Agenda packet — Yuba City City Council, May 7, 2024 (part 2 of 4)

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 4
(d) Nothing to the contrary herein withstanding, Buyer shall be deemed to have automatically objected to all leases, deeds of trust, mortgages, judgment liens, federal and state income tax liens, delinquent general and special real property taxes and assessments and similar monetary encumbrances affecting the Property, and Seller shall discharge any such nonpermitted title matter of record prior to or concurrently with the Close of Escrow.

6.2 Title Policy. At the Close of Escrow, Escrow Holder shall furnish Buyer with an ALTA/CLTA Standard Owner's Policy of title insurance (“Owner’s Title Policy”) insuring title to the Property vested in Buyer in the amount of the Purchase Price, containing only exceptions approved or waived by Buyer in accordance with this Section. The cost of the Owner’s Title Policy shall be paid by Seller. The cost of any endorsements or extended coverage shall be paid by Buyer.

7. STATUTORY DISCLOSURES & DUE DILIGENCE.

7.1 Natural Hazard Disclosure Report with Tax Disclosures. Within two (2) days after the Opening of Escrow, Escrow Holder shall order and deliver to Buyer a comprehensive natural hazard disclosure and tax report from Disclosure Source (“NHD Report”) for Buyer’s review and approval. If Buyer disapproves the NHD Report, Buyer shall notify Seller with a copy to Escrow Holder within the Due Diligence Period. If Buyer does not disapprove the NHD Report within the Due Diligence Period, Buyer shall be deemed to have approved it. Buyer shall execute the acknowledgement statement that accompanies the NHD Report and deliver a copy to Seller.

7.2 Material Facts & Insurance Claims. Within two (2) days of the Opening of Escrow, Seller shall disclose to Buyer in writing all known material facts and defects including known insurance claims within the last five (5) years preceding the Agreement Date

7.3 Other Statutory Disclosures. Within two (2) days of Opening of Escrow, Seller shall deliver to Buyer all other applicable statutory disclosures (including, but not limited to, notice or actual knowledge of release of illegal controlled substance, etc.) as required by law for Buyer’s review and approval. If Buyer disapproves any such disclosures, Buyer shall notify Seller with a copy to Escrow Holder within the Due Diligence Period. If Buyer does not disapprove a statutory disclosure within the Due Diligence Period, Buyer shall be deemed to have approved it and Buyer shall execute any documents reasonably required by Seller to evidence same and deliver same to Seller.

7.4 Documents and Materials. Within five (5) days following the Agreement Date, if not already delivered, Seller shall deliver to Buyer copies of any engineering reports and drawings, soils reports, geotechnical studies, site history investigations, copies of all lease, copies of all contracts, copies of all correspondence with tenants and any governmental or quasi-governmental agency, preliminary title report and all other documents, studies and materials related to project entitlements (not including the general plan, any specific plan, or the Yuba City Municipal Code), CC&R's, toxics reports and Phase 1 environmental studies, development agreements, and any other relevant documents affecting Property (collectively, "Documents and Materials"). Seller makes no representation concerning the adequacy or accuracy of any of the Documents and Materials, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. The Documents and Materials are intended to be a starting point for Buyer to begin its own independent investigation of the Property and not an analysis of or representation as to the physical, economic, land use or other issues or matters involved in the development of the Property. The Documents and Materials may undergo, or may have already undergone,

Page 164 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 5
significant revisions or even total elimination. Seller has not attempted to update the Documents and Materials, and no one is entitled to rely on the information contained therein, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. Buyer, as a part of its due diligence, shall make an independent determination as to the reliability and completeness of the information contained in the Documents and Materials.

7.5 Due Diligence. For a period of up to sixty (60) days following the Opening of Escrow ("Due Diligence Period"), Buyer shall have the right to review and inspect the Documents and Materials and the Property and conduct such tests as reasonably determined by Buyer. Buyer shall make reasonable efforts to expediate any and all investigations provided same does not involve additional cost to Seller. As of the Agreement Date, Seller grants to Buyer, its agents and employees, upon reasonable notice to Seller, a limited license to enter the Property for the purpose of conducting such due diligence as reasonably required by Buyer at Buyer's sole cost and expense. As a condition to Buyer's entry and inspection, Buyer shall keep the Property free and clear of all materialmen's liens, lis pendens or any other liens arising out of the entry and any work performed under this Agreement. Buyer shall notify Seller in writing ("Buyer's Due Diligence Notice") on or before the expiration of the Due Diligence Period of Buyer's approval of the condition of the Property as well as the NHD Report, all other disclosures and notices delivered to Buyer under this Agreement, which approval may be withheld in Buyer's sole discretion. Failure of Seller to provide access to the Property to make inspect the Property at a day and time requested by Buyer shall be a material breach of this Agreement and Buyer shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement and the escrow and upon such termination, Escrow Officer shall immediately refund the Deposit to Buyer with no further instructions from Buyer or Seller. Should Buyer fail to deliver the Buyer's Due Diligence Notice to Escrow Holder and Seller prior to the end of the Due Diligence Period in accordance with Section 12 below, this Agreement shall automatically terminate, the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer, all other funds deposited by Buyer into Escrow and then held in Escrow shall be returned to Buyer, and the parties shall have no further obligation to each other except for any other obligations under this Agreement which, by their terms, are to survive the termination of this Agreement.

7.6 Indemnity: Buyer agrees to defend and indemnify Seller for any claims that arise out of Buyer’s inspection or testing of the Property.

8. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CLOSE OF ESCROW.

8.1 Conditions to Buyer's Obligations. The obligations of Buyer under this Agreement are subject to the satisfaction or written waiver, in whole or in part, by Buyer of each of the following conditions precedent (“Buyer’s Conditions Precedent”):
(a) Title Company will issue the Owner’s Title Policy as specified in Section 6.2. (b) Escrow Holder holds and will deliver to Buyer the instruments accruing to Buyer pursuant to this Agreement.
(c) Seller is not in default of its obligations under this Agreement. (d) Buyer has delivered Buyer's Due Diligence Notice approving the condition of the Property.
(e) After the end of the Due Diligence period, there shall have occurred no material

Page 165 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 6
adverse change in the condition of the Property, in the permitted use or zoning of the Property, or in any other matter relating to the Property. (f) Each and every one of Seller's limited representations and warranties contained in this Agreement shall be true and correct in every material respect as further described and set forth in Section 9.

8.2 Conditions to Seller's Obligations. The obligations of Seller under this Agreement are subject to the satisfaction or written waiver, in whole or in part, by Seller of the following conditions precedent:
(a) Escrow Holder holds and will deliver to Seller the instruments and funds accruing to Seller pursuant to this Agreement.
(b) Buyer shall have executed all documents required under this Agreement and delivered same to Seller.
(c) Buyer is not in default of its obligations under this Agreement.

9. LIMITED REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES.

9.1 Limited Representations and Warranties. Seller hereby makes the following representations and warranties to Buyer to the best of its knowledge and without the duty to investigate, each of which is true in all respects as of the Agreement Date and the Opening of Escrow and shall be true in all respects on the date of Close of Escrow on the Property:
a. Seller has received no notice and/or has no knowledge that any governmental authority or any employee or agent thereof considers the present or proposed operation, use or ownership of the Property to violate or have violated any ordinance, rule, law, regulation or order of any government or agency, body or subdivision thereof, or that any investigation has been commenced or is contemplated respecting such possible violations. b. There are no pending or threatened lawsuits or claims which would affect the Property.
c. The Property is not subject to a homeowner’s association nor any such association assessments.
d. The Property is not in violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to the environmental conditions on, under or about the Property including, but not limited to, soil and ground water conditions. e. Seller has received no written notice from any third parties, prior owners of the Property, or any federal, state or local governmental agency indicating that any hazardous waste remedial or clean-up work will be required on the Property. There are no environmental, health or safety hazards on, under or about the Property, including but not limited to soil and groundwater conditions.
f. There are no contracts, leases, claims or rights affecting the Property and no agreements entered into by or under Seller that shall survive the Close of Escrow.

Page 166 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 7
g. Until the Closing, Seller shall not do anything which would impair Seller’s title to any of the Property.
h. Seller is not, and as of the Close of Escrow will not be, a foreign person within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Section 1445 or an out-of-state seller under California Revenue and Tax Code Section 18805 and that it will deliver to Buyer through Escrow a nonforeign affidavit on Escrow Holder's standard form pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 1445(b)(2) and the Regulations promulgated thereunder and a California Form 590-RE (“Nonforeign Affidavit”). i. Until the Closing, if Seller learns of any fact or condition which would cause any of the warranties and representations in this Section not to be true as of the Closing, Seller shall immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to Buyer. j. No construction or repair work has been done on the Property within the six (6) months prior to the Opening of Escrow.
k. . All non-delinquent general and special real property taxes and assessments shall be prorated to the Close of Escrow on the basis of a thirty (30) day month and a three hundred sixty day (360) year. Any supplemental tax bills received after Close of Escrow shall be paid by Seller to the extent they relate to a period prior to Close of Escrow, and by Buyer, to the extent they relate to a period after Close of Escrow. If a supplemental tax bill (which may include possessory interest taxes) covers a period commencing before and continuing after Close of Escrow, the party named in the bill will pay the tax and the other party shall reimburse the first party its pro rata share within thirty (30) days after receipt of a copy of the tax bill and evidence of the second party's payment of same.
l.

9.2 Breach; Indemnification. If a breach of a representation, warranty or covenants occurs before Closing and Buyer is aware that such a breach has occurred, the breach shall be grounds to terminate this Agreement in Buyer’s sole discretion. If Buyer does not elect to terminate this Agreement, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived any such breach.

