Yuba City City Council
March 19, 2024

APPENDIX V YUBA-SUTTER PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
30 Jurisdiction
Project No.

Priority
Goal
Tactic
Project Description Total Cost Funding
Sources
Project
Date
Wheatland
W15
Short-Term
3 3.3
Residential Rezone for 6th Cycle RHNA Compliance
The City of Wheatland has applied for $40,000 in grant funds from SACOG to rezone vacant land to multi-family residential uses to meet the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) using grant funds available from the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grants Program. 2023-2024 UPDATE: Project should be completed in 2024
$40,000 SACOG
(REAP)
2022
Wheatland
W16
Mid-Term
3 3.1
Wheatland Regional Wastewater Treatment
The City of Wheatland is planning the construction of a new pipeline and three pump stations to convey 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater into a regional sewer system serving south Yuba County. The pipeline will connect to a new Olivehurst Public Utility District (OPUD) sewer or continue of the City’s force main (currently under design by others) near South Beale Rd and Highway 65. OPUD sewers will convey the flow to OPUD’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), where it will be treated to a tertiary level and discharged into the Feather River. Alternatively, the City’s pipeline may continue further northward to connect to the Linda County Water District (LCWD) wastewater collection system and then into their WWTP. The City’s WWTP will eventually be decommissioned, and the site re-purposed for other uses.
2023-2024 UPDATE: The City’s grant application for partial project funding is currently under review by the State Water Resources Control Board. $130 M Design-YWA
State CWSRF
Yuba County
2025
Wheatland
W17
Short-Term
3 3.1
Locate Research Center in Wheatland’s Employment Zone
The city of Wheatland is working aggressively to build the partnerships necessary to locate a collaborative research center in Wheatland’s Employment Zone. This center would create a collaborative research opportunity with Beale AFB, the US Air Forces, Yuba Water Agency, city of Wheatland, and the University of California. The center could serve as an educational, workforce training and advanced research hub. Initially, the workforce collaborative facility would consist primarily of PHD level researchers, but also development of BA level and high school educational programs as the center expands to its full mission. This creates a significant opportunity for the city of Wheatland and Yuba County to create an innovation center and technology node.
2023-2024 UPDATE: No change.

Yuba City
Yuba City
CYC1
Long-Term
3 3.1
Infrastructure Improvements
Extend various City infrastructure including sewer, water, storm drainage, and road infrastructure to support economic and workforce development.

Areas of planned improvements include:

Airport Park (east of Garden Hwy, north of Lincoln Rd)
Bogue Stewart Master Plan
Lincoln East Specific Plan
Harter Specific Plan
El Margarita Master Plan
$20,000,000
$35,000,000
$35,000,000
$10,000,000
$25,000,000
Undetermined,
Local, Private,
Grant
Yuba City
CYC2
Short-Term
3 3.1
General Plan Update
Update the City’s 2004 General Plan to incorporate statutory changes, changes within the City and include mechanisms to help streamline growth, facilitate implementation of the City’s new Housing Element. The update includes all general plan elements.
$500,000 SB 2,

LEAP, REAP
2024

APPENDIX V YUBA-SUTTER PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
31 Jurisdiction
Project No.

Priority
Goal
Tactic
Project Description Total Cost Funding
Sources
Project
Date
Yuba City
CYC3
Short-Term
3 3.3
Low Income Housing Assistance
To help provide housing for the City’s workforce, Yuba City continues to utilize and apply for Federal/State funding to issue funding programs to low- and moderate-income individuals. Funds are used for housing, housing rehabilitation, and first-time home buyers.
$600,000 CDBG, HOME Ongoing
Yuba City
CYC4
Long-Term
3 3.2
Bridge Street Corridor Improvements
The Bridge Street corridor improvement project is a multi-phased project to extend four travel lanes from SR-99 to Marysville/SR-70. The project includes the construction of the 5th Street Bridge, and phased reconstruction of Bridge St. Bridge Street is in the process of being widened from Gray Avenue to Cooper Avenue with completion anticipated at the end of 2023 with support from a $2.8 million Local Partnership Program grant from the CTC. The project will enhance a key gateway through the City to facilitate necessary traffic demands while coordinating with adjacent property owners to help facilitate Economic and Workforce Development in the area.
2023-2024 Update: Gray Avenue to Cooper Avenue segment completed in 2023. Total construction cost for this segment was $10.2 million, including the CTC grant. State Route 99 to Gray Avenue segment conceptual design for the final portion of the project will begin in 2024. The estimated cost to complete the conceptual design is $250,000, which is funded by the City. The City is looking for funding to implement the final design in 2025 with construction likely following in 2026, provided funding can be secured. $15,000,000 Undetermined,
Local, Local
Partnership
Program Grant
through the
CTC
Ongoing
Yuba City
CYC5
Short-Term
3 3.1
Walton Avenue Complete Streets Improvements
The project includes rehabilitating portions of Walton Avenue from Hazel Avenue to Sam’s Club, including closing the gaps in sidewalks on the west side of Walton Avenue between Lincoln Road and Franklin Road, improving bike lanes, and upgrading the traffic signals. The project is being supported by a $4.3 million grant from SACOG.
2023-2024 UPDATE: Final design and easement acquisition is in progress with construction anticipated to commence and complete in 2025. $5,200,000 Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality,
Regional
Surface
Transportation
program, Local
2025
Yuba City
CYC6
Short-Term
4 4.1
Sutter Bike Path Extension
The project includes extending the existing bike path within the City right-ofway from Hooper Road to Harter Parkway and along Harter Parkway from State Route 20 to Butte House Road.
2023-2024 UPDATE: Final design and easement acquisition is complete with construction anticipated to commence and complete in 2024. $2,483,000 Active
Transportation
Program,
Regional
Surface
Transportation
Program, Local
2024
Yuba City
CYC7
Mid-Term
4 4.1
Sutter Bike Path Widening
The project includes widening the existing bike path within the City right-ofway from Hooper Road to Township Road. The existing path will widen from 8 feet to 12 feet, allowing for better shared use between pedestrians and bicyclists.
$375,000 Undetermined,
Grants
2025
Yuba City
CYC8
Mid-Term
4 4.1
Northern Levee Bike Path Connection
The project would include extending AC pavement northward on western Feather River levee from Northgate Drive to levee offramp 600 ft south of Pease Road. The City plans to install HAWK Beacon Signal Crosswalk 600 ft south of Pease Road, widen roadway to install Class IV shared path on the west side of Live Oak Blvd, northerly to Pease Road, and install two additional signals along Live Oak Blvd and Sutter Street at pedestrian and bicyclist used crossings.
$1,200,000 Undetermined,
Grants
2026
Gray Ave to Cooper
COMPLETED 2023
$10.2 Million

APPENDIX V YUBA-SUTTER PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
32 Jurisdiction
Project No.

Priority
Goal
Tactic
Project Description Total Cost Funding
Sources
Project
Date
Yuba City
CYC9
Mid-Term
4 4.1
Yuba City Pedestrian Trail – Railroad Right of Way Conversion The project includes the conversion of existing railroad right of way, across the City, to facilitate a bike and pedestrian trail that ultimately links the Sutter Bike Path from the west to the east to the City’s bike network and across the City’s 5th Street Bridge, ultimately connecting to the trail network in Marysville/Yuba County. This is a multi-phased project that will promote quality of life and ultimately economic development for the City. 2023-2024 UPDATE: The first phase involves completing a Feasibility Study with assistance from a $200,000 Caltrans grant. The Feasibility Study was completed in 2023. Final design and construction will be substantially more expensive since there are 2 crossings of State Highways, as well as numerous City arterial street crossings.
$15,000,000 Undetermined,
Grants
Ongoing
Yuba City
CYC10
Short-Term
3 3.1
Barry School Waterline
The project involves installing 12” and 14” diameter water transmission main in Railroad Avenue from Bogue Road to Stewart Road and in Stewart Road from Railroad Avenue to Garden Highway, as well as a 4” diameter private water service in Railroad Avenue and Barry Road to serve Barry School. 2023-2024 UPDATE: The project was awarded for construction in August 2023, subject to State approval of the increased construction cost.

Construction is anticipated to begin in Spring 2024 upon State approval and is expected to be complete by the end of 2024.
$4,600,000 State Revolving
Fund Loan
2024
Yuba City
CYC11
Short-Term
3 3.1
Second Groundwater Well
The project includes constructing a second groundwater well at the City’s Water Treatment Plant to provide additional accessible water resources during times when the City’s surface water rights are curtailed. 2023-2024 UPDATE: The well was drilled and tested in 2022. Pump installation and above-ground piping were completed in 2023 with installation of electrical/mechanical equipment to be completed in 2024 subject to equipment availability. The well can be operated on generator power, if needed.
$4,350,000 $750,000
Bureau of
Reclamation
Grant,
remainder City
water funds
2024
Yuba City
CYC12
Mid-Term
3 3.1
Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) Well
The project involves establishing an ASR well at the City’s Water Treatment Plant to further bolster the City’s accessible water resources during times when the City’s surface water rights are curtailed. The ASR concept includes injecting treated water into the groundwater aquifer during times when surface water availability exceeds demands while extracting groundwater during times when surface availability does not meet demands. 2023-2024 UPDATE: Design and environmental/permitting commenced in 2023 with construction anticipated to begin in late 2024. $6,500,000 $6,325,000
DWR Grant,
remainder City
water funds
Ongoing
Yuba City
CYC13
Mid-Term
3 3.1
WWTF Outfall and Diffuser Project
The project includes constructing a new 42-inch diameter discharge pipeline from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) and a new diffuser outlet to the Feather River. The proposed pipeline and diffuser will replace the City’s existing diffuser, which was damaged in 2011 by erosion of Shanghai Falls. This project will ensure the City’s capability to safely treat wastewater for existing customers, as well as future development.
2023-2024 UPDATE: Final design complete pending receipt of permit conditions from regulatory agencies. Project will be advertised for bids once funding and permits are secured.
$35,000,000 Unmet Need Ongoing

APPENDIX V YUBA-SUTTER PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
33 Jurisdiction
Project No.

Priority
Goal
Tactic
Project Description Total Cost Funding
Sources
Project
Date
Yuba City
CYC14
Short-Term
3 3.1
Harter-Bridge Sewer Extension
The project involves extending a 24-inch diameter sanitary sewer from the south end of Harter Parkway to the north end of Harding Road within the future alignments of Harter Parkway and Bridge Street. This project is critical for relieving the existing sanitary sewer in Lassen Boulevard, which is necessary to allow continued development in the northwest portion of the city.
2023-2024 UPDATE: Final design and easement acquisition in process.

Construction is anticipated to occur in 2024.
$2,000,000 COVID Relief
funding, City
Wastewater
funds
2024
Yuba City
CYC15
Short-Term
3 3.1
Bogue Road Sewer Extension
The project involves extending the existing 18” diameter sanitary sewer in Bogue Road from Railroad Avenue to Phillips Road and constructing a new lift station to facilitate future connection of properties north and south of Bogue Road and east of State Route 99, and to address capacity issues and service of new development areas.
2023-2024 UPDATE: Final design in process. Project is being coordinated with Bogue Stewart Master Plan improvements.
$3,000,000 COVID Relief
funding, City
Wastewater
funds
2024
Yuba City
CYC16
Short-Term
4 4.2
Local Roadway Safety Plan
The plan will create a framework to systematically identify, analyze, and prioritize safety improvements on roads in Yuba City.
2023-2024 UPDATE: The plan was adopted in December 2023. $80,000 Highway Safety
Improvement
Program, Local
2023
Yuba City
CYC17
Short-Term
4 4.2
Citywide Signal Hardware Upgrades
The project will improve signal hardware at 56 intersections throughout Yuba City. Improvements will include installation of new reflective backplates and upgrades to bulbs and lenses.
2023-2024 UPDATE: Authorization to begin construction anticipated in Spring 2024.
$1,082,000 Highway Safety
Improvement
Program, Local
2024
Yuba City
CYC18
Short-Term
4 4.2
Roadway Safety Signing Audit and Upgrades
The project will evaluate roadway signing on critical corridors in Yuba City for safety and generate the necessary information and prioritization to proceed with signage replacement and installation.
2023-2024 UPDATE: Authorization to begin construction anticipated in Spring 2024.
$1,835,400 Highway Safety
Improvement
Program
2025
Yuba City
CYC19
Short-Term
4 4.2
Pedestrian Safety Crosswalk Upgrades
The project will improve crosswalks at 15 unsignalized intersections, primarily near schools, in Yuba City. Improvements will include installation of high visibility striping to crosswalks, advance stop bars, and yield lines. 2023-2024 UPDATE: Authorization to begin construction anticipated in Spring 2024.
$200,000 Highway Safety
Improvement
Program
2025
Yuba City
CYC21
Short-Term
4 4.1
Plumas Street Historic District and Water Tower Park Improvements The project will help transform, beautify, and connect the Plumas Street Historic District with other improvements already completed in downtown Yuba City to create a cohesive downtown area enhancing civic pride and drawing businesses and visitors to this shopping and recreation district.

Project elements include improvements to the Water Tower Park lighting $2,235,888 Clean
California Local
Grant Program,
Local
2024
Project Completed 2023

APPENDIX V YUBA-SUTTER PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
34 Jurisdiction
Project No.

Priority
Goal
Tactic
Project Description Total Cost Funding
Sources
Project
Date
improvements, construction of placemaking gateway arch, and development of a "Clean and Safe Yuba City" litter abatement campaign. 2023-2024 Update: Construction of the Water Tower improvements was completed in 2023. The Center Street Lighting, Gateway Arch at Bridge Street, Water Tower Park improvements, and Cleanup Campaign will be completed in 2024.

Yuba City
CYC22
Short-Term
3 3.1
Garden Highway Improvements
The project includes rehabilitating portions of Garden Highway from Lincoln Road to Bogue Road, including updating signage, traffic signal controllers, and bicycle/pedestrian access improvements. The project is being supported by a $4.3 million grant from SACOG.
$4,900,000 Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality,
Regional
Surface
Transportation
program, Local
2026

Agenda Item 13

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 19, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Tierra Buena Community Workshop – Council Update Recommendation: Receive presentation, discuss, and provide staff direction Fiscal Impact: Cost impacts are dependent on Council direction Purpose:

To present a summary of the Tierra Buena Community Workshop held on February 8, 2024, to the City Council, and provide staff direction regarding any potential future action items.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item supports the City Council’s Strategic Goal to work to enhance the quality of life for City residents.

Background:

In the fall of 2023, the Tierra Buena community provided feedback to City Council members, the Planning Commission, staff, and public regarding concerns about the impacts of a proposed multifamily development project along North Colusa Frontage Road – Henson Farms Apartments. Several members of the community expressed concerns with the proposed development and noted detrimental traffic impacts that would occur at the George Washington / State Route 20 intersection, as well as overall increased speeding vehicles affecting the community.

On February 8, 2024, staff coordinated a community workshop for a portion of the Tierra Buena area to discuss traffic circulation, congestion, and overall development in the Tierra Buena community. A notice regarding the meeting was mailed to property owners and residents between Harter Parkway and Western Parkway, Jefferson Avenue and Hwy 20. In addition, the workshop was advertised on the City’s social media accounts.

The community workshop was held at the River Valley High School Library, where staff presented information about recent, proposed, and future development areas in the Tierra Buena area, and highlighted conceptual transportation improvement options that would reduce traffic delays at the intersection of George Washington Blvd. and SR-20. It was attended by approximately 120 community members. Comments were received verbally at the workshop and digitally through an online survey distributed at the workshop and on social media.

Staff outlined five (5) conceptual transportation improvement options to reduce congestion and provided a high-level list of pros and cons associated with each option.

1. Cul-de-sac at Royo Ranchero Drive and Libby Lane
a. Cul-de-sac on Royo Ranchero Drive at Monroe Road, in addition to Option 1

2. Colusa Frontage Road closure with the extension of George Washington Blvd to Monroe Road – access to Colusa Frontage Road via Monroe Road

3. New signalized intersection at El Margarita and SR-20, including new access to north El Margarita Road

4. Connection of Jefferson Avenue to Harter Parkway via the old railroad right of way.

Feedback related to the transportation options received at the workshop and through the online survey, predominately preferred Option 4 (56%), with Option 3 (41.5%) following. The limited remaining respondents preferred Option 2 with very limited support for option 1. The survey also provided respondents with an option to send written comments about each option. Surveys are attached for reference.

Key takeaways from the community feedback include:
• Though it was a workshop on traffic and area wide development, the majority of attendees voiced that they do not feel the proposed apartment complex is right for the proposed location. • Concerns with limiting circulation.
• Safety concerns at the El Margarita intersection.
• Concerns about existing traffic and speeding, and development making it worse.

Analysis:

As development is proposed by landowners and/or developers in the Tierra Buena area, staff processes development requests in accordance with City Municipal Code and General Plan requirements to ensure new development is occurring orderly and to a level of determined acceptability.

Residential development undeniably results in additional people and vehicle trips. Which then affects long-standing existing rural county lifestyles. Staff recognizes impacts to the adjacent community and works to implement design criteria and project conditions to try and minimize those impacts with a highquality development standard.

