Smith, Assistant CAO
(530) 822-7100
[email protected]
YES None
Feather River Air Quality
Management District
(FRAQMD)
Michael Pasquale
Wade Kirchner (Alt)
4:00 p.m. First Monday
Every other Month
915 8th St Marysville
Shelley Channel and
Maisha Bullock - FRAQMD
(530) 634-7659 Ex 204
[email protected]
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting
Gilsizer Drainage District
Wade Kirchner
Michael Pasquale
Marc Boomgaarden (Alt)
4:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 2nd Wednesday
1201 Civic Center Blvd YC
Tammi Gaschke – Sutter Co
(530) 822-7450
[email protected]
YES None
Gov’t Affairs Committee for
Sutter Yuba Homeless
Consortium
Michael Pasquale
Shon Harris (Alt)
When called
Via Zoom
Johnny Burke
(530) 632-5761
[email protected]
YES None
Greater Sacramento Economic
Development Council
(Recommendation)
Dave Shaw
Diana Langley
9:00 a.m. Quarterly
400 Capitol Mall #2520
Brittany Jones
(916) 287-9082
[email protected]
NO None
Intergovernmental Relations
Committee (IRC)
Shon Harris (Mayor)
Dave Shaw (Vice-Mayor) TBD / As needed
Judy Sanchez
(530) 822-4602
[email protected]
NO None
Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO)
Marc Boomgaarden
Shon Harris
2:00 p.m., 2nd Thursdays
Jan, Mar, May, July, Sep, Nov
1201 Civic Center Blvd YC
Doug Libby, Executive Director
(530) 822-3231
[email protected]
YES None

Page | 2
City Council
2024 Boards and Commission Assignments
Commission Members Date/Time/Location Contact 700
Form Stipend
North Sacramento Valley
Integrated Regional Water
Management Group
Michael Pasquale
Wade Kirchner
9:00 a.m. Mondays TBD
210 N. Lassen St
City Hall - Willows
Guadalupe Rivera
(530) 822-7400
[email protected]
YES None
Regional Housing Authority Marc Boomgaarden
12:15 p.m. Twice /Month
1st & 3rd Wednesdays
1455 Butte House Rd, YC
Jennifer Ruiz – Housing Authority
(530) 671-0220 Ext 122
[email protected]
YES $50/meeting
Regional Waste Management Dave Shaw
Wade Kirchner (Alt)
4:30 p.m. Monthly
Every 3rd Thursday
915 8th Street, Msvl
Scott Scholz & Lisa O’Leary
(530) 634-6890
[email protected]
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting
Regional Water Authority Wade Kirchner
Ben Moody
9:00 am 2nd Thursday
every other month in
various locations
Ashley Flores, Executive
Assistant & Board Secretary
(916) 967-7692 x2000
[email protected]
YES None
Sacramento Area Council of
Governments (SACOG)
Shon Harris
Marc Boomgaarden (Alt)
9:00 a.m. Monthly
Every 3rd Thursday
1415 L St #300, Sacto
Lanette Espinoza - SACOG
(916) 340-6232
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting
School District Liaison Dave Shaw
Shon Harris (Alt)
Quarterly
Thursdays @ 3:00
750 Palora Ave, YC
Lora Broad – YCUSD
(530) 822-7601
[email protected]
NO None
Sutter Animal Services
Authority (SASA)
Shon Harris
Michael Pasquale
Marc Boomgaarden (Alt)
4:00 p.m. Monday
Jan-Apr-Jun-Sep-Nov.
1201 Civic Center Blvd, YC
Ann Gillen – Yuba City
(530) 822-4652
[email protected]
YES None
Sutter Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA)
Marc Boomgaarden
Wade Kirchner
Michael Pasquale (Alt)
Dave Shaw (Alt)
1:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 2nd Wednesday
1201 Civic Center Blvd, YC
Terra Yaney – SBFCA
(530) 755-9859
[email protected]
YES None
Sutter County Children &
Families Commission Marc Boomgaarden Quarterly
Location TBD
Julie Price
(530) 822-7505
[email protected]
YES None