10. ESCROW PROVISIONS.

10.1 Escrow Instructions. Sections 1; 2 through 6 inclusive, 8, 10, 12 and 13 constitute the escrow instructions to Escrow Holder. If required by Escrow Holder, Buyer and Seller agree to execute Escrow Holder's standard escrow instructions, provided that the same are consistent with and do not conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event of any such conflict, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. The terms and conditions in sections of this Agreement not specifically referenced above are additional matters for information of Escrow Holder, but about which Escrow Holder need not be concerned. Buyer and Seller will receive Escrow Holder’s general provisions directly from Escrow Holder and will execute such provision upon Escrow Holder’s request. To the extent that the general provisions are inconsistent or conflict with this Agreement, the general provisions will control as to the duties and obligations of Escrow Holder only. Buyer and Seller agree to execute additional instructions, documents and forms provide by Escrow Holder that are reasonably necessary to close Escrow.

10.2 General Escrow Provisions. Escrow Holder shall deliver the Owner’s Title Policy

Page 167 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 8
to Buyer and instruct the Sutter County Recorder to mail the Grant Deed to Buyer at the address set forth in Section 12 after recordation. All funds received in this Escrow shall be deposited in one or more general escrow accounts of the Escrow Holder with any bank doing business in Sutter County, California, and may be disbursed to any other general escrow account or accounts. All disbursements shall be according to that party's instructions.

10.3 Utilities. Buyer and Seller shall cause all utilities which are in the name of Seller to be transferred to the name of Buyer as of the Close of Escrow or as soon thereafter as practicable. Utilities shall be prorated to the Close of Escrow. In the event final amounts with respect to said prorations are not available as of Close of Escrow, the proration shall be done on an estimated basis and the parties shall prepare a final proration within sixty (60) days following Close of Escrow. Any party who is obligated to pay net amounts based on said final proration shall reimburse the other party said amount within thirty (30) days after completion of the final proration.

10.4 Real Property Taxes. Seller is a public agency and exempt from real property taxes so no prorations will be required at Closing.

10.5 Payment of Costs.
a. Cost Allocation. Seller shall pay the costs for the Owner’s Title Policy, onehalf of escrow costs and recording fees (“Buyer’s Charges”). Seller shall pay the cost of the NHD Report, documentary transfer taxes, one-half of the escrow costs and any fees and costs charged by any lender to obtain releases or consents or otherwise put title in the condition described in Section 6 (“Seller’s Charges”). All other costs of Escrow not otherwise specifically allocated by this Agreement shall be apportioned between the parties in a manner consistent with the custom and usage of Escrow Holder. b. Closing Statement. At least three (3) business days prior to the Closing Statement. At least three (3) business days prior to the Closing Date, Escrow Holder shall furnish Buyer and Seller with a preliminary Escrow closing statement which shall include each party’s respective shares of costs. The preliminary closing statement shall be approved in writing by the parties. As soon as reasonably possible following the Close of Escrow, Escrow Holder shall deliver a copy of the final Escrow closing statement to the Parties.

10.6 Termination and Cancellation of Escrow. If Escrow fails to close as provided above, either party may elect to cancel this Escrow upon written notice to the other party and Escrow Holder. Upon cancellation, Escrow Holder is instructed to return all funds and documents then in Escrow to the respective depositor of the same with Escrow Holder.

Cancellation of Escrow, as provided herein, shall be without prejudice to whatever legal rights Buyer or Seller may have against each other arising from the Escrow or this Agreement.

10.7 Intentionally Deleted.

10.8 No Withholding as Foreign Seller. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that Seller is not, and as of the Close of Escrow will not be, a foreign person within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code § 1445 or an out-of-state seller under California Revenue and Tax Code § 18805 and that it will deliver to Buyer on or before the Close of Escrow a non-foreign affidavit on Escrow Holder's standard form pursuant to Internal Revenue Code §1445(b)(2) and the

Page 168 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 9
Regulations promulgated thereunder and a California Form 590-RE.

10.9 Brokerage Commissions. Both parties are represented by a broker. Buyer and Seller each agree to indemnify and hold the other parties harmless from and against all liabilities, costs, damages and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, resulting from any claims or fees or commissions, based upon agreements by it, if any, to pay a broker's commission and/or finder's fee except as specified above. Seller to pay six (6%) commission of the total sales price to broker.

11. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.

IF BUYER SHOULD MATERIALLY DEFAULT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, BUYER AND

SELLER AGREE THAT SELLER WILL INCUR DAMAGES BY REASON OF SUCH

DEFAULT WHICH DAMAGES SHALL BE IMPRACTICAL AND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO ASCERTAIN. THEREFORE, BUYER AND SELLER, IN A REASONABLE EFFORT TO ASCERTAIN WHAT SELLER’S DAMAGES

WOULD BE IN THE EVENT OF SUCH DEFAULT BY BUYER HAVE AGREED BY

PLACING THEIR INITIALS BELOW THAT THE DEPOSIT SHALL CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF SELLER’S DAMAGES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 1671 AND 1677 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR A BREACH PRIOR TO THE CLOSING. IF BUYER FAILS TO PROMPTLY DELIVER THE

SUM SPECIFIED ABOVE TO SELLER, SUCH FAILURE SHALL CONSTITUTE A

MATERIAL BREACH OF THIS PROVISION AND SELLER MAY ELECT TO SUE BUYER

UNDER THIS PROVISION OR TO WAIVE THIS PROVISION AND PROCEED AGAINST BUYER FOR ALL APPLICABLE DAMAGES RESULTING FROM BUYER’S DEFAULT. ___________________ ___________________
Seller’s Initials Buyer’s Initials

12. NOTICES. Any notices, demands or communications under this Agreement between the parties shall be in writing, and may be given by (i) personal service, (ii) overnight delivery, or (iii) mailing via United States mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested (“US Mail”), addressed to each party as set forth below or such other address as may be furnished in writing by a party, and such notice or communication shall, if properly addressed, be deemed to have been given (a) as of the date so delivered under delivery methods (i) or (ii) above, or (b) three (3) business days after deposit into the U.S. Mail.

To Seller: City of Yuba City as Successor Agency
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
Attn: Diana Langley, Executive Director
With a Copy to: Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
2440 Tulare Street Suite 410
Fresno, CA 93721
Attn: Shannon Chaffin, Agency Counsel
To Buyer: Sutter Valley Medical Foundation
c/o Sutter Health Facility & Property Services
Attn: Director of Real Estate
2200 River Plaza Drive, Floor 2

Page 169 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 10
Sacramento, CA 95833
With a copy to: Sutter Health Office of General Counsel Attn: Cindy Condos, Esq.
2200 River Plaza Drive, Floor 3
Sacramento, CA 95833
To Escrow Holder: Placer Title Company
1425 Butte House Road
Yuba City, CA 95993
Ana Campos, Senior Escrow Officer

13. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

13.1 Assignment. Neither party shall have the right to assign this Agreement or any interest or right hereunder or under the Escrow without the prior written consent of the other party. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of Buyer and Seller and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Buyer shall have the right to assign its interests under this Agreement, with notice but without Seller's consent (1) to any entity controlled by, or under common control with, Buyer or any principal of Buyer, or its permitted assignees or transferees; or (2) in connection with a merger, reorganization, transfer, sale of assets, or change of control or ownership of Buyer, or its permitted successive assignees or transferees.

13.2 Dispute Resolution. The parties will use reasonable efforts to informally meet and confer to try and resolve any dispute arising under this Agreement, including a breach of this Agreement, and provide for appropriate remedies of a party damaged by the breach of this Agreement by the other party (a "Dispute"). The parties will meet and confer about any Dispute within thirty (30) days of a written request submitted by any party in accordance with Section 7.2 above, in an effort to settle that dispute. If the parties are not able to resolve the Dispute, then any Dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, interpretation, validity or termination, will be referred to and definitively resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et seq., and the arbitration shall be administered by JAMS in accordance with its Streamlined Arbitration Rules & Procedures. The place of arbitration will be Sacramento, California. The judgment of the arbitration tribunal will be accompanied by a written statement of the basis for such judgment and may be enforced by any court having proper jurisdiction. The provisions of this Section will not preclude the parties from seeking equitable remedies in aid of arbitration from a court of appropriate jurisdiction and will survive the termination of this Agreement.

13.3 Attorney’s Fees. In any action between the parties hereto, seeking enforcement of any of the terms and provisions of this Agreement or the Escrow, or in connection with the Property, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled, to have and to recover from the other party its reasonable attorneys' fees and other reasonable expenses in connection with such action or proceeding, in addition to its recoverable court costs.

13.4 Interpretation; Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by both parties hereto. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California in effect at the time of the execution of this Agreement. Titles and captions are for convenience only and shall not constitute a portion of

Page 170 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 11
this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates.

13.5 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party in exercising any right or power accruing upon the compliance or failure of performance by the other party under the provisions of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either party of a breach of any of the covenants, conditions or agreements hereof to be performed by the other party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants, agreements, restrictions or conditions hereof.

13.6 Modifications. Any alteration, change or modification of or to this Agreement, in order to become effective, shall be made by written instrument or endorsement thereon and in each such instance executed on behalf of each party hereto.

13.7 Severability. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Agreement or the application thereof to any party or circumstances shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this instrument, or the application of such term, provisions, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

13.8 Merger. This Agreement and other documents incorporated herein by reference contain the entire understanding between the parties relating to the transaction contemplated hereby and all prior to contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged herein and shall be of no further force or effect.

13.9 Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, and all so executed shall constitute one agreement binding on all parties hereto, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart.