Due to continuing housing demand, housing laws, property rights, and limitations on development cost burdens staff recommends Council receive the presentation, workshop results, receive public input then direct staff with any determined action as staff process development requests to meet the needs of the community.

Fiscal Impact:

Cost impacts are dependent on Council direction.

Alternatives:

1. Direct Staff to prioritize and fund a Capital Improvement project with one or multiple traffic improvement options. Costs, priority, and scope will affect project delivery.

2. Take no action – require development to comply with current City requirements for traffic

improvement and circulation.

3. Implement development requirements that may help address community concerns.

4. Provide staff with alternative options not yet analyzed.

Recommendations:

Receive presentation, discuss, and provide staff direction.

Attachments:

1. 2/8/24 Notice and Tierra Buena Community Noticing Area

2. Workshop Presentation

3. Survey Feedback

4. Community Preferred Option Exhibits
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ben Moody
Public Works & Development Services Director
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

January 17, 2024

CITY OF YUBA CITY

NOTICE OF A COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
Notice is hereby given that a community workshop will be held for the Tierra Buena Community to discuss traffic circulation, congestion, and development in the Tierra Buena community. Please see the attached flyer for additional information.

The workshop will be held on the following date and time:

Date:

Time:

Location:

Thursday, February 8, 2024
6:00 – 7:30 PM
River Valley High School Library, 801 El Margarita Rd, Yuba City, CA All interested parties are invited to attend the workshop and express their opinions. For additional information, please contact Ashley in Development Services at [email protected].

The City has adopted a Reasonable Accommodations Policy that provides a procedure for receiving and resolving requests for accommodation to participate in this meeting. If you need assistance in order to attend the workshop, or if you require auxiliary aids or services, e.g., hearing aids or signing services to make a presentation at the workshop, the City is happy to help. Accommodations should be requested as early as possible as additional time may be required in order to provide the requested accommodation; 72 hours in advance is suggested. Please contact City offices at (530) 822-4817 or (TTY: 530-822-4732), so such aids or services can be arranged. Requests may also be made by email at [email protected] or [email protected] or mail City Clerk, 1201 Civic Center Blvd, Yuba City, CA 95993.

park
multi
single
single
commercial
auto sales
commercial
single
single
single
river valley high school
20 HA
R
TER

JEFFERSON
HO
OPER
T
O
RI
RUTH
TUL OI
SPIRIT

V LI LA
LIBBY
MILLER
WES
TER
N
R
O
Y
O
R
ANCHER
O
RED
DING

ROOSEVELT
A
D
A
M
S
PARIS

LA MANTIA

BUTTE HOUSE
EL M
A
R
G
A
R
TI A
MONROE
TIER
R

A BUENA

COLUSA FRONTAGE
Y
O
R
KT
O
W
N

KENNEDY
COY
BR
Y
N
M
AW
R
O
R
O
G
R
ANDE

GRANITE
TEJA
VINE

TEAL HOLLO
W

SIERRA VISTA ELMER
WILLIA
M
SBU
R
G
D
ONA
GEO
R
GE WA

SH NI G
T
O
N
T
O

MBI INDUSTRIAL
LYLE

AMERICANA
C
YND
A

KIM SERENA
STONEG
ATE
S
T
ONEY
V
AI R
O
M
A
RUE
K

MI BERLY

CARMELITA

JORI PEBBLE
JOHN

BILLIE ANN
M
A
RBLE
D
AVE
C
A
R

OLE GI H
LASSEN
BOB
KYL EI
BUENA
VIS
TA

COLONIAL
BOBBY

COMMERCIAL
MARCOS

SAM BRANNAN
C

OUGHL NI

SAN GIMIGNANO

CAPE COD
POOLE

JOHN FREEMONT
V
E
RA
N
O
HA

C EI ND
A
20 COLUSA FRONTAGE
MONROE
EL M
A
R
G
A
RITA

COLUSA FRONTAGE
ª

ATTACHMENT 2

River Valley High School
February 8, 2024
Tierra Buena
Community
Workshop

• Purpose
• Current conditions
– Approved projects & traffic conditions
– Proposed projects
• Future development areas
• Circulation Options
• Public Comment Period
• Next Steps
• Review Circulation Options
Workshop Agenda

• Discuss traffic conditions and potential solutions
• Public comment at the end of the meeting
• Community input - multiple options to submit
• No formal action tonight
Workshop Purpose

Discussion about traffic circulation,
congestion, and development in the Tierra
Buena community.

Discussion Topic

Current Development Conditions
Dunn Ranch
(68 units)
Faith Court
(17 units)
Krohn Aguilar
(4 units)
Henson Ranch
(96 units)
Harter South
(77 units)
Harter North
(73 units)
Approved Development
State Route 20 Harter Parkway Western Parkway
Jefferson Avenue
Harter Marketplace
(Commercial)

Proposed Development
Dunn Ranch
(68 units)
Krohn Aguilar
(4 units)
Harter South
(77 units)
Harter North
(73 units)
Approved Development
State Route 20 Harter Parkway Western Parkway
Jefferson Avenue
Harter Marketplace
(Commercial) Henson Ranch
(96 units)
Henson Farms
Apartments
(138 units)
Proposed Development
Gorsi
Subdivision
(5 units)
Faith Court
(17 units)

Future Development Areas
Dunn Ranch
(68 units)
Krohn Aguilar
(4 units)
Harter South
(77 units)
Harter North
(73 units) Jefferson Avenue
Harter Marketplace
(Commercial) Henson Ranch
(96 units)
Henson Farms
Apartments
(138 units)
Gorsi
Subdivision
(5 units)
Future Development Area
Faith Court
(17 units)
Approved Development Proposed Development Harter Parkway Western Parkway State Route 20

Future Development Areas
This equals about
42 acres of
developable land
in the community.

The goal today is to
discuss traffic solutions
for the community.

Approved Development Proposed Development Future Development Area

Current Traffic Conditions
State Route 20 Harter Parkway Western Parkway
Jefferson Avenue
State Route 20 George Washington
Colusa Frontage Road
George Washington
and SR 20

Current Traffic Conditions
State Route 20 Harter Parkway Western Parkway
Jefferson Avenue
State Route 20 George Washington
Colusa Frontage Road
George Washington
and SR 20
LOS D

Current Traffic Improvements
State Route 20 Harter Parkway Western Parkway
Jefferson Avenue
Ruth Avenue
Harter Parkway

Options

Option 1
Option 1
Pros:
• Reduces traffic on
west leg of Geo Wash
intersection
• Easy to implement
• Directs traffic to
underutilized
intersection (Western
Pkwy)
Cons:
• Increases travel
distance
• Reduces circulation
options
• Increases traffic on
Libby Lane
Cul-de-sac at Royo
Ranchero Drive and Libby Lane.

Option 1
Cul-de-sac at Royo
Ranchero Drive and Libby Lane.

Option 1 and Option 1a
Option 1a
Pros:
• Same as option 1
• Distributes traffic
to both Libby Ln
and Monroe Rd
Cons:
• Reduces
circulation options
Cul-de-sac on Royo Ranchero
Drive at Monroe Road, in addition
to Option 1.

Option 2
Pros:
• Improves Geo Wash
intersection operations
Cons:
• Expensive
• Restrictive
• Increases travel distances
• Increases traffic on Monroe
Rd.
• Impacts existing businesses
Colusa Frontage Road closure with an extension of
George Washington Blvd to Monroe Road – access to
Colusa Frontage Road via Monroe Road.

Option 2

Option 3
Pros:
• Additional access point to SR
20 Cons:
• Delays on SR 20
• Expensive
• Disruptive to residences
• Right of way acquisition
• Limited space New signalized access for northbound El Margarita Road at Highway 20 and El Margarita Road.

Option 3

Option 4
Pros:
• Additional connectivity
• Limited impact to
residents
• Cost effective
• Aligns with General Plan
Traffic Model
• Connects to Didar S.

Bains Park
Cons:
• Increased traffic on
Jefferson Ave
Connection of Jefferson Avenue
to Harter Parkway
Option 4

Public Comment Period
Public comment about traffic circulation, congestion, and development in the Tierra Buena community.
• Repetitive comments may be limited, and large groups are encouraged to select representatives to express the
opinions of the group
After the comment period, we will break into small groups for additional discussion.
– Collaboration with staff
– Survey

Next Steps
• Small group discussion
• Place green sticker on
preferred option
• Online survey
• Printed survey (if needed)
• Staff will provide an update
to City Council on March 19th
• Major take aways from
workshop
• Community preferences

Pick your preferred option

Questions?

ATTACHMENT 3

Please select your
preferred option.

Please select your
least preferred option.

What are your thoughts on Option
1?
What are your thoughts on Option 1 and
1a?
What are your thoughts on Option
2?
What are your thoughts on Option
3? What are your thoughts on Option 4?
Any other comments you would like to
provide?
Option 3 Option 1
Libby has enough traffic with kids
playing and this would produce too
much traffic to Western Parkway,
This would help high school students
walking to and from high school.

Option 4 Option 2 Why stop traffic from continuing down Royo Ranchero?
Again, Why stop the traffic on Royo
Ranchero?
I like the extension of George
Washington Rd, but why cut off access
to the Colusa Frontage Road in either
direction?
Probably a good idea, but I hate the
thought of yet another signal on Hwy

20. I like option 4, I think it is a needed
change.

I fear with all of these new housing developments
that traffic will become difficult. What about the
option of widening Butte House Road into 2 lanes
each direction out to Township Road?
Option 3 Option 1 & 1a
It cuts off access for Royo Ranchero
residents to get to the highway directly
from Royo Ranchero instead of using
Western Parkway. The two streets
that would take the brunt of the traffic
are residential streets.

This would make Libby Lane and Monroe
Drive a major thoroughfare to get to Western
Parkway, which aren't ideal for as much
traffic that passes through there.

I don't mind the extension of Geo.

Wash. Blvd, but I do not like the cutoff
of either sides of the frontage road.

This is not ideal for Faith Christian
High School, the Methodist church or
the other businesses on the opposite
side of the frontage road. Their direct
access will be hindered.

Option 3 is the best option. We
desperately need a light at El
Margarita due to the high school
traffic. It's horrible trying to get out
onto the highway certain times of the
day.

Also not a bad option. Would give an
alternate route to get into the shopping
centers, etc.

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
Awful idea. This would create more
problems rather than relieve them.

Even more awful than just option 1. Did the
traffic engineer consult with the Yuba City
PD traffic unit? I would assume not based
on these plans.

Are you planning to improve the east
side of Monroe?
I would not like that option if I live on
Jefferson Ave.

This idea seems to be the best option of
all. The signal can be a sensor for
north/south traffic. My neighbors like
this option best.

I understand the desire to relieve traffic
congestion at the frontage road and 20 (I’m
assuming), but closing down access would create
more problems. I think options 1, 1a, and 2 need
to be thrown out altogether. We already have
problems with people running the only stop sign
at Royo Ranchero and Yorktown. I guarantee it
will get worse if you close down access on the
south end of Royo Ranchero. Open avenues, but
don’t close off access. That makes no sense.

Option 3 Option 1 & 1a
NO and Hell No. leave the frontage
road and Royo AS IS
NO. Leave the frontage road the way it is
NO and Hell No. leave the fromtage rd
and Royo AS IS
As long as you leave the frontage
road open from royo to Geo Wash
This would be acceptable to provide
safe crossing of hwy 20 and el
margarita due to RVHS traffis
As Long as the Frontage road stays
open with access from Royo to Geo
Wash.... not a fan of this but better than
closing frontage road and royo!
All of the above options are NOT OK. AND
DANG YOU ALL FOR TRYING TO FUNNEL an
answer that does not include leaving tue frontage
road open from Royo to Geo Washington!!!
Option 3 Option 1 & 1a
Bad idea from traffic engineering
viewpoint.

That would overwhelm Buttehouse Road
with more traffic, congestion, and the annual
Sikh parade would be a disaster.

Divert all of the traffic to a narrow
residential street. Please consider the
basics of traffic engineering.

This alleviates more traffic congestion
and is a safer option.

Bad for anyone that lives on Jefferson.

Can you say disaster waiting to
happen?
Thank you for considering all of these options as
you have presented.

Option 4 Option 1
This prevents me and all of my
neighbors from getting home. This
would cause us to have to drive extra
long to get to a road (Royo ranchero)
that already exists and connects
perfectly fine to the churches we
attend and to George Washington
blvd. I moved to this area due to the
ease of access ( I work in Yolo). I see
no clear reason to build the culdesac
or cut off access.

Option 1 is not a good idea and 1a further
limits accessibility and causes more traffic
into neighborhoods w road ways that are
narrower that those of Royo ranchero. This
will cause a safety risk for children in their
neighborhoods who already have been living
there. The new housing being built shouldn’t
impact the homes and families that were
already living in the area.

I don’t see how this benefits anyone.

This causes more traffic on roads that
are not built as connections roads.

Royo ranchero should have direct
access and not have to drive through.

Neighborhoods to access it. This will
cause a lot of safety concerns for
children in those neighborhoods. I
don’t believe any of these options are
necessary this seems unfair to those
not aware.

Seems like a safe idea. But again
seems to benefit newer homes only. Great idea to allow access to the park I believe cutting off access to Royo ranchero from
highway 20 as it is now is a terrible idea. I feel as
though these ideas should be publicized more as
the community currently living there would not
agree with them .

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a Majorly hinder access to
neighborhood
Severely decrease access to neighborhood
Option 4 Option 1
Royo Ranchero is a vital connector
between Butte House and Colusa
Hwy. It is especially absurd to close
Royo Ranchero off with the new
development off Monroe coming in.

If Option 1 alone was bad enough, 1a only
makes it worse for folks in the new
development to travel towards Butte House.

Redirecting traffic from two roads into
one?
Option 4 Option 1
This is aBad option for the Church
building at 1033 Royo Ranchero and
its membership.

This disconnect the church building from the
nearby neighborhood.

This degrades access to the school.

This seems to be a good improvement
but is comparing apples and
elephants between 1, 1a,2, and 3.

Option 4 seems like an obvious
improvement.

The new roadway opposite Walmart improves and
maintains access to the frontage road.. .and now
you propose degrading the access of the frontage
road.

Option 3 Option 4 Inconvenient for all of Royo Ranchero Monroe is not wide enough, fast thru traffic risk
No
El Margarita to Jefferson; Jefferson
road width
Poor quality road
Option 4 Option 2
Not a bad option but uncertain #1
alone will do.

Not familiar w/ 1a area enough to ‘know’
I think those businesses there on that
part of frontage road will be pissed off!
Well the only negative is another stop
light on a major highway.

Nice idea w/the smallest #of people to
be affected by.

No
Option 4 Option 2 Most cost effective

Please select your
preferred option.

Please select your
least preferred option.

What are your thoughts on Option
1?
What are your thoughts on Option 1 and
1a?
What are your thoughts on Option
2?
What are your thoughts on Option
3? What are your thoughts on Option 4?
Any other comments you would like to
provide?
Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
Horrible for everyone that lives
anywhere around Royal Ranchero
trying to get to Highway 20
The same horrible access to Highway 20
I really like this idea. I think it is
needed.

I dont care for this it will open up our
neighborhood to lot of people and traffic
that don’t live in our neighborhood.

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
It limits access and funnels traffic on to
hooper rd
Already too much traffic on hooper rd
and this would funnel even more traffic
down hooper rd and Monroe rd very
narrow.

Good idea gives another entrance on
frontage rd
This seems to be the most feasible
because it gives an additional outlet to
the frontage rd
Cut the big bush at the frontage rd and hooper
rd!!!!!!
More police patrol on hooper rd for speeding
Option 4 Option 1 & 1a I don’t like this option, I don’t see the benefit This could definitely help, but I prefer
options 3 and 4 more
I like this idea but it could cause a
back up on the highway.

I like this idea a lot! It would help the
issues on Butte House and Harter as
well.

I think making the west bound lanes of butte
houses Harter road convert into 2 lanes prior to
crossing Harter, similar to southbound stabler at
Butte House would help a lot
Option 3 Option 2 The other options do not create a flow of traffic.

Option 3 Option 2 Why is this happening to begin with? Why does there need to be a blockage? Not having access to Hwy 20 seems
an issue
Much needed light. Traffic is horrible
there.

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
It bottle necks my neighborhood.

Makes no sense and puts those of us
who live here and commute to work
go out of our way.

It bottle necks my neighborhood. Makes no
sense and puts those of us who live here
and commute to work go out of our way.

Plan 2 is ok but we should be able to
exit out to hwy 20 from Royo.

No need for more traffic lights on 20 at
that intersection
This plan makes the most sense and
makes it easy to get to the park and
shopping center. Would be the best for
those of us who live here.

Option 4 Option 3
Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
Terrible idea. Those of us living in the
North side of Tierra Buena, who
access George Washington would be
inconvenienced.

Effectively cutting off the north and south
portions of Tierra Buena serves no purpose
other than making traveling through our
neighborhood a logistical nightmare.

Neutral Again neutral
This is the best option for our
neighborhood, hand down.