Page | 3
City Council
2024 Boards and Commission Assignments
Commission Members Date/Time/Location Contact 700
Form Stipend
Sutter Yuba Mosquito Vector
District Wade Kirchner
4:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 2nd Thursday
701 Bogue Road, YC
Stephen Abshier & Jessica
Farrell
(530) 674-5456
[email protected]
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting
Yuba Sutter Arts Shon Harris
6:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 4th Wednesday
624 E Street, Msvl
David Read, Executive Director
(530) 742-2787
[email protected]
YES None
Yuba Sutter Economic
Development Corporation
(Recommendation)
Michael Pasquale
Diana Langley
Dave Shaw (Alt)
Meets Quarterly
950 Tharp Road, #1303,
YC
Brynda Stranix, CEO
(530) 751-8555
[email protected]
NO None
Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority
(YSTA)
Dave Shaw
Wade Kirchner
Michael Pasquale (Alt)
Shon Harris (Alt)
4:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 3rd Thursday
915 8th Street, Msvl
Keith Martin & Lisa O’Leary
(530) 634-6880
[email protected]
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting
Ad Hoc Committees Members
Pension Policy Shon Harris
Dave Shaw
Development Impact Fee Dave Shaw
Marc Boomgaarden
Budget Oversight Shon Harris
Michael Pasquale
Sikh Parade Shon Harris
Dave Shaw
Habitat for Humanity Marc Boomgaarden
Michael Pasquale
Revenue Dissolved

Page | 4
City Council
2024 Boards and Commission Assignments
* = Mayoral Appointment ** = Recommendation Grey = Ad Hoc Committee Shon Harris Dave Shaw Marc Boomgaarden Wade Kirchner Michael Pasquale Advisory Board Screening
Committee
Advisory Board Screening
Committee Beale Military Liaison Feather River Air Quality Management District (Alt) Beale Military Liaison (Alt)
Gov’t Affairs Committee for
Sutter Yuba Homeless
Consortium (Alt)
County-Wide RDA
Oversight Board* Gilsizer Drainage District (Alt) Gilsizer Drainage District County-Wide RDA Oversight Board* (Alt)
Intergovernmental Relations
Committee
Greater Sacramento
Economic Council (GSEC)
Local Agency Formation
District (LAFCO)
North Sac Valley
Integrated Regional Water
Mgmt Group
Feather River Air Quality
Management District
Local Agency Formation
District (LAFCO)
Intergovernmental
Relations Committee Regional Housing Authority
Regional Waste
Management Authority
(RWMA) (Alt)
Gilsizer Drainage District
Sacramento Area Council of
Governments (SACOG)** School District Liaison Sacramento Area Council of Government (SACOG) (Alt)**
Regional Water Authority
(RWA)
Gov’t Affairs Committee
for Sutter Yuba Homeless
Consortium
School District Liaison (Alt)
Regional Waste
Management Authority
(RWMA)
Sutter Animal Services
Authority (SASA) (Alt)
Sutter Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA) Gilsizer Drainage District
Sutter Animal Services
Authority (SASA)
Sutter Butte Flood
Control Agency (SBFCA)
(Alt)
Sutter Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA)
Sutter Yuba Mosquito
Vector District
North Sac Valley
Integrated Regional Water
Mgmt Group
Yuba Sutter Arts Council
Yuba-Sutter Economic
Development Corp
(YSEDC) (Alt)**
Sutter County Children &
Families Commission
Yuba-Sutter Transit
Authority (YSTA)
Sutter Animal Services
Authority (SASA)
Yuba-Sutter Transit
Authority (YSTA) (Alt)
Yuba-Sutter Transit
Authority (YSTA)
Development Impact Fee
Ad Hoc
Sutter Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA) (Alt)
Pension Policy Ad Hoc Pension Policy Ad Hoc Habitat for Humanity Ad Hoc Yuba-Sutter Economic
Development Corp
(YSEDC)**
Budget Oversight Ad Hoc
Development Impact Fee
Ad Hoc
Yuba-Sutter Transit
Authority (YSTA) (Alt)
Sikh Parade Ad Hoc Sikh Parade Ad Hoc Budget Oversight Ad Hoc Habitat for Humanity Ad
Hoc

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Future Agenda Items
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Kirchner
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Vice Mayor Shaw
- Mayor Harris

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Manager’s Report

CITY OF YUBA CITY
Reports and Communications
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council’s information. No action can be taken on items under this section unless the Council agrees to include it on a subsequent agenda
City Council Reports
- Councilmember Boomgaarden
- Councilmember Kirchner
- Councilmember Pasquale
- Vice Mayor Shaw
- Mayor Harris
Adjournment