Signatures transmitted by emailing a ".pdf" signature, including signatures done via DocuSign, shall be binding.

13.10Calculation of Time Periods; Business Days. If any date for performance under this Agreement falls on a day that is not a Business Day, then the date of performance shall be the next day which is a Business Day, and the next time period shall be calculated from and after the date of such actual date for performance. "Business Day" shall mean any day which is not any one or more of the following: (a) a Saturday, Sunday, national or state holiday, (b) a day on which Escrow Holder is not open for business, or (c) a day on which the Office of the County Recorder of Sutter County is closed or otherwise not accepting documents for recording.

Where a time for performance is set forth herein, the applicable time zone shall be the time zone in the County in which the Purchase Property is located.

13.11Exhibits. Exhibits A, B, and C attached hereto are incorporated herein by reference.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions as of the date set forth above.

Note: Section 11 needs to be separately initialed by the parties.

Page 171 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 12
BUYER: SELLER:

Sutter Valley Medical Foundation, a California
nonprofit public benefit corporation, dba Sutter
Medical Foundation (SMF)
By:

Name:

Its:

Dated: ________________, 2024
Accepted and agreed to:

ESCROW HOLDER:

PLACER TITLE
By: _________________________
Ana Campos, Escrow Officer
Dated: ________________, 2024

CITY OF YUBA CITY AS SUCCESSOR
AGENCY
By: _______________________________
Diana Langley, Executive Director
Dated: _________________, 2024
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy Agency Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
By: ___________________________
Shannon Chaffin, Agency Counsel

Page 172 of 931 ends

01248.0021/968879.2 1

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
That certain real property in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California legally described as follows:

PARCEL ONE:

Being a portion of Lot 4 of the New Helvetia Rancho and Lot 38 of Township 15 North, Range 3 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, and located in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California and being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the centerline intersection of Plumas Boulevard and C street as shown on Parcel Map no. 908, filed on April 21, 1994 in Book 5 of Parcel Maps at page 118, in the office of the Sutter County Recorder; thence South 14 degrees 34 minutes 33 seconds West, along the centerline of Plumas Boulevard a distance of 377.08 feet; thence South 75 degrees 25 minutes 27 seconds East, along a line perpendicular to the centerline of Plumas Boulevard a distance of

85.00 feet to the Easterly line thereof; thence North 14 degrees 34 minutes 33 seconds East along said Easterly line of Plumas Boulevard a distance of 385.42 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southeast, having a radius of 25.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 54 degrees 33 minutes 01 seconds an arc distance of 23.80 feet to the Southerly line of 'C' Street; thence North 69 degrees 07 minutes 34 seconds East along said Southerly line of 'C' Street a distance of 165.43 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 25.00 feet; thence Southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 90 degrees 07 minutes 58 seconds an arc distance of 39.33 feet; thence North 69 degrees 01 minutes 21 seconds East, a distance of 32.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 20 degrees 58 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 263.27 feet to the North property line of Parcel 2 as shown on Parcel Map no. 835 filed on May 10, 1990 in Book 5 of Parcel Maps at page 45, in the office of the Sutter County Recorder; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East, along the Northerly property line of Parcel 2 and its Easterly extension a distance of 145.13 feet to the Westerly line of Wilbur Avenue; thence North 11 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds West, along the Westerly line of Wilbur Avenue a distance of 306.38 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 31.50 feet; thence Northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 99 degrees 28 minutes 23 seconds an arc distance of 54.69 feet to the Southerly line of 'C' Street; thence South 69 degrees 07 minutes 34 seconds West along said Southerly line of 'C' Street a distance of 98.86 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 25.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 89 degrees 52 minutes 02 seconds an arc distance of 39.21 feet; thence South 69 degrees 01 minutes 21 seconds West, a distance of 32.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

PARCEL TWO:

Those certain appurtenant easements for parking, vehicular and pedestrian Ingress and egress as described in that certain Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded November 30, 2000, as Instrument No, 2000-0017126.

APN: 52-380-017

Page 173 of 931 ends

01248.0021/968879.2 1

EXHIBIT B

GRANT DEED

FREE RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

Sutter Valley Medical Foundation,
c/o Sutter Health Facility &
Property Services
Attn: Director of Real Estate
2200 River Plaza Drive, Second Floor
Sacramento, CA 95833
____________________________________________________________________________

GRANT DEED
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CITY OF YUBA CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY to the former Redevelopment Agency of City of Yuba City, a public agency (“Grantor”), hereby grants to Sutter Valley Medical Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, dba Sutter Medical Foundation (SMF) (“Grantee”), that certain real property in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Property”).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed on its behalf by its respective officers or agents hereunto as of the date below.

GRANTOR:

DATED: _______________, 2024

CITY OF YUBA CITY AS SUCCESSOR
AGENCY to the former Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Yuba City, a public
agency
By: _____________________________
Diana Langley,
Executive Director
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy Agency Secretary
APN 052-380-017 (Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Office Use Only) THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR DECLARES:

Documentary Transfer Tax is: $___
(Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov. Code §6103)
Not to be executed until closing

Page 174 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 1

EXHIBIT A TO GRANT DEED

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That certain real property in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California legally described as follows:

PARCEL ONE:

PARCEL TWO:

APN: 52-380-017

Page 175 of 931 ends

01248.0021/968879.2 1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.

COUNTY OF ____________ )
On _________________, 2024 before me, ___________________________, a notary public, personally appeared _______________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_________________________________________
Notary Public
SEAL:

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.

Page 176 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 2

EXHIBIT C

DEED RESTRICTION

FREE RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
Attn: City Manager
____________________________________________________________________________

DEED RESTRICTION
If ten (10) or more residential units are developed on the Property, not less than 15 percent of the total number of residential units developed on the property shall be sold or rented at affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, or affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code, to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Rental units shall remain affordable to and occupied by lower income households for a period of 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing. The initial occupants of all ownership units shall be lower income households, and the units shall be subject to an equity sharing agreement consistent with the provisions of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of 65915 of the California Government Code. These requirements shall be covenants or restrictions running with the land and shall be enforceable against any owner who violates a covenant or restriction and each successor-in-interest who continues the violation by any of the entities described in subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, of Section 54222.5 of the California Government Code.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed on its behalf by its respective officers or agents hereunto as of the date below.

APN 052-380-017-000 (Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Office Use Only) THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR DECLARES:

Documentary Transfer Tax is: $___
(Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov. Code §6103)

Page 177 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 3
GRANTOR:

DATED: _______________, 2024

CITY OF YUBA CITY AS SUCCESSOR
AGENCY to the former Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Yuba City, a public
agency
By: _____________________________
Diana Langley
Executive Director
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy Agency Secretary
Not to be executed until closing

Page 178 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0021/968879.2 1

EXHIBIT A TO DEED RESTRICTION

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That certain real property in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California legally described as follows:

PARCEL ONE:

PARCEL TWO:

APN: 52-380-017

Page 179 of 931 ends

{01722451 v.4} 01248.0012/919634.1 1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_________________________________________
Notary Public
SEAL:

Page 180 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 181 of 931 ends

52-380-019
52-380-025
52-380-017
53-194-013
52-401-014
53-220-030
52-401-009
B
C
WILBUR
PLUMAS
PERCY

FRANKLIN
A
MOORE

NIELSON
ELM

DEL MONTE

WOODBRIDGE
PALM
DORMAN
TABER
MORTON
ROWE
JEWELL
WILLOW
SPRUCE
BROOKS

EMERSON
MAIN

CAMPBELL
BOYD

BENNETT

TOWN SQUARE

STEVENS
PERCY

DEL MONTE
C
TABER
1 inch = 300 feet
Legend
City owned parcels
Successor Agency owned parcels
Parcels

VICINITY MAP

Page 182 of 931 ends

Agenda Item 15

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Sutter County 2023 CDBG - Pathway to Work Program - Extension Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution amending the Agreement between the City of Yuba City and Sutter County for the Pathway to Work Program, to allow for an extension to expend the 2023 CDBG funding allocation
Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal impacts would result from extending the subrecipient agreement.

Purpose:

To amend the Agreement between the City of Yuba City and Sutter County for Pathway to Work Program to extend the Time of Performance to December 31, 2024, for Sutter County to expend its 2023 CDBG funding allocation.

Council's strategic Goal:

This item addresses Council's goals of fiscal responsibility and public safety.

Background:

The City executes Subrecipient Agreements with organizations receiving CDBG funding for each Program Year. These Agreements include a section on “Time of Performance” that states that the CDBG funds received for that fiscal year must be spent within that fiscal year.

Analysis:

Sutter County was awarded $26,000 in 2023 CDBG funding to administer the Pathway to Work Program. This program aims to provide job training and stipends to homeless individuals for a 12-week period. Pathway to Work is a pilot program, new to both Sutter County and within the City’s CDBG program. Due to this, Sutter County has been working through collaborative and legal logistics to implement this program and has updated City staff throughout the process. Sutter County has requested an extension to the Agreement, so that they may effectively complete the 12-week program.

Under the Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines, it is within the grantees’ (the City) jurisdiction to allow for and execute an extension for subrecipients, and City staff has determined that an extension to December 31, 2024, is sufficient for Sutter County to expend their 2023 CDBG allocation of funding.

Page 183 of 931 ends

Fiscal Impact:

No direct fiscal impacts would result from extending the subrecipient agreement.