Option 3 Option 2
Reroute seems inconvenient to
everyone! And tons of traffic through
the neighborhood
Same as 1, just worse
HELL NO!! This makes zero sense
what so ever and is obnoxious!
It’s fine. What are you going to do with
the houses right there?!
I’m not sure I understand this completely
I’m sure you will figure out the best option for
everyone!
Option 3 Option 1 & 1a
Funneling traffic to the stop sign at
Libby and western parkway for
highway access will cause more traffic
congestion. The city has blocked off
the colusa frontage roads every year
during the Sikh parade and it always
creates more traffic congestion on
western parkway pushing residents
through neighborhoods with narrow
streets.

The city should NOT be closing roads to
decrease traffic. It is only funneling the traffic
somewhere else. The residents should be
given more access routes to disperse traffic.

This is just outrageous! Why would you
block access to the highway and create 2
cul-de-sacs thus blocking in residents? Why
was opening access to the highway from
Royo Ranchero by placing a stoplight there
not an option?
Blocking access to the frontage roads
will negatively impact the businesses
including the churches and schools.

This will impact emergency personnel
accessing the new development and
the residents that have lived in this
area for decades. The new
development on royo ranchero has
nearly completed and the increase in
traffic is minimal. Why would you add
an extension to a road only to close
two others? This is not creating a
solution but pushing traffic elsewhere
potentially causing a greater impact on
residents. If this option is chosen, will
Monroe eastbound towards hopper be
improved. The road as it is is narrow
and has no sidewalks, it cannot handle
additional traffic. Can the extension be
built without closing the frontage
roads?
Best option. CalTrans should have
already been consulted! Most all new
development is happening east of
hooper. This will also help alleviate
some of the residential traffic and the
commercial traffic problems Dutch
brothers and other businesses will
bring to the area.

A great option. Adding access and an
additional roadway without taking away
other routes. In theory this could help
reduce congestion all together
Please consider the impact the new residential
development will have on Tierra Buena School.

CA approved a plan to provide pre-k classes to all
4 year olds by 2025 and additional education
opportunities for 3 year olds. As it stands with
current residents they will need additional
teachers and classrooms to accommodate the
new requirements.

Will access to the park from Harter be improved.

Many people make a left hand turn crossing two
double yellow lines to enter the parking lot almost
causing accidents.

Can any acreage marked for future development
be zoned for another park benefiting the residents
living in the Royo ranchero estates. When the
development first was built residents were told
Tierra Buena School would be used as their park.

Tierra Buena School has now been gated and
there is very limited public access to the
playground.

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a Doesn’t solve the traffic problem I think it will increase traffic in a residential
area and not solve a traffic problem.

I think it is the most logical option to
address the traffic.

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
Forces me to drive west in order to go
east
Forces me to drive west in order to go east
Better than how this intersection is
currently setup. Will Monroe go over
the canal?
Love it! I teach at RVHS and feel like
this intersection is already unsafe
from people turning left (west) from
northbound El Margarita onto
westbound highway 20. Putting a
traffic light here would also allow
pedestrians from the new
development to cross highway 20
from frontage road to RVHS via El
Margarita.

I think this is a good option too.

Option 3 Option 4 Not a good traffic flow Cuts off school causing a blockage Terrible Best solution for highway access.

Multiple options for entering and
exiting the area
Worst case. Easier access for homeless
and causes more congestion on Harter
Parkway

Please select your
preferred option.

Please select your
least preferred option.

What are your thoughts on Option
1?
What are your thoughts on Option 1 and
1a?
What are your thoughts on Option
2?
What are your thoughts on Option
3? What are your thoughts on Option 4?
Any other comments you would like to
provide?
Option 3 Option 4
Why would you completely cut off
access to the entire neighborhood
from the Colusa Frontage Road?
How is everyone beyond Libby Lane
supposed to get out to 20?
Same as option 1 but everyone beyond
Monroe.

This makes a little more sense than
other options suggested
This option is the best in my opinion.

It would be like the Western
Parkway/20 intersection.

This is the worst possible scenario. It
would create more traffic through a
residential area.

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
Yuba City has WAY too many cul de
sac"s, Barriers (ie North end Bridge)
Royo Rancho, Hooper, Harter, Ruth are
needed connectors
Painful but necessary
3 puts too many north south
connectors too close together
This was necessary when you put in
Walmart et all. This has been promiced
put off forever
Yuba City need to connect it's N,S,E,W streets. It
would be ideal if street names didnt change every
50 feet you drive. Stabler/GW. Harter/Tule
Option 3 Option 4 Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope
Please reconsider adding the 138 unit apartment
complex @ Hansen Farms - instead much prefer
city leaves property zoned commercial or make all
Hansen Farms Development single family homes.

TB absolutely can NOT accommodate 700 +
additional comuters. Please consider our quality
of life not developers. We have to trust the city
does reasonable Development. There are plenty
of undeveloped Parcels in YC for large
apartments complexes not Tierra Buena.

Especially considering Harter Pkway coming to
our neighborhood as well. We are Sandwiched
between 2 huge developments. Our life in TB
forever changed & not for the good I fear.

Option 4 Option 2
I think this is a non starter. I doubt CT
woukd want to break access control
nor would the Transp. Commission
Best and most direct eoutw for thie new
reaidences that are built on the east
aide of hooper.

Option 4 Option 3 I'm not directly affected by this option I'm not directly affected by these options Horrible option especially since I along
with so many other drive down George
Washington to get to 113 for work.

El margarita does not need to have
access to the highway. If this happens
the street and neighborhood are not
made to handle heavy traffic,
especially for River Valley High
School. The homes at and near the
corner of frontage and El margarita
will not be safe to occupy for the
families that live there.

All of the options are no good in my
opinion but this option would be the best
for the neighborhood traffic to go in and
out without contesting the George
Washington hwy 20 lights. But it also
allows easy access for people who do
not live in the neighborhood which is the
down side.

In reality all of the options are no good and the
flow of traffic shouldve been looked into prior to
the approval of all of these developments. There
is also plenty of space on Walton for apartments
as well and we do not need apartments that close
to Walmart in our neighborhoods. My family
owned apartments and we know the type of traffic
they attract.

Option 4 Option 3
Horrible. Why is routing increased
traffic through neighborhoods a good
idea
These options funnel traffic while making a
barrier for emergency vehicles.

This just makes zero’s sense. You’re
going to put a cul-de-sac at a main
entrance/exit for the surrounding
areas? How are people supposed to
get on the highway? How are
emergency vehicles supposed to get in
to the area from that direction?
This will just create another George
Washington intersection but the traffic
will be backing up into houses and
driveways. The traffic from the
commercial development would stack
up here.

This would funnel large amounts of
traffic into a poorly designed and
maintained road.

The CEQA significance findings for the Tierra
Beuna apartment complex is a joke. The public
notification process was clearly not followed. All
the listed options have no regard for safety or the
surrounding community. The proposed zoning of
these apartments make zero sense and the traffic
on top the the commercial traffic would be
catastrophic. The fact that the city council shows
no concern for any of these issues speaks
volumes about where their priorities lay. Because
it’s not with the people.

Option 3 Option 2
Adding a second cul-de-sac seems a bit
excessive.

I don't want to go all the way down to
Monroe to loop back down george
Washington for highway access. Also
the old section of Monroe is not wide
enough to accommodate that kind of
traffic.

This would alleviate a lot of the
morning traffic going to the high
school.

Connecting Jefferson would lessen the
traffic on Ruth where the road narrows
I would also connect Ruth to Adams. It would
provide the kids a nice route to school.

Additionally undergrounding the ditch would allow
the kids to walk across along the fence of the old
mill like it used to be.

Option 3 Option 1 & 1a
Bad idea. It could hurt businesses. See above. It's ok... not my favorite.I love the idea of having a road going through Highway 20 at El Marguerite.

Option 4 is a Great Idea!
Implement this with El Marguerite!
In addition to figuring out traffic, our roads need
some major repairs!
Option 4 Option 2
Option 3 Option 1 & 1a
will only create more speeding traffic
on neighborhood roads
these are the worst options and make no
sense and will create more speeding traffic
on neighborhood roads.

This will only create more speeding
traffic on small neighborhood roads
this is the best option and make the
most sense.

I thought this option is already going to
happen with the new park and housing
that went in.

Option 4 Option 1
Most obvious option. Offers minimum
disruption for current residents.

Thoughtful safety measures needed
near park.

Please select your
preferred option.

Please select your
least preferred option.

What are your thoughts on Option
1?
What are your thoughts on Option 1 and
1a?
What are your thoughts on Option
2?
What are your thoughts on Option
3? What are your thoughts on Option 4?
Any other comments you would like to
provide?
Option 3 Option 2
The intersection at hwy 20 and el
margarita already consists of
congestion. I see people take risks
often to cross the highway to reach
River Valley High School. Congestion
also exists at Franklin and El
Margarita. MORE risks are taken
there.With additional housing, this
situation at either intersection will
continue to worsen beyond the
nightmare it already is.

Option 3 Option 1 & 1a Cul de sac will not help traffic flow Same as Answer 1 Ok but Option 3 is better Should have been installed when the school was built
n/a
Option 2 Option 1 & 1a
I am unclear why these two options
continue to come up. Over ten years
ago, they were removed from
consideration by the City due to traffic
modeling assumptions with George
Washington go through to Butte
House Road and development near
Butte House Road. Now, with the
requirement that all transportation
projects consider vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) these two options
should be permanently removed.

There would be an increase in VMT
by forcing residents on the east side
of Royo Ranchero to travel more
miles to go east on Highway 20. The
mitigation for VMT is very expensive
and time consuming.

See above
This is a great option and would allow
partial build out of George Washington
as outlined in the General Plan. This
option would not contribute to an
increase in VMT. I would like to see
this option combined with option 3.

This option would take off a lot of the
pressure on the George
Washington/Hwy 20 intersection. In
addition, this would provide a much
safer alternative for River Valley
students.

I am ambivalent on this option.

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
Western Parkway needs stop signs or lights. The
speeding is out of control and not safe. Also the
bushes in the median create blind spots for on
coming traffic
Option 4 Option 3
This would bring too much traffic to
our residential area. More speed cars,
more traffic and access.

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
There is no need to block off Royo
Ranchero. Period !.

There is no need to block off Royo
Ranchero. Period !.

I do not see the reasoning behind
closing off the Colusa Frontage.

A traffic signal would be appropriate
for this location, to prevent traffic
collisions.

Open Jefferson to Harter parkway.

I do not see or understand why the City wants to
close off Royo Ranchero. By closing off Royo with
cul de sacs makes no sense when it comes down
to a life or death matter; By closing off Royo it
prevents fire/rescue and law enforcement from
responding to a call near the cul de sacs, which
would be on the other side, thus causing the units
to go all the way around to provide assistance.

When time is of the essence in the saving of a
life, it makes no sense to create any form of road
blocks on Royo. By creating these road blocks , I
see potential liability to the City of Yuba City.

Option 3 Option 1 & 1a Doesn't make sense . Don't like either one. Don't like Makes the most sense. It's ok Option 3 Option 1 & 1a Absolutely no. Absolutely no. Absolutely no. Best out of all options. Not sure

Please select your
preferred option.

Please select your
least preferred option.

What are your thoughts on Option
1?
What are your thoughts on Option 1 and
1a?
What are your thoughts on Option
2?
What are your thoughts on Option
3? What are your thoughts on Option 4?
Any other comments you would like to
provide?
Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
My house is directly around the corner
from this I take Royo Ranchero to
Highway 20 daily for work and to go
into town I never take Butte house.

This closes off the whole end of the South
Royo Ranchero area. The traffic is already
Big Time bad at the North end of row
Ranchero and Butte house my parents have
lived down there for 30 years this would
make it a hundred times harder to get in and
out if going out to Sutter and back up Butte
House Road for people turning onto Royal
Ranchero. Not to mention the intersection of
Monroe and Western Parkway to access
Highway 20 is already a big T-Bone area I
can't tell you how many times me and my
family have almost been T-boned there
because of the bushes in the middle of
Western Parkway they block traffic.

This once again shuts off the South
Royo Ranchero area quicker access to
hwy 20 it's also faster for emergency
personnel who have been to my house
numerous times for my father-in-law.

I think option three is an excellent idea
it opens up Highway 20 and you don't
have such a long span of the
Frontage Road and makes it less
congested at the George Washington
intersection.

Option 4 is my favorite I wish this would
have been done years ago I have to go
down Ruth Street and hit the frontage
road to get to the Walmart Home Depot
area.

Just please do not shut down Royo Ranchero
access to the frontage road to Highway 20 this
will be a massive inconvenience to the South End
Neighborhood and I guarantee there will be more
accidents at Western Parkway and Monroe if you
guys do this along with more congestion at the
Butte house and Royo Ranchero intersection.

Option 3 Option 1 & 1a It will make Jefferson a thoroughfare That makes perfect sense. I've taken that way for 20years as it is.

Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. I have
been using Royo Ranchero since we
moved here 34 years ago. We were
told that many years ago that
someday the Frontage Road would be
open now all of a sudden you want to
close Royo Ranchero. We were here
way before you built all these
subdivisions around us and now you
want to block our Rd. UNFAIR AND
NOT RIGHT. LEAVE OUR EASY
ACCESS RD TO COLUSA ALONE.

Thank you.

OPTION 1a Is the same as OPTION 1 be
cause you are blocking our easy access to
COLUSA and George Washington. Please
leave our road ROYO RANCHERO ALONE,
it's perfect.

I don't like that option either because
you're blocking access to getting out
on Colusa and George Washington. I
use Frontage roads all the time and
they're very convenient. PLEASE DO

NOT BLOCK THEM OFF
Yes I think a light there would be good
definitely especially if that's where the
high school is.

Yes I think that this would be a good
idea. All the houses that are around
Jefferson and harder would give people
the option to go the back way to the
park. I am assuming that you can get to
the park from there if I'm wrong I still
don't have a problem with you
connecting the two.

Do we get to vote on this because if so I want to
be there. Option 1 and 1a affect me personally
the other two 3 and 4 do not affect me as much.

Option 3 Option 1
This is ridiculous I go home every day
through royo ranchero. Option 1 is not
an option. I will fight that at all costs
Not an option I use that rought every day
Will bring way to much noise and traffic
to residents. Not an option
Makes sense gives more access to
that area
Absolutely not. That would bring to
much traffic and bums from park to our
naborhood.

Please do not block off royo ranchero
Option 4 Option 1 & 1a
Too much strain at butte house and
Royo ranchero
Too much strain at butte house and Royo
ranchero
Too much traffic close to my quiet
neighborhood
This is a good idea to prevent
accidents
This is a good idea to provide alternate
routes
Option 3 Option 1 & 1a Not good at all Not good at all yes yes definitely ALL ingress and egresses should be used as
possible. WE ALREADY HAVE A DENCITY
ISSUE that has caused traffic PROBLEMS in the
area between Harter Parkway and Township
Road, Colusa Frontage and Butte House road...!
Now with all the new homes in the area it will be
multiplied significantly....! The apartments on
Colusa frontage Road is a definite multiplier for
huge traffic issues and should not happen. I
would suggest higher end Townhouses or
something similar.

Option 4 Option 1
We feel like this would cause more
traffic for inside roads and there are a
lot of kids that play outside and people
are not considerate drivers. .

Same as above Same as above
This seems like a good alternative
option since it’s not causing
additional traffic for the neighborhood
Same as above
Option 3 Option 1 & 1a You are blocking the road so evacuatio See same response as above. Whoever cam Same response for Option 1 and 1a It is still not a good option but better thaNot feasible at all and has people driving This neighborhood has been this way for over 30 ye

ATTACHMENT 4

Community Preference – Option 3
New signalized intersection at El Margarita and SR-20, including new access to north El Margarita Road

Community Preference – Option 4
Connection of Jefferson Avenue to Harter Parkway via the old railroad right of way

Community Preference – Option 4
Connection of Jefferson Avenue to Harter Parkway via the old railroad right of way

Agenda Item 14

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 19, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services Summary
Subject: Sutter Heritage Development Agreement Amendment Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing; then
B. Introduce an Uncodified Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City Adopting a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement between the City of Yuba City and Chohan & Sons, Inc., Harnek Singh and Navjot Bala and Paramdeep K. Chohan for the Sutter Heritage Subdivisions (SM 05-05 and SM 08-01) Within the Sutter Heritage Master Plan Area (Assessor’s Parcel 56-030-065), including associated CEQA Findings, by title only and waive the first reading
Fiscal Impact: Staff time with this action. Existing budgeted monies are paying for staff time to process this item
Purpose:

Consideration of a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the Sutter Heritage development (SM 05-05 and SM 08-01).

Council’s Strategic Goal:

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

Background:

On February 28, 2024, the Planning Commission:
• Unanimously adopted Resolution PC 24-06 contingently approving updated Conditions of Approval for SM 05-05 and 08-01.
• Unanimously adopted Resolution PC 24-05 recommending the City Council adopt an Uncodified Ordinance for a second amended and restated development agreement for the Sutter Heritage development.

In 2005 and 2006, the City Council approved the Sutter Heritage Master Plan, related entitlements, and SM 05-05, for a 162-lot single family subdivision. The Master Plan and Development Agreement (DA)

identified the developer and City obligations for project implementation. The project included three phases with Phase 3 being unmapped.