Alternatives:

1. Do not authorize Development Services to amend the 2023 Subrecipient Agreement with Sutter County.

2. Direct staff on how to address Sutter County’s 2023 CDBG funds.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution amending the Agreement between the City of Yuba City and Sutter County for Pathway to Work Program, to allow for an extension to expend its 2023 CDBG funding allocation.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution Amending the 2023 CDBG Agreement between City of Yuba City and Sutter County

2. Attachment 2 - Sutter County 2023 CDBG Quarterly Reporting Prepared By: Submitted By:

Shannon Sardo
Administrative Analyst
Diana Langley
City Manager

Page 184 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 185 of 931 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

AMENDING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AND

SUTTER COUNTY FOR PATHWAY TO WORK PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR
AN EXTENSION TO EXPEND ITS 2023 CDBG FUNDING ALLOCATION WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the City Council of the City of Yuba City entered into the Agreement Between The City of Yuba City and Sutter County for Pathway to Work Program, whereby Sutter County as a subrecipient was awarded $26,000 in 2023 community development block grant (CDBG) funding to administer the Pathway to Work Program; and, WHEREAS, the Program provides job training and stipends to homeless individuals; and, WHEREAS, the Agreement contains deadlines for Sutter County to complete the Program and WHEREAS, as a result, Sutter County has requested the Agreement be amended to provide an extension of time so that it is able to utilize the funding effectively; and, WHEREAS, per Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines, the City has authority to allow for and execute an extension for subrecipients; and, WHEREAS, an extension to December 31, 2024, is sufficient for Sutter County to expend its 2023 CDBG allocation of funding and complete program requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend the Agreement to provide an extension for performance to December 31, 2024.

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

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated as if set forth in full.

2. The Development Services Director, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City of Yuba City an amendment to the Agreement Between the City of Yuba City and Sutter County for Pathway to Work Program, substantially in the form attached hereto, and subject to approval as to legal form by the City Attorney.

3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.

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 7th day of May 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 186 of 931 ends

Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___ ____
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

Page 187 of 931 ends

EXHIBIT A

Page 188 of 931 ends

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2023 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF YUBA

CITY AND SUTTER COUNTY FOR PATHWAY TO WORK PROGRAM
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Agreement for the Pathway to Work Program (First Amendment) is made this 7th day of May 2024, between the City of Yuba City, California (Grantee) and Sutter County (Subrecipient).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023 the Subrecipient entered into the Agreement Between the City of Yuba City and Sutter County for Pathway to Work Program, with the Grantee for $26,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG funds).

WHEREAS, the Grantee and Subrecipient desire to mutually agree to amend the Agreement by executing this First Amendment to ensure the Subrecipient is able to complete the Pathway to Work Program and meet its obligations pursuant to the Agreement as amended.

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the Agreement, obligations, and representations, the Grantee and Subrecipient hereby agree as follows:

1. SECTION II. TIME OF PERFORMANCE of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

Services of the Subrecipient shall start on the 1st day of July, 2023, or the effective date of the Standard Agreement between the City of Yuba City and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, whichever is later, and end on the 31st day of December, 2024.

All funds received by the Subrecipient under this Agreement shall be spent prior to December 31, 2024. All funds not spent prior to December 31, 2024 shall be returned to the Grantee.

2. SECTION VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, C.4. PROGRESS REPORTS of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

The Subrecipient shall submit regular Progress Reports to the Grantee in the required form and content according to the following schedule:

Quarter Reporting Period Report Due Date
1 st Quarter July 1, 2023 - September 30, 2023 Received 2 nd Quarter October 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023 Received 3 rd Quarter January 1, 2024 – March 31, 2024 Received
4 th Quarter April, 1, 2024 – June 30, 2024 July 15, 2024 5 th Quarter July 1, 2024 – September 30, 2024 October 15, 2024 6 th Quarter October 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 January 15, 2025

Page 189 of 931 ends

3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed on the date first above written by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf.

Subrecipient: Grantee:

Sutter County City of Yuba City
By:__________________________ By:___________________________ Title:________________________________ Title:__________________________ Date:___________ Date:________

Page 190 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 191 of 931 ends

Page 192 of 931 ends

Page 193 of 931 ends

Page 194 of 931 ends

Page 195 of 931 ends

Page 196 of 931 ends

Page 197 of 931 ends

Page 198 of 931 ends

Agenda Item 16

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works
Presentation By: Phil Marler, Deputy Director Public Works - Utilities Summary
Subject: Fleet Maintenance Budget Adjustments
Recommendation: Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental appropriation and related transfers of $200,000 from various City divisions to the Fleet Maintenance Division operating budget (Account No. 6605) for vehicle and equipment services for the remainder of Fiscal Year 23/24
Fiscal Impact: $200,000 – Account No. 63501 (Vehicle Maintenance ISF) from 21 divisions per Attachment 1
Purpose:

To provide the necessary additional funding to ensure the continued internal services provided by the Fleet Maintenance Division.

Council's Strategic Goal:

This item addresses the Council's strategic goals of Fiscal Responsibility and Public Safety by providing the necessary funding for the Fleet Maintenance Division’s support of City operations, including Fire, Police, and Public Works.

Background:

The City’s Fleet Maintenance Division in the Public Works Department maintains the majority of the City’s vehicles and specialty equipment by providing in-house services and coordinating outside repairs for all departments, including public safety. The Fleet Maintenance operating budget (Account No. 6605) ensures that the City can efficiently coordinate the majority repair of various priority equipment for the City’s departments. A shortage of adequate funding for parts and labor compromises both emergency repairs and regular maintenance schedules, which could lead to increased downtime, costly repairs, and potential safety hazards for our employees and the community.

Over the past few months, Fleet has experienced unanticipated maintenance costs that have strained the 23/24 budget allocation. Rising costs for parts, service, and a difficult-to-fill journey-level Mechanic vacancy is projected to have significant funding shortfall for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Staff requests transferring additional funds into the operating budget in order to address the urgent maintenance needs, conduct preventive maintenance on schedule, and uphold the operational

Page 199 of 931 ends

readiness of our fleet.

Analysis:

Fleet’s operating budget is an internal service fund, which is shared proportionately across all departments based on the percentage of service efforts provided to each department during the prior calendar year. Staff calculated the department cost shares to meet the projected shortfall amount by utilizing the same cost formulas used to determine the Fiscal Year 23/24 Vehicle Maintenance budgets (Attachment 1). This maintains consistency with the City’s accounting practices and cost sharing through the entire fiscal year; the actual maintenance and repairs funded by these transfers in calendar year 2024 will then be used to calculate equitable cost appropriation in Fiscal Year 25/26.

Fiscal Impact:

The net projected budgetary shortfall for Fiscal Year 23/24 is $200,000, after utilizing any available budgeted funds. The Public Works and Finance Departments recommend the costs be apportioned to the 21 operating divisions, per Attachment 1 to fund the Fleet Maintenance budget, Account No. 63501 (Vehicle Maintenance ISF), through June 30.

Alternatives:

Do not authorize the Finance Director to make the supplemental appropriation and transfers. This will likely result in substantial delays in both emergency and preventative maintenance through the remainder of the fiscal year which may impact critical services.

Recommendation:

Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental appropriation and related transfers of $200,000 from various City divisions to the Fleet Maintenance Division operating budget (Account No. 6605) for vehicle and equipment services for the remainder of Fiscal Year 23/24.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Vehicle Maintenance Fund Supplemental Appropriation Cost Shares Prepared By: Submitted By:

Phillip Marler
Deputy Public Works Director – Utilities
Diana Langley
City Manager

Page 200 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 201 of 931 ends

FY 23/24 Shortfall
Fund Expenditures Percentage
Supplemental
Appropriation
1530 18,005.14 1.8071% 3,614.11
1541 4,930.43 0.4948% 989.67
1905 1,403.57 0.1409% 281.73
1920 3,621.08 0.3634% 726.85
1930 5,976.38 0.5998% 1,199.62
2110 13,534.52 1.3584% 2,716.74
2120 2,817.37 0.2828% 565.52
2130 40,307.60 4.0454% 8,090.80
2140 264,989.19 26.5952% 53,190.36
2150 - 0.0000% -
2155 - 0.0000% -
2305 6,280.23 0.6303% 1,260.61
2310 266,732.82 26.7702% 53,540.35
3130 77,106.56 7.7387% 15,477.33
3150 13,390.70 1.3439% 2,687.87
5110 5,753.36 0.5774% 1,154.85
5115 64,779.65 6.5015% 13,002.99
6605 52,511.61 5.2702% 10,540.47
7110 42,663.73 4.2819% 8,563.74
7120 11,857.36 1.1900% 2,380.09
7210 - 0.0000% -
7310 - 0.0000% -
7410 14,967.85 1.5022% 3,004.44
8110 27,660.63 2.7761% 5,552.22
8120 55,189.06 5.5390% 11,077.91
8140 1,901.76 0.1909% 381.73
$ 200,000.00 996,380.60 $
Calendar Year 2022
Fleet Maintenance Division - Vehicle Maintenance Fund

Page 202 of 931 ends

Agenda Item 17

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: First Amended Improvement Agreement Final Map of Harter Marketplace Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to approve the execution of the First Amended Improvement Agreement Final Map of Harter Marketplace with Harter Packing Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and Dharni Lada Yuba City, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company [Development is located on the west side of the Harter Parkway and north of State Route 20] Fiscal Impact: Minimal staff time.

Purpose:

To update the subject agreement with recorded references, to accurately reflect the recorded Phase 1 and Phase 2 Harter Marketplace Final Maps.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

The item supports Council strategic goals related to improving infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner, and partnering with the community to maintain / enhance a business friendly environment.

Background:

On March 19th, 2024, City Council approved the Improvement Agreement entitled “IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL MAP OF HARTER MARKETPLACE Phase 1 and Phase 2” and the subject Final Map. With the approvals, on April 10th, 2024 the Improvement Agreement and Phase 1 Final Map recorded in the office of the Sutter County Recorder. There after on April 16th, 2024 the Phase 2 Final Map was recorded. However, due to sequencing of the recorded documents, the Improvement Agreement did not accurately reflect the Phase 2 Final Map.

Analysis:

Due to recordation sequencing, and limitations associated with modifying recorded documents, minor amendments to the Improvement Agreement are required to accurately reference the associated documents to ensure that the agreement and Final Maps are appropriately referenced

Page 203 of 931 ends

and in full effect.

Fiscal Impact:

Minimal staff time.

Alternatives:

Delay or modify the recommended actions.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to approve the execution of the First Amended Improvement Agreement Final Map of Harter Marketplace with Harter Packing Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and Dharni Lada Yuba City, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. [Development is located on the west side of the Harter Parkway and north of State Route 20.]
Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution of the First Amended Improvement Agreement Final Map of Harter Marketplace

2. Attachment 2 - First Amended Improvement Agreement Final Map of Harter Marketplace Prepared By: Submitted By:

Benjamin K. Moody
Public Works Director
Diana Langley
City Manager

Page 204 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT “1”

Page 205 of 931 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE EXECUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDED

IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL MAP OF HARTER MARKETPLACE WITH HARTER

PACKING GROUP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND DHARNI LADA YUBA CITY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.

WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Yuba City approved the Improvement Agreement entitled “IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL MAP OF HARTER MARKETPLACE Phase 1 and Phase 2” on March 19, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Final Map and Improvement Agreement for Phase 1 of Harter Marketplace recorded in the office of the Sutter County Recorder on April 10, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Final Map for Phase 2 of Harter Marketplace recorded in the office of the Sutter County Recorder on April 16, 2024; and
WHEREAS, due to sequencing, etc., Recital “A” of the Agreement did not include the recording information for the final maps, which cannot be added after recording; and WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to enter into this “FIRST AMENDED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL MAP OF HARTER MARKETPLACE Phase 1 and Phase 2” (“First Amendment”) to amend the Agreement to include the necessary recording information regarding the final maps.; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Yuba City does resolve as follows:

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

2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to approve the execution of the First Amended Improvement Agreement Final Map of Harter Marketplace with Harter Packing Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and Dharni Lada Yuba City, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, subject to approval by the City Attorney as to legal form.

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 7th day of March, 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Page 206 of 931 ends

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

Page 207 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT “2”

Page 208 of 931 ends

01248.0006/967039.2
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
NO FEE-Government Code §6103
Public Works Department
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993

FIRST AMENDED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT

FINAL MAP OF HARTER MARKETPLACE
Phase 1 and Phase 2
(Regarding Tentative Map No. 19-03, Harter Marketplace)

Page 209 of 931 ends

First Amended Improvement Agreement
Final Map of Harter Marketplace
Phase 1 and Phase 2

Page 2 ends

01248.0005/976927.1
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made this 7
th day of May, 2024, by and between the City
of Yuba City, a general law city, ("City"); and Harter Packing Company, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, (“Harter”) and Dharni Lada Yuba City, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (“Dharni”).

RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL MAP OF HARTER MARKETPLACE Phase 1 and Phase 2” recorded on April 10, 2024, in the office of the Sutter County Recorder, as Document No. 2024-0002884 (“Agreement”).

B. Due to sequencing, etc., Recital “A” of the Agreement did not include the recording information for the final maps, which cannot be added after recording.

C. The Parties now desire to enter into this “FIRST AMENDED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL MAP OF HARTER MARKETPLACE Phase 1 and Phase 2” (“First Amendment”) to amend the Agreement to include the necessary recording information regarding the final maps.

AGREEMENT
The Parties do hereby mutually agree as follows:

1. Amendment. Recital “A” of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

A. Subdividers have filed with City Final Maps proposing the subdivision of land owned by Subdividers, situated in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”, dividing the real property more particularly described as follows:

Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, of the Final Map of Harter Marketplace Parcel Map (Phase 1) according to the map thereof recorded on April 10, 2024, in Book 9 of Parcel Maps at Page(s) 26, 26A, and 26B, Sutter County Records; and
Lots 1 through 4, inclusive, of the Final Map of Harter Marketplace Parcel Map (Phase 2) according to the map thereof recorded on April 16, 2024, in Book 9 of Parcel Maps at Page(s) 27, 27A, 27B, and 27C, Sutter County

Page 210 of 931 ends

First Amended Improvement Agreement
Final Map of Harter Marketplace
Phase 1 and Phase 2

Page 3 ends

01248.0005/976927.1
Records.

2. Reaffirmation of Agreement. Except as amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain unchanged and is hereby reaffirmed, ratified and confirmed in its entirety.

If there is any conflict, inconsistency or ambiguity between the Agreement and this First Amendment, then this First Amendment shall govern and control.

3. Entire Agreement. The Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment, constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements among the Parties with respect to the specific matters addressed herein.

4. Execution in Counterpart. This First Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall be deemed but one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this First Amendment.

CITY OF YUBA CITY,
a General Law City
By:

Diana Langley, City Manager
ATTEST
By:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk
Dated:____________________, 2024
(Signatures continued on next page.)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Shannon L. Chaffin,
City Attorney

Page 211 of 931 ends

01248.0005/976927.1

SUBDIVIDER
Harter Packing Company, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company LOMO COLD STORAGE, a California Limited Liability Company, as Member By:

Justin Micheli, II
Its: Manager
Dated:____________________, 2024
RICHLAND RANCHES, LTD, OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, as Member By:

Karmdeep S. Bains
Its: President
Dated:____________________, 2024

SUTTER LAND PROPERTIES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, as Member By:

Surjit S. Tut
Its: Manager
Dated:____________________, 2024
Dharni Lada Yuba City, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company By:

Name: Kulwant Dharni
Title: Manager and designee
Dated:____________________, 2024
*(Attach Notary Acknowledgments)

Page 212 of 931 ends

Agenda Item 18

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Sutter Bike Path Extension - Grant of Easement Deed Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an Easement Deed granting an easement to PG&E for operations and maintenance of their facilities and associated equipment on City-owned property
Fiscal Impact: Minimal staff time to execute and record documents Purpose:

To provide PG&E the right to perform operations and maintenance of their facilities and associated equipment on City-owned land in a manner that facilitates construction of the Sutter Bike Path Extension at the ultimate build-out width of Harter Parkway.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This supports multiple Council strategic goals as the dedication of an easement for operations and maintenance purposes addresses public safety in a fiscally responsible and business friendly manner.

Background:

The Sutter Bike Path Extension project includes construction of a 10-foot wide Class I path along the west side of Harter Parkway between State Route 20 and Butte House Road. To facilitate installing this new path at the ultimate build-out width of Harter Parkway, PG&E must relocate its existing power poles north of Poole Boulevard into an existing 10-foot wide public utility easement that is adjacent to the proposed Class 1 path.

Since the existing public utility easement is only 10 feet wide, additional easement rights are required to provide the necessary clearance. Staff has worked with PG&E to assure the pole relocations are such that the width of the additional easement rights is as small as possible (up to 11 feet wide).

Analysis:

PG&E has provided the attached Easement Deed (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) showing the City property that is subject to this request for a grant of easement, along with the terms of the easement. The City will be prohibited from constructing buildings, fences, or other structures in the easement, but can generally otherwise use the easement area as it sees fit.

Page 213 of 931 ends

Granting this easement will allow PG&E to perform its required operations and maintenance of their facilities and associated equipment. In addition, the easement will allow PG&E, the right from time to time to excavate for, construct, reconstruct, replace, remove, maintain, and inspect on, over, and under the easement area and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across the City-owned Didar S. Bains Park. PG&E requests, and staff recommends, that our City Council grant the easement and authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary easement documents on behalf of the City.

The easement will be transferred to PG&E upon recordation of the Grant Easement in the Sutter County Recorder’s Office.

Fiscal Impact:

PG&E will be required to relocate its existing overhead power lines at its own cost per its franchise agreement with the City. There will be very minimal staff time involved with executing and recording the Grant of Easement.

Alternatives:

Direct staff to modify the easement documents, if desired.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an Easement Deed granting an easement to PG&E for operations and maintenance of their facilities and associated equipment on City-owned property.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Easement Deed
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Joshua Wolffe
Associate Civil Engineer
Diana Langley
City Manager

Page 214 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 215 of 931 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVING AN

EASEMENT DEED FOR THE GRANTING OF AN EASEMENT TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) AT DIDAR S. BAINS PARK
WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City (City) owns certain property as identified on Exhibit “A”; said property is also known as Didar S. Bains Park; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Sutter Bike Path Extension Project requires Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to relocate its existing overhead power facilities into an existing public utility easement along the west side of Harter Parkway north of Poole Boulevard; and WHEREAS, recent wildfires have resulted in PG&E placing an increased emphasis on requiring adequate land rights for the purposes of maintaining vegetation clearance adjacent to its overhead power lines; and
WHEREAS, for the relocated overhead powerlines along Harter Parkway, PG&E requires an additional 11 feet of clearance adjacent to the existing public utility easement; and WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the City to grant an easement to PG&E, and who will make use of the granted easement; and
WHEREAS, the granting of such an easement on City-owned property is in the public interest, and will provide for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.

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

1. The City finds that the mere transfer of an easement to PG&E is not a “project” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. The City Council approves the grant of an easement to PG&E as more particularly described in the “Easement Deed” attached hereto. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute an Easement Deed consistent with the material terms attached hereto, subject to approval as to legal form by the City Attorney. Further, the City Manager is authorized and directed to take any other action necessary to effectuate the granting of said easement, including the execution of any agreement, deed, acknowledgment, or other document, subject to approval by the City Attorney as to legal form.