In November 2008 and February 2009, the City Council approved GPA 08-02, SM 08-01 and a Development Agreement (DA) Amendment redesignating the unmapped Phase 3 to Low-Medium Density Residential and subdivided Phase 3 into 24 single-family residential lots. The DA amendment updated the existing agreement to be consistent with other recently approved agreements at the time.

Additional background information regarding the Sutter Heritage Master Plan can be viewed on the City website at: https://www.yubacity.net/cms/One.aspx?portalld=239258&pageId=17931716

Analysis:

The Sutter Heritage Master Plan and existing approved subdivision maps (SM 05-5 and SM 08-01) provide for 186 single family residential lots on 33± acres together with a 0.8-acre park.

Today’s ownership group has requested updating the existing Amended and Restated Development Agreement and Conditions of Approval to accomplish the following:

1. Eliminate existing Section 3.5 which required 10 percent of the project’s housing be dedicated as “affordable” or to pay an in-lieu fee. This is not a City requirement and is not a requirement for other projects. This obligation established a competitive disadvantage for Sutter Heritage in the marketplace and significantly contributed to the project not developing over the last 18 years.

2. At the time of Plan approval in 2006, it was envisioned that Pebble Beach Drive would be extended through the project to connect someday with Highway 99. This is no longer viewed as likely, and Pebble will terminate within the development. As a result, Pebble Beach Drive, will no longer be required to be constructed to an arterial roadway standard but rather a minor collector road.

3. Update the Neighborhood Park provision to require the 0.8-acre park be established prior to issuance of the 82nd building permit. Park construction will be consistent with the Master Plan.

4. Update the document to have a similar format consistent with recently adopted DAs for other projects.

5. Extend the DA term from 2029 until 2034.

6. Revise the project Conditions of Approval to be consistent with the Second Amended and Restated DA. Staff proposed to revise all Conditions of Approval to be consistent with today’s City standards and these were contingently approved by the Planning Commission on February 28, 2024.

Availability of City services:

All City services are available to serve the property.

Environmental Considerations:

The City previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations for the Sutter Heritage Master Plan and Subdivision Maps SM 05-05 and SM 08-01.

The proposed amendments to the adopted Sutter Heritage Development Agreement and project Conditions of Approval do not propose physical changes to the environment that were not previously analyzed by the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations. Development resulting from the provisions contained within the Development Agreement amendment will only occur within the Sutter Heritage Master Plan area, and development, including needed infrastructure, will be consistent with the existing adopted Plan, Public Works Improvement Standards and adopted Zoning Code. All applicable mitigation measures will be implemented on approved development. As a result, no additional environmental review is required for this proposed amendment to the Development Agreement and update to the Conditions of Approval.

Fiscal Impact:

Revising the adopted project Conditions of Approval and updating the development agreement will not have an additional fiscal impact upon the City. The goal of updating and revising pertinent project documents to be modern and contemporary will assist this 18± old approved master plan area to finally develop and have a positive fiscal impact upon the City.

Alternatives:

1. Deny the proposed Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement for Sutter Heritage.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Recommendations:

A. Conduct a Public Hearing; then
B. Introduce an Uncodified Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City Adopting a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement between the City of Yuba City and Chohan & Sons, Inc., Harnek Singh and Navjot Bala and Paramdeep K. Chohan for the Sutter Heritage Subdivisions (SM 05-05 and SM 08-01) Within the Sutter Heritage Master Plan Area (Assessor’s Parcel 56-030- 065), including associated CEQA Findings, by title only and waive the first reading.

Attachments:

1. Uncodified City Council Ordinance

2. Approved Sutter Heritage Subdivision Maps 05-05 and 08-01

3. Sutter Heritage Master Plan Park Exhibit
Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

ATTACHMENT 1

ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

YUBA CITY ADOPTING A SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AND CHOHAN & SONS, INC., HARNEK SINGH AND NAVJOT BALA AND
PARAMDEEP K. CHOHAN FOR THE SUTTER HERITAGE SUBDIVISIONS (SM 05-05 AND SM 08-01) WITHIN THE SUTTER HERITAGE MASTER PLAN AREA (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL 56-030-065)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yuba City approved the Sutter Heritage Master Plan and related entitlements in 2005 and 2006 as follows:
• General Plan Amendment 05-01, Resolution No. 05-115, July 5, 2005 • Rezoning 05-01, Ordinance 008-05, July 5, 2005
• Subdivision Map SM 05-05, July 12, 2006
• Sutter Heritage Master Plan, Resolution 06-115, October 17, 2006 • Development Agreement, Ordinance 005-06, October 17, 2006 • Environmental Assessment No. EA 05-26, Mitigated Negative Declaration, July 5, 2005
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yuba City approved the following additional entitlements in February 2009:
• General Plan Amendment 08-02, February 3, 2009
• Subdivision Map 08-01, November 12, 2008
• Development Agreement Amendment, February 17, 2009
• Environmental Assessment No. EA 08-02, Mitigated Negative Declaration, November 12, 2008
WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations for the previously approved Sutter Heritage entitlements and the proposed amendments to the adopted amended Sutter Heritage development agreement do not propose physical changes to the environment that were not previously analyzed by the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations. Development resulting from the provisions contained within the area covered by the Second Amended and Restated Sutter Heritage Development Agreement will only occur within the approved Sutter Heritage Master Plan area, and development, including needed infrastructure, will be consistent with the existing adopted Master Plan and existing adopted Zoning Code standards. All applicable mitigation measures adopted as part of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations will be implemented on development proposed and no additional environmental review is required.

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement Amendment, at which time it received input from City Staff, the applicant; the public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and

WHEREAS, by a 6-0 vote, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC 24-05 recommending approval of the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65864-65869.5 of the California Government Code authorize the City to enter into development agreements and requires the planning agency of the City to find the proposed Development Agreement to be consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, which the Planning Commission has done; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65865 authorizes the City to enter into development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property, which interest Developer has in the affected property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65090, the City published a legal notice of the public hearing regarding the proposed Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement to be held by the City Council on March 9, 2024. In addition, a public hearing notice was mailed to each property owner within at least 300 feet of the project site, indicating the date and time of the public hearing regarding the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the provisions of the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement for Sutter Heritage approved Subdivision Maps SM 05-05 and SM 08-01, at a public hearing on March 19, 2024, and all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard regarding the Agreement, and thereafter the City Council introduced this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred, and the City Council desires to approve a Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement between the City of Yuba City and Chohan & Sons, Inc., Harnek Singh and Navjot Bala and Paramdeep K. Chohan, by adoption of this Ordinance.

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

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

2. CEQA Finding. The City Council of the City of Yuba City finds, based on its independent judgment, after consideration of the whole of the administrative record, the environmental impacts, if any, resulting from amending the Conditions of Approval for Sutter Heritage Subdivision Map SM 05-05 (Phases 1 and 2) and Sutter Heritage Phase 3, SM 08-01 were assessed in the Mitigated Negative Declarations for the Sutter Heritage Master Plan and Subdivision Maps SM 05-05 and SM 08-01, adopted on July 5, 2005 and November 12, 2008; and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15164, no subsequent EIR, negative declaration, or addendum is required for approval of the project.

Development resulting from the provisions contained within the Second Amended and Restated Sutter Heritage development agreement will only occur within the Sutter Heritage Master Plan area, and development, including needed infrastructure, will be consistent with the existing adopted Master Plan and existing adopted Zoning Code standards. All applicable mitigation measures adopted as part of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations will be implemented on the development proposed.

3. Development Agreement Findings. Pursuant to the Government Section Code 65864 through 65869.5 and in light of the record before it including the staff report and all attachments, and all evidence and testimony heard at the public hearing for this item, and in light of all evidence and testimony provided in connection with the entitlements for the Sohal Ranch Subdivision, the City Council of the City of Yuba City makes the following findings pertaining to the Development Agreement.
a. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, its purposes, and applicable Specific Plan(s).

Evidence: The proposed Second Amended and Restated Sutter Heritage Development Agreement clarifies the obligations between the City and developer(s) to facilitate allowing development to commence including removing an affordable housing obligation that is not a requirement on other development in the City, is not a General Plan requirement and Yuba City has not adopted an ordinance to require such a requirement.

The proposed Second Amended and Restated Sutter Heritage Development Agreement requires parkland development consistent with City General Plan policies and the adopted Sutter Heritage Master Plan.

b. The Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers a number of goals and objectives identified in the City’s General Plan.

Evidence: The amendment to the Sutter Heritage Development Agreement requires development consistent with the adopted Sutter Heritage Master Plan and existing adopted City development standards. Amendments proposed are designed to facilitate the installation of infrastructure needed to serve the development, eliminate erroneous requirements, clarify construction of parkland and extending the term of the Agreement.

Due to development occurring consistent with the existing adopted Sutter Heritage Master Plan, the proposed Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the goals and objectives of the Yuba City General Plan. c. Water Supply Assessment.

Evidence: The Sutter Heritage project is below the 500 dwelling unit statutory threshold such that a Water Supply Assessment was not a requirement of the Sutter Heritage Master Plan or its subdivisions because the project provides for the construction of 186 dwelling units as adopted as part of the Sutter Heritage entitlement approvals. Development proposed by proposed Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement for Sutter Heritage is consistent with the entitlement approvals adopted for the project. d. The project has adequate flood protection.

Evidence: On August 16, 2022, the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopted Resolution No. 22-121, acting as the land use agency, accepting evidence in support of a finding of 200-year urban level of flood protection due to the facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control have been rehabilitated by the Sutter Buttes Flood Control Agency through the Feather River West Levee Project.

4. Approval of the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of the City of Yuba City a City adopt an

ordinance to approve the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement for Sutter Heritage development by and between the City of Yuba City and Chohan & Sons, Inc., Harnek Singh and Navjot Bala, Trustees of the Successors in Trust, under (U/A) the Allen and Rubai Family Trust dated December 14, 2015 and Paramdeep K. Chohan, Trustee of the Rajinder and Paramdeep Chohan Trust, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

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

6. Effective Date: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage.

7. Certification: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance, and shall cause the same to be posted and codified in the manner required by law.

Introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yuba City on the 19th day of March 2024 and passed and adopted at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of _________, 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

___________________________
Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

EXHIBIT “A”

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

SUTTER HERITAGE

01248.0005/938390.2
Recording Requested by:

Development Services Department
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA

When Recorded Mail To:

City Clerk
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
DOCUMENT WILL BE RETURNED TO NAME &. ADDRESS IDENTIFIED ABOVE [Space Above for Recorder's Use]

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
by and between
CHOHAN & SONS, INC.

A California Corporation;

HARNEK SINGH AND NAVJOT BALA
Trustees of the Successors in trust, under (U/A) the
Allen and Rubai Family Trust dated December 14, 2015;
&
PARAMDEEP K. CHOHAN
Trustee of the Rajinder and Paramdeep Chohan Trust
under Declaration of Trust dated October 20, 2021
and

CITY OF YUBA CITY
A General Law City
(Sutter Heritage Development Agreement)

01248.0005/938390.2

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
by and between
CHOHAN & SONS, INC.

A California Corporation;

HARNEK SINGH AND NAVJOT BALA
Trustees of the Successors in trust, under (U/A) the
Allen and Rubai Family Trust dated December 14, 2015;
&
PARAMDEEP K. CHOHAN
Trustee of the Rajinder and Paramdeep Chohan Trust
under Declaration of Trust dated October 20, 2021
and

CITY OF YUBA CITY,
A General Law City
(Sutter Heritage Development Agreement)
THIS SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Second Amended Agreement”) dated _______________, 2024 (Effective Date), at Yuba City, California (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement"), is entered into by and between CHOHAN & SONS, INC., A California Corporation; HARNEK SINGH AND NAVJOT BALA, Trustees of the Successors in trust, under (U/A) the Allen and Rubai Family Trust dated December 14, 2015; and PARAMDEEP K. CHOHAN, Trustee of the Rajinder and Paramdeep Chohan Trust under Declaration of Trust dated October 20, 2021 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as "Sutter Heritage Landowner,” “Landowner” or “Developer”) and the City of Yuba City, a general law city, created and existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "the City"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864-65869.5 of the Government Code of the State of California.

RECITALS
A. State Authorization. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"), which authorizes the City to enter into a binding property development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development associated with such property in order to establish certain development rights in the property which is the subject of the development project application.

B. City Procedure and Requirements. The City has implemented the provisions of Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and is authorized to enter into

01248.0005/938390.2 3
development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property located in the City.

C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration. On October 17, 2006, the City Council previously adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) (SCH No. 2006052023) for the entitlements described in Recital J, (a)-(d), and subsequently relied on by the City Council for the entitlements described in Recital J, (e)-(g), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The City Council found that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document relating to the 2009 Development Agreement was necessary in that the terms and conditions of all the entitlements described in Recital J of the 2009 Development Agreement are consistent with and within the scope of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitigation measures were required in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and were incorporated in the entitlements and in the terms and conditions of the 2009 Development Agreement, as reflected by the findings adopted by the City Council concurrently with the 2009 Development Agreement.

D. The 2006 Development Agreement and the 2009 Amended & Restated Development Agreement. The first development agreement for the Project was entered into by and between the City and Braddock and Logan Group III L.P., a California limited partnership, on October 17, 2006, and adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 005-06 (“2006 Development Agreement”). The City and Braddock and Logan Group III L.P., subsequently entered into an Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the Project on February 17, 2009, and adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 004-09 (“2009 Development Agreement”).

E. Property. The subject of the 2006 Development Agreement and 2009 Development Agreement was to develop those certain parcels of land, consisting of approximately 33 acres located in the City of Yuba City as described in Exhibit A-1 and depicted in Exhibit A-2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter the “Property”). Landowner (as defined below) owns the Property in fee and represents that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property shall be bound by this Second Amended Agreement.

F. Project. The development of the Property is in accordance with the City's General Plan, as amended, and the Entitlements shall be referred to herein as the "Project.” G. City Consent to Assignment of 2009 Development Agreement. The Landowner took ownership of the Property via Grant Deed from Braddock and Logan Group III L.P., a California limited partnership, on December 12, 2011, and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Sutter at Doc. No. 2011-0018186, on December 16, 2011. The City and the Landowner, by entering into this Second Amended Agreement, desire to affirm the City’s consent to the assignment of the 2009 Development Agreement from Braddock and Logan Group III L.P., a California limited partnership, to the Landowner as successor in interest to the rights to develop the Project pursuant to Section 1.4 of the 2009 Development Agreement, as it is amended and restated by this Second Amended Agreement.

H. Landowner. The Landowner is CHOHAN & SONS, INC., a California Corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, HARNEK SINGH AND NAVJOT BALA, Trustees of the Successors in trust, under (U/A) the Allen and Rubai

01248.0005/938390.2 4
Family Trust dated December 14, 2015; and PARAMDEEP K. CHOHAN, Trustee of the Rajinder and Paramdeep Chohan Trust under Declaration of Trust dated October 20, 2021.

I. Purposes. The Landowner and City desire to enter into Second Amended Agreement for the purpose of continuing to implement the development of Sutter Heritage as set forth herein and Entitlements and for mitigating the environmental impacts of such development as identified in the environmental document. The City has an expressed interest in ensuring the proper growth of the community by entering into Development Agreements as a method whereby a level of assurance can be achieved to meet that interest. The City has determined that the development of Sutter Heritage pursuant to the Entitlements described in Recital J is a development for which a Development Agreement is appropriate. A Development Agreement will provide certain benefits to the City; will eliminate uncertainty in the City's land use planning and secure orderly development of the Property in accordance with the policies and goals set forth in the City's General Plan. The Landowner has incurred and will incur substantial costs in order to comply with the conditions of approval and to assure development of the Property in accordance with this Second Amended Agreement. In exchange for these benefits to the City and the public, the Landowner desires to receive assurance that the City shall grant permits and approvals required for the development of the Property in accordance with the Existing City Laws, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Second Amended Agreement. In order to effectuate these purposes, the Parties desire to enter into this Second Amended Agreement.

J. Approved Land Use Entitlements. The City has previously approved the following land use entitlements for the Project (“Entitlements”):
(a) General Plan Amendment No. 05-01 adopted by Resolution No. 05-115 dated July 5, 2005, which rearranges the existing General Plan designations of Medium Density Residential ("MDR"), High Density Residential ("HDR") and Parks, Recreation and Open Space ("PR&OS") into a different configuration while maintaining the same acreages for each designation. This Amendment also authorizes the change of two (2) acres of MDR to Low Density Residential ("LDR").
(b) Sutter Heritage Master Plan adopted by Resolution No. 06-115 dated October 17, 2006, ("Master Plan");
(c) Rezoning No. 05-01, Ordinance No. 008-05 dated July 5, 2005, which changes the pre-annexation zoning of 33 acres north of Smith Road from One-Family Residence, Agricultural Combining ("R-1-A") to Planned Development ("PD") District. The particular uses, development standards, and other criteria of development authorized in the PD District are set forth in Exhibit C to Ordinance No. 008-005;
(d) Tentative Map No. 05-05 approved on July 12, 2006, which authorizes the subdivision of approximately 28 acres into 162 legal lots and establishes an approximate configuration of streets, parks, and open spaces;
(e) Ordinance No. 005-06 dated October 17, 2006, adopting the 2006 Development Agreement;

01248.0005/938390.2 5
(f) Tentative Map No. 08-01 approved on February 17, 2009, which authorizes the further subdivision of Phase 3 of the Project that is approximately 3.72 acres into 24 additional legal lots;
(g) Ordinance No. 004-09 dated February 17, 2009, adopting the 2009 Development Agreement;
(h) Amendments to Tentative Map Nos. 05-05 and 08-01 approved on __________, 2024, adopting modifications to specified Project conditions of approval; and (i) Ordinance No. _______ dated _____________, 2024, adopting this Second Amended & Restated Development Agreement.