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 7th day of March, 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Shon Harris, Mayor

Page 216 of 931 ends

ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit A – Easement Deed

Page 217 of 931 ends

EXHIBIT A

Page 218 of 931 ends

Utility Distribution Easement (02/2020)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO:

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 210
Oakland, CA 94612
Attn: Land Rights Library
Location: City/Uninc______________________
Recording Fee $_____________________________
Document Transfer Tax $ __________
[ ] This is a conveyance where the consideration and
Value is less than $100.00 (R&T 11911).
[ ] Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or
[ ] Computed on Full Value Less Liens
& Encumbrances Remaining at Time of Sale
[ ] Exempt from the fee per GC 27388.1 (a) (2); This
document is subject to Documentary Transfer Tax
Signature of declarant or agent determining tax
(SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY)
LD# 2115-03-10143 EASEMENT DEED
CITY OF YUBA CITY, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter called Grantor, hereby grants to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, hereinafter called Grantee, the right from time to time to excavate for, construct, reconstruct, replace (of initial or any other size), remove, maintain, inspect, and use facilities and associated equipment for public utility purposes, including, but not limited to electric, gas, and communication facilities, together with a right of way therefor, on, over, and under the easement area as hereinafter set forth, and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across the lands of Grantor situated in the City of Yuba City, County of Sutter, State of California, described as follows:
(APN 062-310-021)
The parcel of land described and designated PARCEL C in the deed from City of Yuba City, a municipal corporation to City of Yuba City, a municipal corporation dated January 26, 2022 and recorded as Document No. 2022-0002644, Sutter County Records.

The easement area is described as follows:

The strip of land outlined by heavy dashed lines on the print of Grantee's Drawing labeled EXHIBIT “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Grantor further grants to Grantee the right, from time to time, to trim or to cut down, without Grantee paying compensation, any and all trees and brush now or hereafter within said easement area, and shall have the further right, from time to time, to trim and cut down trees and brush along each side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of Grantee may interfere with or be a hazard to the facilities installed hereunder, or as Grantee deems necessary to comply with applicable state or federal regulations.

Page 219 of 931 ends

Utility Distribution Easement (02/2020)
Grantor also grants to Grantee the right to use such portion of said lands contiguous to said easement area as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the excavation, construction, reconstruction, replacement, removal, maintenance and inspection of said facilities.

Grantor hereby covenants and agrees not to place or construct, nor allow a third party to place or construct, any building or other structure, or store flammable substances, or drill or operate any well, or construct any reservoir or other obstruction within said easement area, or diminish or substantially add to the ground level within said easement area, or construct any fences that will interfere with the maintenance and operation of said facilities.

Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to apportion to another public utility (as defined in Section 216 of the California Public Utilities Code) the right to excavate for, construct, reconstruct, replace, remove, maintain, inspect, and use the communications facilities within said easement area including ingress thereto and egress therefrom.

The legal description herein, or the map attached hereto, defining the location of this utility distribution easement, was prepared by Grantee pursuant to Section 8730(c) of the Business and Professions Code.

This document may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.

The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto, and all covenants shall apply to and run with the land.

Dated: __________________, _______.

CITY OF YUBA CITY, a
municipal corporation
By_________________________________
By_________________________________ By:_______________________________ Diana Langley, City Manager
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

By:_______________________________
Benjamin K. Moody, City Engineer
ATTEST:

By:_______________________________
Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:_______________________________
Shannon L. Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP Page 220 of 931
Utility Distribution Easement (02/2020)
State of California
County of )
On __________________________, before me, Notary Public, Insert name personally appeared
,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/theirsignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
[ ] Individual(s) signing for oneself/themselves
[ ] Corporate Officer(s) of the above named corporation(s) [ ] Trustee(s) of the above named Trust(s)
[ ] Partner(s) of the above named Partnership(s)
[ ] Attorney(s)-in-Fact of the above named Principal(s) [ ] Other
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

Page 221 of 931 ends

Utility Distribution Easement (02/2020)
Attach to LD: 2115-03-10143
Area, Region or Location: 6
Land Service Office: Chico
Line of Business: Electric Distribution (43)
Business Doc Type: Easements
MTRSQ: 21.15.03.17.21
FERC License Number: N/A
PG&E Drawing Number: A-15-3-17
Plat No.: O2123
LD of Affected Documents: N/A
LD of Cross Referenced Documents: 2115-03-0024
Type of interest: Electric Pole Line Easements (3), Utility Easement (86) SBE Parcel: N/A
% Being Quitclaimed: N/A
Order or PM: 35332973
JCN: N/A
County: Sutter
Utility Notice Number: N/A
851 Approval Application No: N/A; Decision: N/A
Prepared By: SKBU
Checked By: RVML
Approved By: N/A
Revised by: N/A

Page 222 of 931 ends

NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 SEC. 17,
T. 15N, R. 3E, MDM
LEGEND

SUBJECT PARCEL LINE

PARCEL LINE

EASEMENT BOUNDARY
EXHIBIT '� II
I i I I
J
,l
t, l
�, l
I
•
X

EXISTING DISTRIBUTION POLE LINE

EXISTING TRANSMISSION POLE LINE

TRANSMISSION RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT

NEW POLE LINE

EXISTING POLE
l EAiirl�� JA
: "' I
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••

0.07ACRES± f'I
·,. ",. · ...
'
..
'
\
\
\
\
\ \ \ •• ... '
'\
\
\
\
\
\

NEW POLE
\
\
. ·\
\
\
...
,· .
.

CITY OF YUBA CITY
APN 062-310-021
DOC. NO. 2022-002644

PARCEL C

EXISTING
_,,,,,-

PG&E CO EASEMENT
LD# 2115-03-0024
/ 50 Deeds 331
•• .. .. ...
\ •
.
.
.
.
. .. ·•. '
' ...
'
\
\
\
'
'
\
\
... ..
10' PUE PER I I
DOC. NO.�
2005-002954a I I
'
11 I �I I
CONTIGUOUS I I PG&E CO EASEMENT! I
.. .. ... ·• ...• .. .. .. .. ..
11'----l I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•. I
...

I
\
\ \
HARTER PACKING COMPANY, LLC, ...
\ � \
� ', \ � '
,
\ �o
a California limited liability company
APN 062-310-019 ••
DOC. NO. 2022-0002643

PARCEL D
' � ' '\, �, ', " � ',
" . ',
' " ',
" ',
, " ' .....

I
•••·••
I •••
I
I
I
··-1.
1 · •·
1,
I
I
I
I
I

UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ALL COURSES EXTEND TO OR ALONG

BOUNDARIES OR LINES
Applicant: SCALE
ct.
w
DATE
.. ..

CITY OF YUBA CITY 1 "=80' 3/6/24

SECTION TOWNSHIP
17 15N
PLAT MAP 02123

REFERENCES
RANGE
3E
MERIDIAN COUNTY OF: SUTTER
MOM F.B.: SKBU
PG&E
DR.BY:

N.VALLEY

DIVISION
CITY OF: YUBA CITY
SKBU CH.BY: RVML
35332973 A-15-3-17
AUTHORIZ DRAWING NO.

Page 223 of 931 ends

Agenda Item 19

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 7, 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 County Planning Commissioner Appointment Recommendation: Reappoint Karri Campbell to the Yuba City Planning Commission for a third term Fiscal Impact: None
Purpose:

To confirm the appointment of Sutter County Planning Commissioner Karri Campbell to the Yuba City Planning Commission for a third term.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item does not directly meet one of the Council’s strategic goals but is necessary to comply with Municipal Code Section 8-1.02 and Sutter County Ordinance Code Chapter 72.

Background:

Both the Yuba City and Sutter County Codes require that a Planning Commissioner from each jurisdiction sit on each other’s Planning Commission.

It is beneficial for the community when the City and County governmental bodies cooperate on various projects that impact both jurisdictions. Having a member of the Yuba City Planning Commission serving as a representative on the Sutter County Planning Commission and a member of the Sutter County Planning Commission serving on the Yuba City Planning Commission ensures that the interests, perspectives, and priorities of each jurisdiction are voiced and considered, thus resulting in more informed decision-making. These projects may include regional environmental analysis, the expansion of infrastructure, the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, and the distribution of natural resources.

On March 12, 2024, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors nominated Supervisorial District 4 Planning Commissioner Karri Campbell to the Yuba City Planning Commission for a third year.

Commissioner Campbell has demonstrated a depth of planning knowledge and has provided a valuable perspective on the City Planning Commission. Staff recommends confirmation of this reappointment.

Analysis:

Page 224 of 931 ends

Municipal Code Section 8-1.02 annually requires reappointment of the Sutter County member to the Yuba City Planning Commission and this appointment is required to be confirmed by the City Council.

Each term for this appointment ends February 28th of each year. However, Municipal Code Section 8-

1.01 provides for the County appointment to continue to serve and hold office until their successor is duly appointed and qualified.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Alternatives:

Do not confirm the appointment and the Council should provide direction of how it desires to proceed.

Recommendation:

Reappoint Karri Campbell to the Yuba City Planning Commission for a third term Attachments:

1. Sutter County Appointment Letter
Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

Page 225 of 931 ends

Attachment 1

Page 226 of 931 ends

Page 227 of 931 ends

Agenda Item 20

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services Summary
Subject: Code Enforcement Officer Safety Guidelines
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City establishing Code Enforcement Officer Safety Guidelines pursuant to State Senate Bill 296 Fiscal Impact: There is no additional fiscal impact due to complying with this State requirement Purpose:

To adopt a Resolution establishing safety guidelines for Code Enforcement Officers to bring the City into compliance with State Senate Bill 296 (SB 296).