K. Second Amended Agreement Adoption. After conducting a duly noticed public hearing and making the requisite findings, the City Council, by the adoption of an Ordinance, approved this Second Amended Agreement and authorized its execution. The City has determined that this Second Amended Agreement furthers the public health, safety and general welfare, that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and is a community benefit.

The City and Developer have determined that the project is a development for which this Second Amended Agreement is appropriate. This Second Amended Agreement will eliminate uncertainty regarding Entitlements and certain subsequent development approvals, thereby encouraging planning for, investment in and commitment to use and develop the Property. Continued use and development of the Property is anticipated to, in turn, provide the following substantial benefits and contribute to the provision of needed infrastructure for area growth, thereby achieving the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement laws were enacted, including (1) providing for the development of unused land; (2) providing increased tax revenues for the City; (3) providing for jobs and economic development in the City; and (4) providing for infrastructure improvements that can be utilized by regional users and future users.

L. CEQA Finding. Prior to the approval of the Second Amended Agreement, the City Council found and determined that there have been no substantial changes to the Project, the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken, or any new information that would justify additional environmental analysis under Public Resources Code section 21166.

M. Consistency with Yuba City General Plan. Development of the Property in accordance with this Second Amended Agreement will provide for orderly growth and development in accordance with the policies set forth in the City’s General Plan, as amended and the Development Approvals. Having duly examined and considered this Second Amended Agreement and having held properly noticed public hearings hereon, the City Council finds and declares that this Second Amended Agreement is consistent with the General Plan of the City and with the Development Approvals.

N. Landowner Payments for the Costs of Public Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services. Landowner agrees to pay the costs of such City of Yuba City public facilities and services as herein provided to mitigate impacts of the development of the Property, and City agrees to assure that Landowner may proceed and complete development of the Property, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Second Amended Agreement. City's approval of development of the Property as provided herein

01248.0005/938390.2 6
is in reliance upon and in consideration of Landowner's agreement to make such payments toward the costs of public improvements and services as herein provided to mitigate the impacts of development of the Property.

O. Development Agreement Ordinance. City and Landowner have taken all actions mandated by and fulfilled all requirements set forth in the California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 regulating the use of development agreements, and desire to enter into this Second Amended Agreement, which updates and replaces the 2006 Development Agreement and the 2009 Development Agreement in their entirety.

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Landowner and the City, each individually referred to as a Party and collectively referred to as the Parties ("Parties"), agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. General Provisions.

1.1 Incorporation of Recitals. The Preamble, the Recitals and all defined terms set forth in both, are hereby incorporated in this Second Amended Agreement as if set forth herein in full.

1.2 Definitions. In addition to the defined terms in the Preamble and the Recitals, each reference in this Second Amended Agreement to any of the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below for each such term. Certain other terms shall have the meaning set forth for such term in this Second Amended Agreement.

1.2.1 Approvals. Any and all permits or approvals of any kind or character required under the City Laws in order to develop the Project, including, but not limited to, architectural review approvals, building permits, site clearance and demolition permits, grading permits and utility connection permits.

1.2.2 City Laws. The ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of the City govern the permitted uses of land, density, design, improvements and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property. Specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, City Laws shall include the City's General Plan, the Planned Development, the Zoning Regulations of the City of Yuba City, and the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Yuba City.

1.2.3 Conditions. All conditions, exactions, fees or payments, dedication or reservation requirements, obligations for on or off-site improvements, services or other conditions of approval called for in connection with the development of or construction on the Property under the existing City Laws, whether such conditions of approval constitute public improvements, or mitigation measures in connection with environmental review of any aspect of the Project.

01248.0005/938390.2 7

1.2.4 Director. The Director of the Development Services Department.

1.2.5 Existing City Laws. The City Laws in effect as of the Effective Date of this Second Amended Agreement.

1.2.6 Laws. The laws and Constitution of the State of California, the laws and Constitution of the United States and any codes, statutes or executive mandates in any court decision, state or federal, thereunder.

1.2.7 Mortgagee. “Mortgagee” means: (a) the holder of the beneficial interest under a Mortgage; (b) the lessor under a sale and leaseback Mortgage; and (c) any successors, assigns and designees of the foregoing.

1.2.8 Party. A signatory to this Second Amended Agreement: or a successor or assign of a signatory to this Second Amended Agreement.

1.2.9 Property. The Property is that property described and shown on Exhibits A-1 and A-2. It is intended and determined that the provisions of this Second Amended Agreement shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Property and the benefits and burdens hereof shall bind and inure to all successors-ininterest to the parties hereto.

2. Effective Date: Term.

2.1 Recordation. Not later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date, the Parties shall cause this Second Amended Agreement to be recorded in the Official Records of the County of Sutter, State of California, as provided for in Government Code Section 65868.5. However, failure to record this Second Amended Agreement within ten (10) days shall not affect its validity or enforceability by and between the Parties.

2.2 Term. The term of this Second Amended and Restated
Development Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and terminate ten (10) years thereafter; provided, however, that the initial term may be extended, upon Developer’s application therefore and upon the mutual agreement of both parties, by an amendment to this Second Amended Agreement and after approval by the City Council after first receiving a recommendation by the Planning Commission.

Following the expiration of the Term, this Second Amended Agreement shall be deemed terminated and be of no further force and effect; provided, however, said termination of the Second Amended Agreement shall not affect any right or duty emanating from City Entitlements on the Property approved concurrently with or subsequent to the approval of this Second Amended Agreement.

3. General Development of the Project.

3.1 Project: Vested Entitlements.

3.1.1 Development of the Property shall be governed by this Second Amended Agreement, and the Entitlements. This Second Amended Agreement does not

01248.0005/938390.2 8
impose affirmative obligations on the Landowner to commence development of the Project, or any phase thereof, in advance of its decision to do so.

3.1.2 The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, including, but not limited to, minimum landscape areas, maximum lot coverage, minimum and maximum number of parking spaces, and the allowable floor area ratios, and provisions for public improvements and all mitigation measures and conditions required or imposed in order to minimize or eliminate environmental impacts or any impacts of the Property applicable to development of the Property, are as set forth in in the Entitlements and are hereby vested subject to the provisions of this Second Amended Agreement (“Vested Entitlements”).

3.2 Project Phasing. Landowner and City acknowledge and agree that the Project is designed to be developed in phases. The Parties also acknowledge and agree that presently the Landowner cannot predict the timing of the Project phasing.

Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, that failure of the Parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the Parties’ agreement, it is the Parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that the Landowner shall have the right to develop the building components of the Project in phases in accordance with the Entitlements and at such times as the Landowner deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment and the provisions of this Second Amended Agreement.

3.3 Other Government Permits. The Landowner or City (whichever is appropriate) shall apply for such other permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project (such as public utility districts, Gilsizer County Drainage District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or CalTrans) as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project. The City shall promptly and diligently cooperate, at no cost or damage to the City, with the Landowner in its endeavors to obtain such permits and approvals and, from time-to-time at the request of the Landowner, and shall attempt with due diligence and in good faith to enter into binding agreements with any such entity in order to assume the availability of such permits and approvals of services. To the extent allowed by law, the Landowner shall be a party or third-party beneficiary to any such agreement and shall be entitled to enforce the rights of the Landowner or City thereunder or the duties and obligations of the parties thereto.

3.4 Additional Fees. Except as set forth in this Second Amended Agreement, the City shall not impose any further or additional fees, taxes or assessments, whether through exercise of the police power, the taxing power, or any other means, other than those required by Existing City Laws and this Second Amended Agreement, provided that:

3.4.1 Community Facilities District. Prior to the approval of any final map within the area covered by this Second Amended Agreement, the Developer shall be required to enter into one or more Community Facilities District (“CFD”) or similar funding mechanisms acceptable to the City for the purpose of funding on-going operational costs for police, fire, and other government services as well as for on-going maintenance costs for road and park facilities.

01248.0005/938390.2 9
Developer shall cooperate in the formation or annexation to the CFD or funding mechanism, and irrevocably consents herewith to the levy of such special taxes, establishment of funding mechanisms, or collection of other fees or charges, as are necessary to fund the operational and/or maintenance costs.

3.4.2 The City may charge the Landowner the standard processing fees for land use approvals, building permits and other similar permits, which are in force and effect on a City-wide basis at the time application is submitted for those permits.

3.4.3 City shall have the authority to enact or increase development impact fees provided the fees are consistent with the fees applied to other properties in the City or area wide that is similarly situated.

3.4.4 If the City exercises its taxing power in a manner which will not change any of the conditions applicable to the Project and so long as any taxes are uniformly applied on a City-wide or area-wide basis, as defined below, the Property may be so taxed, which tax shall be consistent with the taxation of other properties in the City or area wide that is similarly situated.

3.4.5 If state or federal laws are adopted which enable cities to impose fees on existing projects and if, consequently, the City adopts enabling legislation and imposes fees on existing projects on a City-wide basis, these fees may be imposed on the Project, which fees shall be consistent with the fees imposed on other properties in the City similarly situated.

3.4.6 Landowner shall pay the following fees and is eligible for the following credits:
i. City-wide development impact fees, which may include but not be limited to:
• Parks and Recreation
• Community Civic Center
• Fire Protection
• Library Services
• Police Protection
• Roadways/Traffic
• Flood Protection/Levee Improvements
• City Corporation Yard
• Drainage
• Administration Component
• Connection and Trunk Line Fees (Water and Sewer)
• Applicable County development impact fees
ii. Park fee credits per Paragraph 4.2.6 of this Second Amended Agreement. iii. Any fees that Developer is obligated to directly pay to any Federal, State, County or local agency (other than any City Agency) under applicable Federal, State, County or local law. iv. Any fees the City is legally required to collect for other State or Federal agencies pursuant to State or Federal law or any City agreement or City ordinance that the City is legally mandated or required to adopt or enter into to comply with State or Federal law or a judgment of a court of law, but only to the extent necessary to satisfy such compliance.

01248.0005/938390.2 10
Fees shall be paid at the then-applicable rate in effect at the time building permits are obtained.

Certain City fees may be deferred to prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy if otherwise allowed by City ordinance, regulation, or policy.

3.4.7 For purposes of this Second Amended Agreement, "area wide" shall cover not only the Property, but also at least all parcels zoned and/or developed in a manner similar to the Property and located in the combined area of the Sutter Heritage Master Plan. The Parties acknowledge that the provisions contained in this Section 3.4 are intended to implement the intent of the Parties that the Landowner has the right to develop the Project pursuant to specified and known criteria and rules, and that the City receives the benefits which will be conferred as a result of such development without abridging the right of the City to act in accordance with its powers, duties and obligations.

3.5 Applicable Laws and Standards. Notwithstanding any change in any Existing City Law, including but not limited to, any change by means of ordinance, resolution, initiative, referendum, policy or moratorium, and except as otherwise provided in this Second Amended Agreement, the laws and policies applicable to the Property are set forth in Existing City Laws (regardless of future changes in these by the City), and this Second Amended Agreement. The Project has vested rights to be built and occupied on the Property, provided that the City may apply and enforce the Uniform Building Code (including the Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Electrical Code and Uniform Plumbing Code) and Uniform Fire Code and all applicable hazardous materials regulations in effect at the time the Landowner applies for any particular building permits for any particular building or other development aspect of the Project.

3.6 Application of New Laws. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from applying to the Property new federal, state or City Laws that are not inconsistent or in conflict with the Existing City Laws or the intent, purposes or any of the terms, standards or conditions of this Second Amended Agreement; and which do not alter the terms, impose any further or additional fees or impose any other conditions requiring additional traffic improvements requirements or additional off-site improvements that are inconsistent with this Second Amended Agreement or the intent of this Second Amended Agreement. Any action or proceeding of the City that has any of the following effects on the Project shall be considered to be in conflict with this Second Amended Agreement and the existing City Laws, and shall not be applied by the City to the Project or this Second Amended Agreement:

3.6.1 Limiting the uses permitted on the Property;

3.6.2 Limiting or reducing the density or intensity of uses, the maximum height, the allowable floor area ratios, the required number of parking spaces, increasing the amount of required landscaping or reservations and dedications of land for public purposes;

3.6.3 Limiting the timing or phasing of the Project in any manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the provisions of this Second Amended Agreement;

3.6.4 Limiting the location of building sites, grading or other improvement on the Property in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the limitations included in this Second Amended Agreement; or

01248.0005/938390.2 11

3.6.5 Applying to the Project or the Property any law, regulation, or rule restricting or affecting a use or activity otherwise allowed by this Second Amended Agreement.

3.7 Moratorium, Quotas, Restrictions, or Other Limitations.

Without limiting the City's standard application processing procedures, no moratorium or other limitation affecting building permits or other land use entitlements, or the rate, timing or sequencing thereof shall apply to the Project.

3.8 Easements: Improvements. The City shall cooperate with the Landowner in connection with any arrangements for abandoning existing utility or other easements and facilities and the relocation thereof or creation of any new easements within the Property necessary or appropriate in connection with the development of the Project.

3.9 Farming Rights. The City shall acknowledge that the Landowner shall have the right to continue to farm the lands non-developed portion of the property.

4. Developer Obligations

4.1 Public Improvements: Developer shall be responsible for constructing and financing the public infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the Project and as provided in this Second Amended Agreement and the Entitlements, including the SHMP Public Facilities Financing Plan. Developer agrees to dedicate, construct or acquire the improvements or facilities and to perform the obligations set forth in this Section at its expense, subject only to those reimbursements and credits as specified in this Second Amended Agreement. Public infrastructure improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the improvement plans approved by City for such improvements, and in accordance with the requirements and regulations pursuant to California State law.

4.2 Developer Obligations. Developer shall be obligated to construct and finance the public infrastructure improvements as called out in the Sutter Heritage Master Plan and as provided below, in accordance with Sutter Heritage Master Plan and consistent with the City's infrastructure Master Plans. Developer shall be required to post appropriate financial security with City prior to recordation of Final Maps, consistent with Project conditions of approval and as called out in the Public Facilities Financing Plan. The developer may be entitled to fee credits as provided in Sections 4.2.6 and 5.1.

4.2.1 Roads. Roads shall be constructed per the approved phased infrastructure improvement matrix per the tentative map conditions of approval, Planned Development, and as provided in the approved tentative maps or other discretionary City permits. On-site improvements shall be as per project approvals and approved improvement plans.

4.2.2 Storm Drainage. Developer shall provide necessary on-site and off-site improvements for storm drainage consistent with Project conditions of approval and as required by the City and the Gilsizer County Drainage District. Improvements shall be constructed for the approved phased infrastructure improvement per the tentative map conditions of approval, Planned Development, and as provided in the approved tentative maps or other discretionary City permits.

01248.0005/938390.2 12

4.2.3 Sewer. Developer shall construct sewer lines consistent with the Master Plan and conditions of approval of the tentative maps and other discretionary City permits. Improvements shall be constructed for the approved phased infrastructure improvement per the tentative map conditions of approval, Planned Development, and as provided in the approved tentative maps or other discretionary City permits.

4.2.4 Water. Developer shall construct water line improvements consistent with the Master Plan and conditions of approval of the tentative maps and other discretionary City permits. Developer shall also be responsible for all on-site water line improvements. Improvements shall be constructed for the approved phased infrastructure improvement per the tentative map conditions of approval, Planned Development, and as provided in the approved tentative maps or other discretionary City permits.

4.2.5 Neighborhood Park Construction. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 82nd dwelling in the Project or prior to the completion of Phase 1 (whichever occurs first), Developer shall have completed construction of the 0.8-acre neighborhood park and offered said park for dedication to the City.

4.2.6 Fee Credits for Park Construction. The City agrees to grant Developer Parks and Recreation Fee credits equal to fifty percent (50%) of an engineer’s estimate for the costs of design and construction of the park described in Section 4.2.5. The Developer shall be able to use 100 percent (100%) of those Parks and Recreation Fee credits towards the Parks and Recreation Fee within the Sutter Heritage Master Plan area upon the City’s acceptance of said engineer’s estimate prepared and submitted to City by Developer. Such acceptance by City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The Fee credits will be subject to inflation utilizing the Engineering News and Record Construction Index beginning the first day of January following the City’s acceptance of the engineer’s estimate. Both the Developer and City acknowledge that the City is considering a comprehensive Park and Recreation Development Impact fee which incorporates neighborhood park development and at such time, the Fee credits may be used by Developer to offset that new fee as if it were in effect as of the time of approval of this Second Amended Agreement. However, notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, Parks and Recreation Fee credits are limited for use as to just the Parks and Recreation Fee within the Sutter Heritage Master Plan area, and under no circumstances shall the City be required to reimburse or allow the use of credits for other fee types or in other areas.

4.3 Reimbursement by Developer to Third Parties. In the event that facilities, including, but not limited to, roadway, sewer, water, drainage, and parks are constructed by third parties which benefit Developer, Developer agrees that it will pay to City for reimbursement to the third parties, Developer’s pro-rata share, as reasonably determined by the City, of the cost of construction prior to the issuance of the first building permit in the Project.

Third party reimbursement will include, in addition to construction costs, those costs associated with planning, design and permitting as set forth in Section 4.1 of this Second Amended Agreement.

4.4 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; Enforcement by City. Upon the recordation of each final subdivision map or other development project, Developer shall record against such portion of the Property a master set of covenants, conditions and

01248.0005/938390.2 13
restrictions (“CC&R’s”) to require the development and use of the property to be consistent with the Project Entitlement development plan or other appropriate City designation and applicable design guidelines for the Project. The CC&R’s shall include the covenants that all structures and landscaping within the Project are to be built, installed and maintained in accordance with the Master Plan and subject to an obligation to obtain design approval from the City prior to any construction or modification of such improvements. The CC&R’s shall provide that the City shall be a third-party beneficiary thereof and may not be amended without the City’s consent. As a third-party beneficiary, the City shall have the right, but no obligation, to review and/or enforce any covenant under the CC&R’s and the City shall not be obligated hereby to respond to any demands or complaints thereunder or otherwise take any action with respect thereto. The CC&R’s shall give the City the same rights as any other owner of record and enforce liens to recover the costs of such enforcement, which may include costs to perform maintenance obligations, remove trash or debris, tow any unlawfully parked vehicles, or other such violations, all at the cost of any defaulting party. The form of such CC&R’s shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Attorney, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, prior to recordation thereof and prior to any amendment thereof that may affect the City’s enforcement rights thereunder. City acknowledges that Developer shall not be obligated by the foregoing to form a homeowner’s association.

4.5 Reimbursement for City Costs. Developer shall reimburse City for all of City’s costs incurred in the drafting, negotiating, development, and implementation of this Second Amended Agreement, including, but not limited to, the annual review pursuant to Section 6.1. Said costs shall include, but not be limited to, the full cost recovery of all City’s staff time and City’s attorney fees. This Second Amended Agreement shall not take effect until the City costs, as provided for in this section, owed by Developer to City are paid to the City.

4.6 Building and Site Design. Developer shall comply with the design intent in the City-wide adopted Design Guidelines, to the extent such City-wide adopted Design Guidelines are not inconsistent with the approved Entitlements.

5. Reimbursement and Fee Credits, Financing, and Right-of Way

5.1 Reimbursement to Developer for Oversizing

5.1.1 Developer agrees the City may require Developer to construct certain on-site and off-site improvements in a manner that provides for oversize or excess capacity beyond that size or capacity needed to serve the project (collectively “Oversizing”) so that the constructed improvement will be available to serve other development or residences or facilities outside of the Property. The City shall not require any Oversizing from the Developer except in connection with project approvals or in Development Approvals, and in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Developer may be entitled to a fee credit or reimbursement for Oversizing improvements per Section 5 of this Second Amended Agreement.

5.1.2 In the event that City requires Developer to install a specific improvement (for example, a traffic signal), Developer's obligation to pay the relevant development impact fees otherwise owed under this Second Amended Agreement regarding the category of improvement the Developer is installing shall be satisfied by the installation of such improvement in the manner mutually agreed upon by the City and the Developer so long as the amount of the development impact fees for this category of improvement does not

01248.0005/938390.2 14
exceed the cost of such improvement. City shall accept Developer's dedication of such improvements, consistent with the terms and conditions of this Second Amended Agreement.

By entering into this Second Amended Agreement, City and Developer agree that certain facilities, including, but not limited to, roadway, sewer, water, and drainage will be constructed by Developer pursuant to this Second Amended Agreement which will benefit third-party landowners. Developer shall be entitled to a fee credit for any such facilities to the extent they benefit third party landowners in an amount as reasonably determined by the City. If Developer's fee credit for a particular facility exceeds the amount of the fee owed, then Developer shall be reimbursed for the amount the fee credit exceeds the fee owed by the benefited third-party landowners. Developer shall request the City enter into a Reimbursement Second Amended Agreement, which shall specify the reimbursement calculations and amounts as determined by the City. The Reimbursement Second Amended Agreement will require future development by third-party landowners benefiting from the Oversizing to reimburse Developer's pro-rata share for a period of up to twenty (20) years from the installation of the oversizing or other qualifying improvements benefiting third-party landowners, provided, that Developer shall have the right to extend the initial twenty (20) year period with five (5) year extension requests until such time that Developer has been reimbursed in full from the benefited third party Landowners. The extension request must be received, by the City, in writing six months prior to the expiration of the Reimbursement Second Amended Agreement. The City Council is authorized to enter into a Reimbursement Second Amended Agreement on behalf of the City subject to approval as to legal form by the City Attorney.

5.1.3 Reimbursement Calculations. City will provide Developer with the available documentation showing the basis for the reimbursement amounts pursuant to Section 4.1. The reimbursement obligations provided in this Second Amended Agreement will be in amounts as reasonably determined by the City.

5.1.4 Reimbursement Personal to Constructing Owner. All rights to reimbursement created pursuant to Section 4.1 shall be personal to the owner installing the improvements and shall not run with the land unless such rights are expressly assigned in writing.

5.2 City's Support of Public Financing for Project Improvements.

Development of the Project requires the investment of significant capital to fund the Project's necessary major infrastructure. Developer may, at its discretion, seek public financing mechanism for financing the construction, improvement or acquisition of major infrastructure, including a neighborhood park. At the request of Developer, the City may consider the use of finance districts, special assessment districts, and other similar project-related public financing mechanisms to fund the Project's necessary infrastructure.

5.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition. With respect to the acquisition of any off-site interest in real property required by Developer in order to fulfill any condition required by the Project or the Entitlements, Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the necessary interest by private negotiations at the fair market value of such interest. If, after such reasonable efforts, Developer has been unable to acquire such interest and provided that Developer (i) provides evidence of a good faith effort to acquire the necessary property interest to the reasonable satisfaction of City and (ii) agrees to pay the cost of such acquisition, including reasonable attorney's fees, City shall make an offer to acquire the necessary property interest at its fair market value. If such offer has not been accepted within 60 days, City agrees, to the extent permitted by law, to cooperate and assist Developer in efforts to obtain such

01248.0005/938390.2 15
necessary property interest. Any such acquisition by City shall be subject to City's good faith discretion, which is expressly reserved by City, to make the necessary findings, including a finding thereby of public necessity, to acquire such interest. Subject to the reservation of such good faith discretion, the City shall schedule the necessary hearings, and if approved by City, thereafter prosecute to completion the proceedings and action to acquire the necessary property interests by power of eminent domain.

Developer shall fund all costs of the acquisition of such necessary property interests, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the event that such acquisition and/or condemnation is necessary.

6. Annual Review.

6.1 Good Faith Compliance. Developer shall annually provide documentation of good faith compliance with this agreement per Govt. Code Section 65865.1 to the City. The City may, at least every twelve (12) months, during the Term of this Second Amended Agreement, conduct a public meeting to review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Landowner with the terms of this Second Amended Agreement at Landowner’s expense. Such periodic review shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Second Amended Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1. Notice of such annual review will be provided by the Development Services Director to Landowner thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public meeting by the Planning Commission and shall include the statement that any review may result in amendment or termination of this Second Amended Agreement as provided herein. A finding by the City of good faith compliance by the Landowner with the terms of Second Amended Agreement shall conclusively determine the issue up to and including the date of such review. Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to create a duty of responsibility of City or Landowner or define an event of default that but for such concurrent review would not have been so created or defined.

6.2 Failure to Comply in Good Faith. If the City Council makes a finding that the Landowner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Second Amended Agreement, the City shall provide written notice to the Landowner describing: (i) such failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this Second Amended Agreement (referenced to herein as a "Default"); (ii) the actions, if any, required by the Landowner to cure such Default; and (iii) the time period within which such Default must be cured. The Landowner shall have, at a minimum, thirty (30) business days after the date of such notice to cure such Default, or in the event that such Default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period but can be cured within one (1) year, the Landowner shall have commenced the actions necessary to cure such Default and shall be diligently proceeding to complete such actions necessary to cure such Default within thirty (30) days from the date of notice. If the Default cannot be cured within one (1) year, as determined by the City during periodic or special review, the City Council may modify or terminate this, Second Amended Agreement as provided in Section 6.4 and Section 6.5.

6.3 Failure to Cure Default. If the Landowner fails to cure a Default within the time periods set forth above, the City Council may modify or terminate this Second Amended Agreement as provided below.

01248.0005/938390.2 16

6.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section 6.2 and the expiration of the cure period, the City determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Second Amended Agreement, the City shall give written notice to the Landowner of its intention to do so. The notice shall be given at least fifteen (15) calendar days before the scheduled hearing and shall contain:

6.4.1 The time and place of the hearing;

6.4.2 A statement as to whether or not the City proposes to terminate or to modify the Second Amended Agreement; and

6.4.3 Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform the Landowner of the nature of the proceeding.

6.5 Hearings on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, the Landowner shall be given an opportunity to be heard, and the Landowner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Second Amended Agreement. The burden of proof on the issue shall be on the Landowner. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the Landowner has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Second Amended Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Second Amended Agreement or modify this Second Amended Agreement and impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the City.

7. Permitted Delays.

7.1 Extension of Times of Performance. In addition to specific provisions of this Second Amended Agreement, performance by either Party under this Second Amended Agreement shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or, defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts, walkouts, drought, riots, floods, earthquakes, fire, casualties, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, restrictions imposed by governmental or quasigovernmental entities other than the City, unusually severe weather, acts of the other Party, acts or the failure to act of any public or government agency or entity other than the City, or any other causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform. An extension of time for any such cause shall only be for the period of the excusable delay, which period shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of cause until the conditions creating the excusable delay no longer exist. If, however, notice by the Party claiming such extension of time is sent to the other Party more than thirty (30) days after the commencement of the cause, the period shall commence to run only thirty (30) days prior to the giving of such notice.

Times of performance under this Second Amended Agreement may also be extended in writing by the joint agreement of the City and Landowner. Litigation attacking the validity of this Second Amended Agreement, or any permit, ordinance, or entitlement or other action of a governmental agency necessary for the development of the Property pursuant to this Second Amended Agreement shall also be deemed to create an excusable delay under this Section.

7.2 Supersedure by Subsequent Laws. If any Law made or
enacted after the date of this Second Amended Agreement prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Second Amended Agreement, then the

01248.0005/938390.2 17
provisions of this Second Amended Agreement shall, to the extent feasible, be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such new Law. Immediately after enactment of any such new Law, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of any such modification or suspension based on the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Second Amended Agreement. If such modification or suspension is infeasible in the Landowner's reasonable business Judgment, then the Landowner shall have the right to terminate this Second Amended Agreement by written notice to the City. The Landowner shall also have the right to challenge the new Law preventing compliance with the terms of this Second Amended Agreement, and, in the event such challenge is successful, this Second Amended Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.

8. Termination.

8.1 City's Right to Terminate. The City shall have the right to terminate this Second Amended Agreement if the Landowner is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Second Amended Agreement and this default remains uncured, all as set forth in Section 6.

8.2 Landowner's Right to Terminate. The Landowner shall have the right to terminate this Second Amended Agreement only under the following circumstances:

8.2.1 The Landowner has found the City in breach of this Second Amended Agreement, has given the City notice of such breach and the City has not cured such breach within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice or, if the breach cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the City has not commenced to cure such breach within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice and is not diligently proceeding to cure such breach.

8.2.2 The Landowner is unable to complete the Project because of supersedure by a subsequent law per Section 7.2 or court action.

8.2.3 The Landowner determines, in its business judgment, that it is not practical or reasonable to pursue development of the Property, however if termination occurs for this reason the City reserves the right to revoke any remaining entitlement to develop the property.

8.3 Mutual Agreement. This Second Amended Agreement may be terminated upon the mutual agreement of the Parties.

8.4 Effect of Termination.

8.4.1 General Effect. If this Second Amended Agreement is terminated for any reason, such termination shall not affect any condition or obligation due to the City from the Landowner prior to the date of termination and such termination shall not otherwise affect any other City entitlement or approval with respect to the Property that has been granted prior to the date of termination.

01248.0005/938390.2 18

8.5 Recordation of Termination. In the event of a
termination, the City and Landowner agree to cooperate with one another in executing a Memorandum of Termination to record in the Official Records of Sutter County within thirty (30) days of the date of termination.

9. Remedies. Either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal or equitable action to cure, correct or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation or enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto.

10. Waiver: Cumulative Remedies. Failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Second Amended Agreement by the other Party, irrespective of the length of time for which such failure continues, shall not constitute a waiver of such Party's right to demand strict compliance by such other Party in the future. No waiver by a Party of an event of default shall be effective or binding upon such Party unless made in writing by such Party, and no such waiver shall be implied from any omission by a Party to take any action with respect to such event of default. No express written waiver of any event of default shall affect any other event of default, or cover any other period of time, other than any event of default and/or period of time specified in such express waiver. Except as provided in this Section, all of the remedies permitted or available to a Party under this Second Amended Agreement, or at law or in equity, shall be cumulative and not alternative, and invocation of any such right or remedy shall not constitute a waiver or election of remedies with respect to any other permitted or available right or remedy.

11. Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties that the Project is a private development. This Second Amended Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Landowner and the City and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Second Amended Agreement. The City and Landowner hereby renounce the existence of any third-party beneficiary to this Second Amended Agreement and agree that nothing contained herein shall be construed as giving any other person or entity third-party beneficiary status. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Second Amended Agreement.

12. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Claim. In the event any legal action or proceeding is instituted by any third-party challenging the validity of any provision of this Second Amended Agreement or any action or decision taken or made hereunder, the Parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding.

13. Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may, at any time, and from time-totime, deliver written notice to the other Party requesting such Party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party: (i) this Second Amended Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties; ii) this Second Amended Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, and if so amended, identifying the amendments; (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Second Amended Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and amount of any such defaults; and (iv) the requesting Party has been found to be in compliance with this Second Amended Agreement, and the date of the last determination of such compliance. A Party receiving a request

01248.0005/938390.2 19
hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following receipt thereof. The Director shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by the Landowner hereunder. The City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees.

14. Right to Assign or Transfer. The Landowner's rights and responsibilities hereunder may be sold or assigned in conjunction with the transfer, sale or assignment of the Property at any time during the term of this Second Amended Agreement subject to the following conditions precedent:

14.1 No default by Developer shall be outstanding and uncured as of the effective date of the proposed transfer, unless the City Council has received adequate assurances satisfactory to the City Council that such default shall be cured in a timely manner either by Developer or the transferee under the transfer.

14.2 Prior to the effective date of the proposed transfer, Developer or the proposed transferee has delivered to the City an executed and acknowledged assignment and assumption agreement (the “Assumption Agreement”) in recordable form. Such Assumption Agreement shall include provisions regarding: (a) the rights and interest proposed to be transferred to the proposed transferee; (b) the obligations of Developer under this Second Amended Agreement that the proposed transferee will assume; and (c) the proposed transferee's acknowledgment that such transferee has reviewed and agrees to be bound by this Second Amended Agreement. The Assumption Agreement shall also include the name, form of entity, and address of the proposed transferee, and shall provide that the transferee assumes the obligations of Developer to be assumed by the transferee in connection with the proposed transfer. The Assumption Agreement shall be recorded in the official records of the County of Sutter concurrently with the consummation of the transfer.

14.3 Prior to the effective date of the proposed transfer, the Developer must obtain the City’s consent in writing to the transfer, which may be evidenced by the City Council’s approval of an Assumption Agreement. City's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

Factors the City may consider in determining whether to consent to the transfer include the financial capacity of the proposed transferee to comply with all of the terms of the Second Amended Agreement and the history, if any, of compliance of transferee, its principals, officers or owners with the provisions of federal or state law, the Yuba City Municipal Code or agreements with the City relating to development projects within the City.

14.4 Mortgagee as Transferee. No Mortgage (including the execution and delivery thereof to the Mortgagee) shall constitute a transfer. A Mortgagee shall be a transferee only upon: (a) the acquisition by such Mortgagee of the affected interest of Developer encumbered by such Mortgagee's Mortgage; and (b) delivery to the City of an Assumption Agreement executed by the Mortgagee pursuant to which the Mortgagee assumes assuming, from and after the date such Mortgagee so acquires its interest, the applicable rights, duties and obligations of Developer under this Second Amended Agreement. No further consent of the City shall be required for any such transfer to a Mortgagee.