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item meets the Council’s Public Safety Strategic Goal to establish highly qualified teams to provide services that serve and protect the residents, visitors, and businesses in this community.

Background:

Senate Bill (SB 296) was signed into law by the Governor on October 7, 2021. It requires cities and counties that employ code enforcement officers to establish safety standards specific to their jurisdiction by adding a new section to California Penal Code Section 829.7.

Analysis:

SB 296 and Penal Code Section 829.7 do not prescribe specific safety standards that must be adopted.

It only requires an agency having Code Enforcement Officers to establish their own standards consistent with an agencies goals and policies.

The proposed Resolution establishes standards in the following categories:

Officer Safety
Threats, Assaults and Batteries
Use of Force
General Safety
The proposed Resolution formalizes the City’s existing practices, stressing officer safety as a first

Page 228 of 931 ends

priority and that leaving a location prior to any confrontation occurring is the best course of action. The Resolution specifies that if force is determined necessary for self defense purposes, an officer shall use the least amount of force necessary to mitigate a threat and to safely leave an area.

The proposed Resolution formalizes Code Enforcement’s list of protective equipment, the prohibition of using personal vehicles to carry out duties, reporting requirements, use of cell phone communication, coordinating the service of inspection and abatement warrants issued by a court with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and how to address the situation if an officer becomes missing.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no additional fiscal impact to establish the standards proposed to comply with SB 296.

Alternatives:

The City Council may modify, as necessary, the proposed safety standards; however, SB 296 requires the City adopt local safety standards for code enforcement officers.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City establishing Code Enforcement Officer Safety Guidelines pursuant to State Senate Bill 296.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution, Code Enforcement Officer Safety Guidelines Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

Page 229 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 230 of 931 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

ESTABLISHING CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City (“the City”) has the authority, under its police power, to enact regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the City, California Constitution Article XI, section 7; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s express statutory authority and its police power, the City desires to enact reasonable regulations establishing code enforcement officer safety guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, California’s Governor signed into law Senate Bill 296 requiring each local jurisdiction that employs code enforcement officers to develop safety standards appropriate for the code enforcement officers employed in their jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, SB 296 added a new section to California’s Penal Code, section 829.7, the new law reads: Each local jurisdiction that employs code enforcement officers shall develop code enforcement officer safety standards appropriate for the code enforcement officers employed in their jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, SB 296 does not prescribe the safety standards that must be used, rather it leaves that up to each local jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving the peace and quiet of the neighborhoods within the City by providing the services of a code enforcement officer within the city limits; and
WHEREAS, this resolution is intended to establish safety guidelines for code enforcement officers within the city limits to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the officers, businesses and city residents; and
WHEREAS, nothing in this resolution shall be construed to: (1) allow any person to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance; or (2) allow any activity relating to code enforcement officer safety within the city limits which is illegal under state or federal law; and
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Yuba City hereby resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are incorporated are hereby by reference.

SECTION 2. The resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).) Further, the

Page 231 of 931 ends

adoption and implementation of this Ordinance is not a project, as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, either directly or indirectly, and is therefore not subject to environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3).

SECTION 3. The City Council approves the following Code Enforcement Officer Safety Guidelines.

1. Officer Safety
The safety and welfare of our personnel is extremely important and a high priority for management and supervision. Code Enforcement Officers are expected to act in a professional manner when dealing with the public; however, if they are dealing with hostile individuals, officers are expected to avoid confrontation and remove themselves from the situation as quickly and safely as possible.

Many potential officer safety issues can be avoided by following proper investigative techniques:
• Reviewing prior cases to determine any potential safety hazards or potential hostile individuals.
• Becoming familiar with the geographical area of the complaint, prior to initial contact.
• Speaking with officers who investigated previous complaints. • Having additional resources available, such as a second Code Enforcement Officer, a supervisor, law enforcement or animal control when warranted.

Supervisors will be made aware of all potentially harmful situations, prior to any initial contact, in order to develop strategies to best address those hazards.

2. Threats, Assaults and Batteries
All threats, assaults and batteries directed at Code Enforcement Officers, shall be reported to supervision, management, and law enforcement immediately. Officers should obtain information as safely as possible about the subject making the threat, assault, or battery, including their intent, ability, and desire to carry out their actions. This information will be vital for law enforcement and Code Enforcement supervisors.

Code Enforcement and Police Departments are expected to share information regarding known and potential dangerous occupant(s) of properties under investigation by code enforcement, and take necessary steps to mitigate the risk of harm to the code enforcement officers. These steps include, but are not limited to, obtaining assistance from law enforcement in making any and all contacts with such individual(s), officers reporting their location prior to making contact and after completing the inspection or other contact, and adhering to safety standards, training, and protocols.

3. Use of Force

Page 232 of 931 ends

Code Enforcement Officers will exercise good judgment at all times if force is necessary.

The ability to leave the location prior to any confrontation taking place is the best course of action. Code Enforcement Officers shall utilize the least amount of force necessary to mitigate the threat and safely leave the area. Any force utilized by the Code Enforcement Officer must be reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances then known to the officer.

Mere verbal threats of violence, verbal abuse, or hesitancy in following commands does not justify the use of physical force without additional facts or circumstances substantiating an imminent potential for physical harm. However, if a Code Enforcement Officer is receiving threats, particularly threats of violence even without additional manifestations of intent to carry it out, the Code Enforcement Officer should immediately retreat to a safe location and notify the law enforcement and a supervisor.

4. General Safety
A. SELF-DEFENSE
Code Enforcement Officers have two defense options:
i. Leave the scene (walk, run, crawl, drive, etc.) and call for help. ii. If a Code Enforcement Officer cannot leave the scene, such as being cornered or held, they may utilize reasonable force until such time as they are able to safely leave the scene or assistance arrives. Code Enforcement Officers may use defensive tactics skills, as well as issued equipment to defend against an attack; however, any such use of force shall be reasonable as described within this resolution.

Unreasonable application of physical force on a person is a violation of law, which may result in criminal prosecution of the Code Enforcement Officer and potential civil liability to the Code Enforcement Officer.

B. PRIORITIES
A Code Enforcement Officer’s safety is first priority. An officer cannot help others if hurt or incapacitated, and if the officer is injured, this compounds the original problem. The safety of others is the next priority. Assistance should come from other department employees, or emergency service agencies, including the Police Department.

C. ALERTNESS
A crucial part of officer safety is staying alert and anticipating potential risks. This requires the use of all senses to observe the surroundings, hear a threat, speak persuasively, or feel that an attack is imminent. Being alert applies not only in the field, but also at the office.

Page 233 of 931 ends

• Pay attention to individuals who come to the office. Making eye contact and greeting them tells them that they have been noticed and acknowledged. • Watch for unusual circumstances and check in with them. If you find someone in a restricted area, inform them that the area is not open to the public, guide them to a public area of the building, and offer assistance. If you find a strange package in an unusual place notify a supervisor and do not touch it until it can be confirmed to be harmless.
• Plan an escape route. This includes emergency escape routes as outlined in your agency’s emergency action plan, and potential escape routes when in the field. Every time contact is made, consider what options are available if something goes wrong. This is extremely important when dealing with hostile people.
• Know the location of visits and inspections. If immediate help is necessary, it may not be possible to review a map for directions.
• When talking to individuals, try to maintain at least an arm’s-length of distance and a bladed stance, balanced stance on firm ground to be able to dodge a sudden lunge, punch, or kick. A bladed stance is when one foot is in front of the other and the body is at an angle to the individual in front of the officer.
• Avoid standing downhill, facing the sun, or at the edge of something that could lead to a trip and fall.
• Be aware of nearby objects that could be used as weapons by a hostile individual, such as garden tools, screwdrivers, knives, 2x4s, pipes, etc.

Guide the individual towards a more neutral area. If it is not possible to move to another area of the property, move objects out of reach.

The decision to use physical force places a tremendous responsibility on Code Enforcement Officers. Code Enforcement Officers should clearly understand that the standard for determining whether the force utilized was reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstance then known to the officer.

5. Reporting
Code Enforcement Officers are required to immediately report all officer safety issues to a supervisor. This includes any force used in self-defense, verbal altercations, or incidents where a police officer had to arrest a party. After notification, the Code Enforcement Officer will also submit a written report of the incident to a supervisor.

6. Use of Cell Phone Communications
Code Enforcement Officers are required to advise office staff and/or supervisor of where they generally will be during the course of a shift. Officers shall keep their electronic calendar up to date.

Page 234 of 931 ends

7. Missing Officer
Code Enforcement Officers shall communicate with each other or office staff while out in the field. If a Code Enforcement Officer fails to promptly respond to phone calls, staff shall begin to contact other Code Enforcement Officers and the supervisor to ascertain the missing Code Enforcement Officer whereabouts. A search team should immediately be dispatched with at least one, and if feasible, two staff members to check the last known and future locations. Electronic means for GPS locating of the vehicle or cellular device should be implemented, if available.

If met with negative results, conduct a systematic search of the area to help locate the missing Code Enforcement Officer’s vehicle and/or person. If the Code Enforcement Officer still is not located, begin to call the Code Enforcement Officer’s personal emergency contacts to verify the Code Enforcement Officer did not leave abruptly without notifying staff. If still unable to locate, notify Police and provide the information attained above, to help locate the Code Enforcement Officer.