14.5 Effect of Transfer. A transferee shall become a Party to this Second Amended Agreement only with respect to the interest transferred to it under the transfer and then only to the extent set forth in the Assumption Agreement. If Developer transfers all of its rights, duties and obligations under this Second Amended Agreement, Developer shall be released from any and all obligations accruing after the date of the transfer under this Second

01248.0005/938390.2 20
Amended Agreement. If Developer effectuates a transfer as to only some but not all of its rights, duties and obligations under this Second Amended Agreement, Developer shall be released only from its obligations accruing after the date of the transfer which the transferee assumes in the Assumption Agreement.
15 Financing. Mortgages, deeds of trust, sales and leasebacks, or other forms of conveyance required for any reasonable method of financing requiring a security arrangement with respect to the Property (“Mortgages”) are permitted without the consent of the City, provided the Landowner complies with the following:

15.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Second Amended Agreement and any covenants entered into between the Developer and City shall be superior and senior to the conveyance of any Mortgage encumbering any interest in the Property. No default shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the conveyance of any Mortgage made for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Second Amended Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person (including any Mortgagee) who acquires title to the Property or any portion thereof or interest therein or improvement thereon, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.

15.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated; Mortgagee as Transferee. No Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Second Amended Agreement whatsoever, except that nothing contained in this Second Amended Agreement shall be deemed to permit or authorize any Mortgagee to undertake any new construction or improvement in the Chima Ranch Project Area, or to otherwise have the benefit of any rights of Developer, or to enforce any obligation of the City, under this Second Amended Agreement, unless and until such Mortgagee elects to become a Transferee in the manner specified in this Second Amended Agreement. Any Mortgagee that affirmatively elects to become a Transferee shall be later released from all obligations and liabilities under this Second Amended Agreement upon the subsequent Transfer by the Mortgagee of its interest as a transferee to another person.

15.3 Entitlement to Written Notice of Default. The Mortgagee of a Mortgage or beneficiary of a deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, and their successors and assigns shall, upon written request to the City, be entitled to receive from the City written notification of any default by Landowner of the performance of Landowner’s obligations under this Second Amended Agreement which has not been cured within sixty (60) days following the date of default. Landowner shall reimburse the City for its actual costs, reasonably and necessarily incurred, to prepare this notice of default.

15.4 Priority of Mortgages and Subordination. Landowner shall ensure that all Mortgages subordinate to this Second Amended Agreement. For purposes of exercising any remedy of a Mortgagee or for becoming a Transferee, the applicable laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, remedies and priorities of each Mortgagee, absent a written agreement between Mortgagees otherwise providing.

15.5 Collateral Assignment. As additional security to a Mortgagee under a Mortgage on the Property or any portion thereof, Developer shall have the right, without the consent of the City, to execute a collateral assignment of Developer’s rights, benefits and remedies under this Second Amended Agreement in favor of the Mortgagee (a “Collateral Assignment”) on the standard form provided by the Mortgagee.

01248.0005/938390.2 21

16. Covenants to Run with the Land. All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Second Amended Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors, assignees, devises, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees. All of the provisions of this Second Amended Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder: (i) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties; (ii) runs with such properties; and (iii) is binding upon each Party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and each person having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such properties, or any portion thereof, and shall benefit each Party and its property hereunder, and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties; provided that no liability or obligation shall accrue to any person, if this Second Amended Agreement terminates pursuant to Section 8 of this Second Amended Agreement.

17. Amendment.

17.1 Amendment or Cancellation. Except as otherwise provided in this Second Amended Agreement, this Second Amended Agreement may be canceled, modified or amended only by mutual consent of the Parties in writing, and then only in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65868. Minor amendments to this Second Amended Agreement may be made without a public hearing upon approval of the Development Services Director. "Minor Amendments" shall mean amendments which are similar in significance to the type of minor amendments to land use entitlements that may be made without a full public hearing or approval of the Planning Commission or City Council pursuant to the Yuba City Municipal Code.

17.2 Recordation. Any amendment, termination or cancellation of this Second Amended Agreement shall be recorded by the City Clerk not later than ten (10) days after the effective date of the action effecting such amendment, termination or cancellation; however, a failure to record shall not affect the validity of the amendment, termination or cancellation.

18. Notices.

18.1 Procedure. Any notice to either Party shall be in writing and given by delivering the notice in person or by sending the notice by registered or certified mail, or Express Mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, to the Party's mailing address.

01248.0005/938390.2 22

18.2 Mailing Addresses. The respective mailing addresses of the Parties are, until changed as hereinafter provided, the following:

City: Development Services Director
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
With a copy to: City Manager
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
Landowners: Chohan & Sons, Inc
Harsbinder Chohan, President
3132 Bogue Road
Yuba City, CA. 95993
Paramdeep K. Chohan, Trustee of the
Rajinder and
Paramdeep Chohan Trust under Declaration
of Trust
dated October 20, 2021
3580 Lincoln Rd
Yuba City, CA. 95993
Harnek Singh and Navjot Bala, Trustees of
the
Successors in trust, under (U/A) the Allen
and
Rubai Family Trust dated December 14,
2015
1166 Santa Barbara Way
Yuba City, CA. 95993
With a copy to: MHM Incorporated
Attn: Sean Minard
P.O. Box B
Marysville, CA 95901
Either Party may change its mailing address at any time by giving ten (10) days’ notice of such change in the manner provided for in this section. All notices under this Second Amended Agreement shall be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is affected or, if mailed, on the delivery date or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to prohibit communication by facsimile transmission, so long as an original is sent by first class mail, commercial carrier or is hand-delivered.

01248.0005/938390.2 23

19. Indemnification.

19.1 Third Party Actions. To the furthest extent allowed by law, Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless and immediately defend with counsel of City’s choosing, City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, damages and costs (including attorney's fees, litigation expenses and administrative record preparation costs) arising from, resulting from, or in connection with any Third-Party Action (as hereinafter defined). The term “Third Party Action” collectively means any legal action or other proceeding instituted by (i) a third party or parties or (ii) a governmental body, agency or official other than the City or a City Agency, that: (a) challenges or contests any or all of this Second Amended Agreement, the Sutter Heritage Subdivision Map Applications and Approvals, or the Entitlements; or (b) claims or alleges a violation of CEQA or another law in connection with the adoption of the MND by the City Council or the grant, issuance or approval by the City of any or all of this Second Amended Agreement, the Sutter Heritage Subdivision Map Applications and Approvals, and the Entitlements.

Developer’s obligations under this Section shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers are actively or passively negligent, but shall not apply to any loss, liability, fines, penalties forfeitures, costs or damages caused solely by the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. The provisions of this Section shall survive the termination of this Second Amended Agreement.

19.2 Damage Claims. The nature and extent of Developer’s obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City with regard to events or circumstances not addressed in Section 19.1 shall be governed by this Section 19.2. To the furthest extent allowed by law, Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs and damages (whether in contract, tort or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time and property damage) incurred by City, Developer or any other person, and from any and all claims, demands and actions in law or equity (including attorney's fees and litigation expenses), arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out of performance of this Second Amended Agreement or the performance of any or all work to be done by Developer or its contractors, agents, successors and assigns pursuant to this Second Amended Agreement (including, but not limited to design, construction and/or ongoing operation and maintenance of off-site improvements unless and until such offsite improvements are dedicated to and officially accepted by the City). Developer's obligations under the preceding sentence shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its officers, officials, employees, attorneys, or agents are passively negligent, but shall not apply to any loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs or damages caused by the active or sole negligence, or the willful misconduct, of City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, or volunteers.

If Developer should subcontract all or any portion of the services to be performed under this Second Amended Agreement, Developer shall require each subcontractor to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and volunteers in accordance with the terms of the preceding paragraph. The Developer further agrees that the use for any purpose and by any person of any and all of the streets and improvements required under this Second Amended Agreement, shall be at the sole and exclusive risk of the Developer, at all times prior to final acceptance by the City of the completed street and other improvements, unless any loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures,

01248.0005/938390.2 24
costs or damages arising from said use were caused by the active or sole negligence, or the willful misconduct, of the City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.

Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, to the extent that Subcontractor is a “design professional” as defined in Section 2782.8 of the California Civil Code and performing work hereunder as a “design professional” shall, in lieu of the preceding paragraph, be required to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers to the furthest extent allowed by law, from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs and damages (whether in agreement, tort or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time and property damage), and from any and all claims, demands and actions in law or equity (including reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional, its principals, officers, employees, agents or volunteers in the performance of this Second Amended Agreement.

This Section shall survive termination or expiration of this Second Amended Agreement.

20. Insurance. Prior to starting construction of any phase of the project through the date of City’s final formal acceptance of off-site improvements constructed pursuant to the terms of this Second Amended Agreement (the “Insurance Period”), Developer shall pay for and maintain in full force and effect all policies of insurance described in this Section with an insurance company(ies) either (i) admitted by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in the State of California and rated not less than "A- VII" in Best's Insurance Rating Guide, or (ii) authorized by City’s Public Work’s Director. The following policies of insurance are required:

20.1 Commercial General Liability. Insurance which shall be at least as broad as the most current version of Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage Form CG 00 01 and shall include insurance for bodily injury, property damage and personal injury with coverage for premises and operations (including the use of owned and non-owned equipment), products and completed operations, contractual liability (including indemnity obligations under this Second Amended Agreement),with limits of liability of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage, $1,000,000 per occurrence for personal injury, $5,000,000 general aggregate and $5,000,000 aggregate for products and completed operations and $5,000,000 general aggregate.

20.2 Commercial Automobile Liability. insurance which shall be at least as broad as the most current version of Insurance Services Office (ISO) Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 and shall include coverage for all owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles or other licensed vehicles (Code 1 B Any Auto), with combined single limits of liability of not less than $5,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

20.3 Workers Compensation. insurance as required under the California Labor Code.

20.4 Employers Liability. with minimum limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 each accident, $1,000,000 policy limit and $1,000,000 for each employee.

01248.0005/938390.2 25
In the event Developer purchases an Umbrella or Excess insurance policy(ies) to meet the “Minimum Limits of Insurance,” this insurance policy(ies) shall “follow form” and afford no less coverage than the primary insurance policy(ies).

Developer shall be responsible for payment of any deductibles contained in any insurance policies required hereunder and Developer shall also be responsible for payment of any selfinsured retentions.

The above described policies of insurance shall be endorsed to provide an unrestricted 30 calendar day written notice in favor of City of policy cancellation of coverage, except for the Workers' Compensation policy which shall provide a ten (10) calendar day written notice of such cancellation of coverage. In the event any policies are due to expire during the term of this Second Amended Agreement, Developer shall provide a new certificate evidencing renewal of such policy not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the expiration date of the expiring policy(ies). Upon issuance by the insurer, broker, or agent of a notice of cancellation in coverage, Developer shall file with City a new certificate and all applicable endorsements for such policy(ies).

The General Liability and Automobile Liability insurance policies shall be written on an occurrence form and shall name City, its officers, officials, agents, attorneys, employees and volunteers as an additional insured. Such policy(ies) of insurance shall be endorsed so Developer's insurance shall be primary, and no contribution shall be required of City. Any Workers' Compensation insurance policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation as to City, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers. Developer shall have furnished City with the certificate(s) and applicable endorsements for all required insurance prior to start of construction of any phase of development. Developer shall furnish City with copies of the actual policies upon the request of City's Director of Public Works at any time during the life of the Second Amended Agreement or any extension, and this requirement shall survive termination or expiration of this Second Amended Agreement.

If at any time during the Insurance Period, Developer fails to maintain the required insurance in full force and effect, the Director of Public Works, or designee, may order that the Developer, or its contractors or subcontractors, immediately discontinue any further work under this Second Amended Agreement and take all necessary actions to secure the work site to ensure that public health and safety is protected. All payments due or that become due to Developer shall be withheld until notice is received by City that the required insurance has been restored to full force and effect and that the premiums therefore have been paid for a period satisfactory to City. The insurance requirements set forth in this Section are material terms of this Second Amended Agreement.

If Developer should hire a general contractor to provide all or any portion of the services or work to be performed under this Second Amended Agreement, Developer shall require the general contractor to provide insurance protection in favor of City, its officers, officials, employees, attorneys, volunteers and agents in accordance with the terms of each of the preceding paragraphs, except that the general contractor’s certificates and endorsements shall be on file with Developer and City prior to the commencement of any work by the general contractor.

If the general contractor should subcontract all or a portion of the services or work to be performed under this Second Amended Agreement to one or more subcontractors, Developer shall require the general contractor to require each subcontractor to provide insurance protection in favor of City, its officers, officials, employees, attorneys, volunteers and agents in

01248.0005/938390.2 26
accordance with the terms of each of the preceding paragraphs, except that each subcontractor shall be required to pay for and maintain Commercial General Liability insurance with limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage, $1,000,000 per occurrence for personal injury, $2,000,000 aggregate for products and completed operations and $2,000,000 general aggregate and Commercial Automobile Liability insurance with limits of liability of not less than less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Subcontractors’ certificates and endorsements shall be on file with the general contractor, Developer and City prior to the commencement of any work by the subcontractor. Developer’s failure to comply with these requirements shall constitute a default of this Second Amended Agreement.

21. Miscellaneous.

21.1 Approvals. Unless otherwise provided herein, whenever approval, consent or satisfaction (herein collectively referred to as an "approval") is required of a Party pursuant to this Second Amended Agreement, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If a Party shall disapprove, the reasons therefor shall be stated in reasonable detail in writing. Approval by a Party to or of any act or request by the other Party shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary approval to or of any similar or subsequent acts or requests. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the intent of the Parties is that this Second Amended Agreement be construed in a manner that protects the rights granted to Landowner herein to the as allowed by law.

Except for the limitations on the exercise by the City of its police power which are provided in this Second Amended Agreement or which are construed in accordance with the immediately preceding sentence, the Parties further acknowledge and agree that: (a) the City reserves all of its police power and/or statutory or other legal powers or responsibilities; and (b) this Second Amended Agreement shall not be construed to limit the authority or obligation of the City to hold necessary public hearings, to limit the discretion of the City or any of its officers or officials with regard to rules, regulations, ordinances, laws, and entitlement of use which require the exercise of discretion by the City or any of its officers or officials. This Second Amended Agreement shall not be construed to limit the obligations of the City to comply with CEQA or any other federal or state law.

21.2 Project Approvals Independent. All approvals that may be granted pursuant to this Second Amended Agreement, and all approvals or other land use approvals which have been or may be issued or granted by the City with respect to the Property, constitute independent actions and approvals by the City. If any provisions of this Second Amended Agreement or the application of any provision of this Second Amended Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if the City terminates this Second Amended Agreement for any reason, such invalidity, unenforceability or termination of this Second Amended Agreement or any part hereof shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of any approvals or other land use approvals. In such cases, such approvals will remain in effect pursuant to their own terms, provisions and conditions.

21.3 Not a Public Dedication. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of the Property, or of the Project, or any portion thereof, to the general public, for the general public, or for any-public use or purpose whatsoever. This proscription does not extend to any portion of the Property that may

01248.0005/938390.2 27
be dedicated in compliance with any conditions of approval. The Landowner shall have the right to prevent or prohibit the use of the Property, or any portion thereof, including common areas and buildings and improvements located thereon; by any person for any purposes inimical to the operation of a private, integrated Project as contemplated by this Second Amended Agreement.

21.4 Severability. Invalidation of any of the provisions contained in this Second Amended Agreement, or of the application thereof to any person, by judgment or court order, shall in no way affect any of the other provisions hereof or the application thereof to any other person or circumstance and the same shall remain in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Second Amended Agreement as so invalidated would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of this Second Amended Agreement.

21.5 Construction of Agreement. The provisions of this Second Amended Agreement and the Exhibits shall be construed as a whole according to their common meaning and not strictly for or against any Party in order to achieve the objectives and purpose of the Parties. The captions preceding the text of each Article, Section, Subsection and the Table of Contents are included only for convenience of reference and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Second Amended Agreement. Wherever required by the context, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine or neuter genders, or vice versa. All references to "person" shall include, without limitation, any and all corporations, partnerships or other legal entities.

21.6 Other Necessary Acts. Each Party covenants, on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs and assigns, to take all actions and do all things, and to execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if required, any and all further instruments, documents and writings as may be reasonably necessary or proper to achieve the purposes and objectives of this Second Amended Agreement and to secure the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder.

21.7 Applicable Law. This Second Amended Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the Parties, shall be construed by and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

21.8 Equal Authorship. This Second Amended Agreement has been reviewed by legal counsel for both the Landowner and City, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Second Amended Agreement.

21.9 Time. Time is of the essence of this Second Amended Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof. In particular, the City agrees to act in a timely fashion in accepting, processing, checking and approving all maps, documents, plans, permit applications and any other matters requiring the City's review or approval relating to the Project or Property. Subject to extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, unreasonable delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Second Amended Agreement shall constitute a default.

21.10 Subsequent Projects. After the effective date of this Second Amended Agreement, the City may approve other projects that place a burden on the

01248.0005/938390.2 28
City's infrastructure; however, it is the intent and agreement of the Parties that Landowner's right to build and occupy the Project, as described in this Second Amended Agreement, shall not be diminished despite the increased burden of future approved development on public facilities.

21.11 Entire Agreement. This written Second Amended Agreement and the Exhibits contain all the representations and the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this Second Amended Agreement, any prior correspondence, memoranda, agreements (including the 2006 Development Agreement and 2009 Development Agreement), warranties or representations are superseded in total by this Second Amended Agreement and Exhibits.

21.12 Form of Agreement: Exhibits. This Second Amended
Agreement is executed in three duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Second Amended Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. Said exhibits are identified as follows:

Exhibit A-1: Property legal description
Exhibit A-2: Assessor’s Parcel Page
All attachments to this Second Amended Agreement, including all exhibits referenced herein, and all subparts thereto, are incorporated herein by this reference.

21.13 Attorneys’ Fees. If either Party commences any action for the interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation or rescission hereof, or for specific performance of the breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and costs, and any judgment, order or decree rendered in such action, suit or proceeding shall include an award thereof. Attorneys' fees under this Section shall include attorneys' fees on any appeal and any postjudgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment. This provision is separate and several and shall survive the merger of this Second Amended Agreement into any judgment on this Second Amended Agreement.

21.14 Limitation of Legal Acts. In no event shall the City, or its officers, agents, attorneys, or employees, be liable in damages for any breach or violation of this Second Amended Agreement, it being expressly understood and agreed that the Developer's sole legal remedy for a breach or violation of this Second Amended Agreement by the City shall be a legal action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Second Amended Agreement.

21.15 Interpretation and Governing State Law. This Second Amended Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Second Amended Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objective and purposes of the Parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Second Amended Agreement, both Parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. All legal

01248.0005/938390.2 29
actions brought to enforce the terms of this Second Amended Agreement shall be brought and heard in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sutter.

21.16 Successor Statutes Incorporated. All references to a statute or ordinance, shall incorporate any, or all, successor statute or ordinance enacted to govern the activity now governed by the statute or ordinance, noted herein to the extent, however, that incorporation of such successor statute or ordinance does not adversely affect the benefits and protections granted to the Developer under this Second Amended Agreement.

21.17 Counterparts. This Second Amended Agreement may be executed in two or more identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and each of which shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each Party signs each such counterpart.

21.18 Signature Pages. For convenience, the signatures of the Parties to this Second Amended Agreement may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages which, when attached to this Second Amended Agreement, shall constitute this as one complete Second Amended Agreement.

21.19 Days. Unless otherwise specified in this Second Amended Agreement, the term “days” means calendar days.

21.20 Authority. The Parties hereby represent that the person hereby signing this Second Amended Agreement on behalf of each respective Party has the authority to bind the Party to the Second Amended Agreement. [SIGNATURES ARE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]

01248.0005/938390.2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Second Amended Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
"City"

CITY OF YUBA CITY,
A General Law City
By:
________________, Mayor
Date:

Attest:

City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
"Landowner"
CHOHAN & SONS, INC.
a California Corporation
By: _______
Harsbinder Chohan, President
HARNEK SINGH AND NAVJOT BALA, Trustees
of the Successors in trust, under (U/A) the Allen
and Rubai Family Trust dated December 14,
2015

By: _______
Harnek Singh, Trustee
By: _______
Navjot Bala, Trustee
PARAMDEEP K. CHOHAN, Trustee of the
Rajinder and Paramdeep Chohan Trust under
Declaration of Trust dated October 20, 2021
By: _______
Paramdeep K. Chohan, Trustee
Attachments: A-1: Property legal description
A-2: Assessor’s Parcel Page

01248.0005/938390.2 31
EXHIBIT A-1

PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Sutter County, County of Sutter, State of California, described as follows:

BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, M.D.M. AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 27, 28, 33 AND 34, TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, M.D.M.; THENCE ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 33 AND 34 SOUTH 00° 03' 04" WEST A DISTANCE OF 2650.62 FEET TO THE EAST ONE QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE ALONG THE LINE THAT DIVIDES SAID SECTION 33 INTO NORTH AND SOUTH HALVES, NORTH 89° 10' 59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1470.92 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WALTON RANCH, UNIT TWO, FILED IN BOOK 13 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 156, SUTTER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE

CENTERLINE OF GILSIZER SLOUGH AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID SLOUGH THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES; SOUTH 7° 43' 22" WEST, 80.96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3° 54' 59" WEST, 120.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1° 16' 06" WEST, 170.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3° 31' 35" EAST, 257.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14° 21' 40" EAST, 357.28 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 21° 33' 19" EAST, 283.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44° 11' 20" EAST,

91.26 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 18 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SE ¼ OF SECTION 33 AND THE SW - ¼ OF SECTION 34 OF TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 3 E.,
M.D.M." FILED IN BOOK 1 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 24, SUTTER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 18, AND LOT 23 OF SAID MAP NORTH 89° 24' 03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 355.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO JACKIE D. HAYES AND DEBORAH ANN HAYES FILED IN BOOK 1144 AT PAGE 640, SUTTER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID HAYES PARCEL NORTH 0° 24' 45" WEST, 160.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID HAYES PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID HAYES PARCEL NORTH 89° 24' 03" WEST, 174.27 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID HAYES PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID HAYES PARCEL SOUTH 0° 24' 45" EAST, 160.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID HAYES PARCEL; SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 23; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 23 AND LOT 24 OF THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SE ¼ OF SECTION 33 AND THE SW-¼ OF SECTION 34 OF TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 3 E., M.D.M." FILED IN BOOK 1 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 24, SUTTER COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS, NORTH 89° 24' 03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF

01248.0005/938390.2 32
901.03 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 24; SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE LINE THAT DIVIDES SAID SECTION 33 INTO EAST AND WEST HALVES; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER OF SECTION LINE, NORTH 0° 24' 45" WEST A DISTANCE OF 953.30 FEET TO A POINT THAT BEAR SOUTH 0° 24' 45" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 351.57 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE SOUTH 89° 10' 59" EAST PARALLEL WITH THE EAST-WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 337.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0° 24' 45" WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHSOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 148.10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 10' 59" EAST PARALLEL WITH THE EAST-WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 50.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0° 24' 45" WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 203.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST-WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE ALONG THE EAST-WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 33 NORTH 89° 10' 59" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 803.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL,

GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS, AS RESERVED IN THE

DEED FROM CAPITAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED
NOVEMBER 27, 1941 IN BOOK 173, AT PAGE 487 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN

ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS, AS
EXCEPTED IN THE DEED FROM OSCAR ARNOLD AND BERTIE M. ARNOLD, RECORDED JUNE 24, 1948 IN BOOK 273 AT PAGE 461 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

01248.0005/938390.2 33
EXHIBIT A-2
Assessor’s Parcel Page

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Agenda Item 15

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 19, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works
Presentation By: Kevin Bradford, Deputy Public Works Director - Engineering Summary
Subject: Water System Consolidation - Wildwood East Mutual Water Company Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving consolidation of the Wildwood East Mutual Water Company’s water system with the City’s water system and authorizing the Public Works Director to sign a letter of intent to work towards said consolidation Fiscal Impact: Construction of the infrastructure necessary to implement the consolidation will be at no cost to the City. The owners will also be subject to monthly utility fees.

Staff time associated with assuring City standards are met will be covered by plan check and inspection fees.

Purpose:

To facilitate State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water review of, and possible funding for, a new water distribution system to be connected to City water service.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This project improves the quality of life for residents served by the Wildwood East Mutual Water Company (WEMWC) by providing clean, safe drinking water while addressing the City Council’s Strategic Goal to maintain, improve, and invest in the City’s infrastructure.

Background:

City staff has had preliminary discussions with operators of the WEMWC over the years regarding a potential consolidation of the WEMWC water system located on the north side of Franklin Road, west of George Washington Boulevard (Attachment 2) with the City’s water system. The State indicates this private water system no longer meets State drinking water quality standards. The private water system has 47 residential water connections serving a population of approximately 235 people.

On March 4, 2024, Public Works staff received a formal request from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Financial Assistance to provide a letter of intent to work towards this consolidation so that the State can begin planning and financial assistance activities for the proposed consolidation.

The private water system requesting consolidation with the City water system is located within the City limits.

Analysis:

Staff has reviewed the requested consolidation and determined that it is technically feasible to connect this private water system to the City water system. The City even went so far as to install tees in the Franklin Road water main for an eventual future connection to the system. The letter of intent requested by the State (Attachment 1) requests that the City affirm its approval of the consolidation.

If the State approves WEMWC’s consolidation request and the property owners are able to fund construction of the infrastructure necessary to facilitate the consolidation, staff will bring a Service Agreement to Council for approval.

Fiscal Impact:

Construction of the infrastructure necessary to implement the consolidation will be at no cost to the City. The owners will also be subject to monthly utility fees. Staff time associated with assuring City standards are met will be covered by plan check and inspection fees.

Alternatives:

Do not approve a letter of intent. WEMWC would have to find other solutions to meet the State’s drinking water standards.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution approving consolidation of the Wildwood East Mutual Water Company’s water system with the City’s water system and authorizing the Public Works Director to sign a letter of intent to work towards said consolidation.

Attachments:

1. Resolution - Water System Consolidation - Wildwood East

2. Location Map
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Kevin Bradford
Deputy Public Works Director - Engineering
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. _______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

APPROVING CONSOLIDATION OF THE WILDWOOD EAST MUTUAL
WATER COMPANY WATER SYSTEM WITH THE CITY’S WATER SYSTEM

AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO SIGN A LETTER

OF INTENT TO WORK TOWARDS SAID CONSOLIDATION
WHEREAS, the Wildwood East Mutual Water Company (WEMWC) private water system located on the north side of Franklin Road, west of George Washington Boulevard, no longer meets State drinking water quality standards; and
WHEREAS, the WEMWC and State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water have requested the City determine if it is technically feasible to consolidate said private water system with the City’s water system and City staff have determined that it is technically feasible to do so; and
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water has requested the City submit a letter of intent to work towards consolidation of the private water system with the City’s water system.

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

1. The City Council hereby approves of consolidation of the Wildwood East Mutual Water Company water system with the City’s water system and authorizes the Public Works Director to sign a letter of intent to work towards said consolidation.

2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit “A” – Letter of Intent

EXHIBIT “A”

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, California 95993
Public Works (530) 822-4626  Engineering (530) 822-4632  Utility Division 822-4636 Fax 822-4694  website: www.yubacity.net
March 20, 2024
Tara Ouitavon, PE
SAFER Northern Engagement Unit
State Water Resources Control Board
850 Marina Bay Parkway
Building P, 2nd Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
RE: Letter of Intent for Consolidation between the City of Yuba City and Wildwood East Mutual Water Company
Dear Tara,
On June 30, 2022, the City of Yuba City (City) was notified by email that Wildwood East Mutual Water Company (WEMWC) submitted a Request for Technical Assistance to the State Water Resources Control Board seeking assistance in consolidation with the City’s water system. Information shared with the City indicates WEMWC is comprised of 47 service connections serving approximately 235 individuals. The City has a two connection points in Franklin Road adjacent to the WEMWC system and has the capacity to serve the WEMWC system.

The request for consolidation was brought before the City Council of the City who voted to support consolidation with WEMWC. This letter affirms the City’s intent to work with your office and WEMWC towards consolidation of WEMWC’s water system with the City’s water system via consolidation.

Please keep us informed as the process to determine funding eligibility for this consolidation moves forward. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin Bradford in our office at 530- 822-4786 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Benjamin K. Moody
Public Works and Development Services Director

ATTACHMENT 2

GABRIELAVE
G
A
B
R
EI LAV
E
D
A
NIEL D
R

FRANKLIN RD
D
ALE
AV
E
LE
E
A
N
N
E
AV
E
N
G
E
O
R
G
E
WA
S
HIN
G
T
O
N
BLV
D
WIL
D
E
R
AVE

LESSEY DR

CONSTITUTION DR

HILLVIEW DR
¶
Wildwood East Mutual Water Company
Franklin Road
Project Site
1 inch = 400 feet

EXHIBIT A

Agenda Item 16

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: March 19, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Ashley Potocnik, Development Liaison
Summary
Subject: Bridge Street – Remnant Property Alternatives
Recommendation: A. Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding preferred development alternatives
B. Temporarily add properties to the City’s weed abatement program and direct staff to initiate feasibility and implementation of preferred alternatives, including actions to initiate disposal / sale of surplus parcels located at 670 Brown Avenue and 977 Bridge Street.

Fiscal Impact: Impact to be determined based on the recommendation provided.

Purpose:

To provide City Council with information regarding the alternatives related to the development of the remnant Bridge Street properties between Gray Avenue and Cooper Avenue.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item supports the City Council’s Strategic Goals to be Business Friendly and provide Quality of Life.

Background:

The Bridge Street Widening Project, completed in 2023, was a crucial segment of a multi-phased project to improve the Bridge Street corridor from State Route 99 to State Route 70, connecting Yuba City and Marysville with a four-lane arterial. To facilitate the improvements, residential properties were purchased along the north boundary between Gray Avenue and Cooper Avenue.

Analysis:

With the completion of the widening project, Council has directed staff to analyze options for the reutilization of the remnant properties. In October 2020, Civilis Consultants prepared a report outlining infill development options and activation of park spaces. The specific properties that these infill options are considered for are between Hughes Avenue and Cooper Avenue. All the properties are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. All of the properties are owned by the City at this time, but some development alternatives would include disposal of the properties through the Surplus Land Act (SLA).

Six potential infill development options, and the ownership proposals, are outlined below:

1. Townhome Style Housing: This type of development is similar to the ‘missing middle’ housing option that was presented to Council in September 2023 as part of the Zoning Audit conducted by Cascadia Partners. Alley loaded townhouses or triplex/quadplex development could provide a vital housing option to the community. This would require a Rezone / General Plan Amendment to R-2, Two Family Residential or R-3, Multifamily Residential, depending on the desired density of development. Potential City collaboration may include entitlement and subdivision support, fee credits, and existing infrastructure around the site. If this alternative is preferred, staff suggests retaining ownership of the properties and going through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP) process for a housing development project that meets the preferred design. Alternatively, the City could overlay specific design guidelines through a zoning Overlay Combining District, and then disposal / sale of the properties in accordance with the SLA.

2. Linear Park: Another alternative is to convert the entire property into a linear style public park with public artwork and passive recreation opportunities. Additionally, there is an opportunity to relocate Veterans Park to this location for higher visibility. Veterans Park is currently located at the intersection of Bridge Street and Sutter Street / Second Street.

3. EV Charging Hub: Providing an EV charging station adjacent to Morley Park could be a great resource along the Bridge Street corridor. Locating charging stations adjacent to activity centers is preferred. Due to the likely utilization of the parking area for the existing park (Morley Park) and a potential future linear park, the City would retain ownership of the properties in this scenario.

4. Mobile Vendor Food Court: Food truck courts have become a major attraction in many urban / suburban areas. This type of use could be used in addition to the EV Charging Hub adjacent to Morley Park, and a potential future linear park.

5. House Inspired Offices: This would involve unique design guidelines to support the development of office spaces in a residential form and would require a Rezone / General Plan Amendment to C-O, Commercial Office. Potential City collaboration may include entitlement and subdivision support, fee credits, and existing infrastructure around the site. The City could overlay specific design guidelines through a zoning Overlay Combining District, and then disposal / sale of the properties in accordance with the SLA. Ultimate build out would be based on the market.

6. Light Industrial Incubator / Maker Space: This would involve unique design guidelines to support the development of light industrial buildings along the corridor and would require a Rezone / General Plan Amendment to M-1, Light Industrial or C-M, Heavy Commercial / M-1, Light Industrial depending on the specific type of incubator space selected. Potential City collaboration may include entitlement and subdivision support, fee credits, and existing infrastructure around the site. The City could overlay specific design guidelines through a zoning Overlay Combining District, and the disposal of property would be subject to the SLA. Ultimate build out would be based on the market.

7. Surplus Land Act Disposal: Another alternative is to dispose of all of the properties through the Surplus Land Act process. From the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website, the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code, §§ 54220-54234) aims to connect developers who are interested in building more affordable homes on surplus local public land that is both available and suitable for housing development. Local agencies must send notices about available, surplus, local public land to all of the following:
• HCD
• Any local public entity within the jurisdiction where the surplus local land is located. • Developers who have notified HCD of their interest in developing affordable housing on

surplus local public land.

Prior to agreeing to terms to dispose of surplus property, local agencies must send a description of notices of availability sent, and negotiations conducted, in addition to a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property to HCD. In January 2024, AB 480 and SB 747 passed to further clarify the SLA. One of the key changes outlines new categories of exempt surplus land, which includes land less than ½ acre, land transferred to a community land trust, land owned by public airport (where residential use is prohibited) or transit agencies and land transferred to third party intermediaries among others.

The development options listed above serve as a valuable starting point, but these alternatives may not encompass the full spectrum of possibilities. The dynamic nature of land development calls for adaptability, prompting a consideration of a hybrid approach as a nuanced and comprehensive solution.

Fiscal Impact:

Impact to be determined based on the recommendation provided.

Alternatives:

1. Provide staff with direction to explore additional land use types not discussed.

2. Leave the remnant property as is and add the area to the City’s weed abatement program until a project and funding is established in the budget.

3. Establish an Ad Hoc Committee to further investigate potential options.

Recommendations:

A. Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding preferred development alternatives.

B. Temporarily add properties to the City’s weed abatement program and direct staff to initiate feasibility and implementation of preferred alternatives, including actions to initiate disposal / sale of surplus parcels located at 670 Brown Avenue and 977 Bridge Street.

Attachments:

1. Property Location Map
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ashley Potočnik
Development Liaison
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

Bridge Street Widening – Remnant Property

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