8. Service of Inspection and/or Abatement Warrants
Code Enforcement Officers may need to obtain inspection and/or abatement warrants from time to time. Prior to serving or executing such warrant(s), the Code Enforcement Officer shall notify all necessary individuals and coordinate with the Yuba City Police Department to ensure a police officer is present at the service or execution of the warrant(s). The officer shall coordinate with law enforcement present on how to make contact with the occupant(s) and the best method for entry. Forcible entry shall not be used unless a judge has authorized it in the warrant(s). Code Enforcement Officers shall not serve or execute an inspection warrant without the presence of law enforcement and the Code Enforcement Officer shall report their position to dispatch when arriving and leaving the location subject to the warrant(s).

9. Protective Equipment
Code Enforcement Officers may encounter environmental conditions which may be hazardous, such as mold, asbestos, insect infestation, feces, and airborne contaminants.

As such, each Code Enforcement Officer will be provided with an emergency medical kit and personal protective equipment. Based on the known or reasonably anticipated situation, each officer is required to wear or utilize the most appropriate equipment when entering hazardous areas. The protective equipment should be worn at all times until the Code Enforcement Officer believes hazardous conditions have been abated or when the officer has left the hazardous area or property. Below is a list of some of the equipment provided to each officer. Each officer is responsible for periodic inspection and inventory of stated equipment. If an officer finds equipment to be defective or requires replacement, please notify supervisor immediately. Listed below is Agency-provided personal protective equipment:

Page 235 of 931 ends

i. Respiratory protective gear-particulate mask, respirator etc. ii. Disposable gloves and hand sanitizer
iii. Potable water
iv. Basic first aid kit
v. ANSI approved eye protection
vi. ANSI approved head protection
vii. Tyvek suit or other overalls
viii. Leather or work gloves

10. License Plate Confidentiality
A Code Enforcement Officer shall not utilize their personal vehicle in the performance of job duties if an agency-provided vehicle is available for the Code Enforcement Officer’s use. If a Code Enforcement Officer must use a personal vehicle, the Code Enforcement Officer is encouraged to apply for license plate confidentiality under Vehicle Code section 1808.4, subdivision (a)(19), or other applicable law. If a Code Enforcement Officer’s personal vehicle is not parked in a location secured against public access, and in other situations deemed necessary, the Code Enforcement Officer is encouraged to apply for license plate confidentiality. If the Code Enforcement Officer is engaged in enforcing the Vehicle Code or municipal ordinances related to parking, the Code Enforcement Officer is encouraged to apply for license plate confidentiality under Vehicle Code Section 1808.4, subdivision (a) (19), or other applicable law. The agency shall assist the Code Enforcement Officer in completing and obtaining approval of such application as is necessary and appropriate.

11. Training
Continual training is essential for Code Enforcement Officers to maintain the skills required for their individual positions. All Code Enforcement Officers must receive the initial training essential to perform their duties. This may be on-the-job training provided by supervisor and/or experienced Code Enforcement Officer.

All Code Enforcement Officers are required to successfully complete the 832 PC course as prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) prior to exercising the powers of a peace officer. The initial 40-hour course should, as available, be completed within one year of their date of hire as a code enforcement officer.

The City recommends Code Enforcement Officers attend training opportunities provided by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO) and other training organizations in order to become Certified Code Enforcement Officers. Once certified, officers must attend continuing education courses to maintain their certification.

Page 236 of 931 ends

12. Record Keeping
It is important for the City to document and maintain Code Enforcement Officer training records, including copies of all outside training and certifications the officer receives in their personnel file.

SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE.

This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of May 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

______________________________
Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

SHANNON L. CHAFFIN, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

Page 237 of 931 ends

Agenda Item 21

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 7, 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 – Traffic Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation: Establish and designate two (2) Councilmembers to steer the Tierra Buena Community Ad Hoc Committee for a period not to exceed one (1) year, unless additional action is taken by Council
Fiscal Impact: Minor staff costs associated with time supporting the committee.

Purpose:

To establish an Ad Hoc Committee for the Tierra Buena community to discuss traffic solutions in the neighborhood.

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 an overall increase of 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 River Valley High School, where staff presented information about recent, proposed, and future development 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

Page 238 of 931 ends

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 a new access to north El Margarita Road

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

On March 19, 2024, staff presented a follow-up report to City Council regarding the community meeting and survey results. Members of the public expressed concerns that they did not support the findings, voiced opinions that other options need to be considered, and that there are interested community members outside the notification boundary that should be included for input. Following the public hearing, the City Council directed staff to bring back an item to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to further discuss traffic concerns in the Tierra Buena area.

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.

Staff recommends establishing a traffic focused Ad Hoc Committee to further review and consider area traffic and potential improvements for the Tierra Buena area. The two Council members designated to steer the Ad Hoc Committee will look to select community members to join the Committee, who have varying interests in the neighborhood area, so that concerns and input is received comprehensively.

The Committee will coordinate with staff to facilitate the meetings, identify necessary staff to participate in each meeting (if needed), and coordinate the preparation of a report with recommendations applicable to the entire City Council.

Fiscal Impact:

Minor staff costs associated with time supporting the committee.

Alternatives:

Do not form the committee and/or provide staff with alternative direction.

Recommendations:

Establish and designate two (2) Councilmembers to steer the Tierra Buena Community Ad Hoc Committee for a period not to exceed one (1) year, unless additional action is taken by Council.

Page 239 of 931 ends

Attachments:

1. Staff Report Packet, March 19, 2024
Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

Page 240 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 241 of 931 ends

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.

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.

Page 242 of 931 ends

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:

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

Page 243 of 931 ends

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

Page 244 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 245 of 931 ends

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.

Page 246 of 931 ends

Page 247 of 931 ends

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

Page 248 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 249 of 931 ends

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

Page 250 of 931 ends

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

Page 251 of 931 ends

• 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

Page 252 of 931 ends

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

Discussion Topic

Page 253 of 931 ends

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)

Page 254 of 931 ends

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)

Page 255 of 931 ends

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

Page 256 of 931 ends

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

Page 257 of 931 ends

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

Page 258 of 931 ends

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

Page 259 of 931 ends

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

Page 260 of 931 ends

Options

Page 261 of 931 ends

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.

Page 262 of 931 ends

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.

Page 263 of 931 ends

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

Page 264 of 931 ends

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

Page 265 of 931 ends

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

Page 266 of 931 ends

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

Page 267 of 931 ends

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

Page 268 of 931 ends

Pick your preferred option

Page 269 of 931 ends

Questions?

Page 270 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 271 of 931 ends

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

Page 272 of 931 ends

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

Page 273 of 931 ends

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.

Page 274 of 931 ends

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

Page 275 of 931 ends

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

Page 276 of 931 ends

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 277 of 931 ends

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

Page 278 of 931 ends

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

Page 279 of 931 ends

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

Page 280 of 931 ends

Agenda Item 22

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services Summary
Subject: Recycling Industries – Amendment to Use Permit (UP 17-05) and Development Plan (DP 17-03)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City denying an amendment to Use Permit 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03 based on the findings contained in the Resolution; Recycling Industries; located at 140 Epley Drive, Assessor’s Parcel 54-083-026
Fiscal Impact: Application fees pay for staff time associated with processing entitlement applications
Purpose:

To consider Recycling Industries’ (“Applicant”) amendment to Use Permit 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03.

Council's Strategic Goal:

Staff’s recommendation is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Goal of Public Safety. Modification to the existing project Conditions of Approval could impact public safety due to additional traffic, noise and vibration impacts. Staff’s recommendation is consistent with the Council’s Goal of maintaining highly qualified teams to provide services that serve and protect the residents, visitors, and businesses in this community.)
Background:

Below is a summary of the entitlement history of Recycling Industries located at 140 Epley Drive. 2008 Planning Commission approved Use Permit 07-12 that relocated Recycling Industries (RI) operations from 389 Wilbur Avenue to its present-day location at 140 Epley Drive. 2014 Planning Commission approves Use Permit 12-01 which converted the facility at 140 Epley Drive into a Large Volume Transfer Station (LVTS). Environmental Assessment (EA) 12-02 analyzed potential impacts associated with facility construction and operation with a maximum throughput of 100 tons per day (TPD) of mixed waste and recyclables. Project elements included the following:

Page 281 of 931 ends

1. Operations expanded to be conducted on three acres.

2. Two metal buildings replaced with a new 21,600 square foot building.

3. Allow up to 100 TPD of mixed recyclables and solid waste.

4. Allow up to 10 percent putrescible material.

5. Allow self-haul. Prohibited packer garbage trucks.

6. Required annual review for three years following construction.

7. Provide expanded recycling / self-haul solid waste transfer services generated by “residents and businesses in Yuba City and Sutter County.” (7/23/14 PC staff report) UP 12-01 received two time extensions with a final expiration date of July 23, 2020. 2019 On appeal from the Planning Commission, the City Council approved Use Permit 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03 and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration, amending previous entitlements to include the following key limitations:

1. Continue to limit maximum throughput to 100 TPD where the Applicant requested 300 TPD (Condition 3).

2. Restricted to accepting waste generated only from Sutter and Yuba Counties (Condition 4).

3. Continue to limit putrescible waste material to 10 percent where the Applicant requested no threshold (Condition 5).

4. Continue to prohibit packer trucks (garbage trucks) where the Applicant requested that packer trucks with side, front or rear loaders be allowed (Condition 10).

5. Project site expanded from three to four acres.

6. Relocate an existing 1,800 square foot (sf) metal building.

7. Expand transfer and processing building from 18,000 sf to 21,600 sf.

8. Limit tire storage to a 40-yard bin (Condition 7).

9. Prohibit operations on Sunday (Condition 12).

10. Require future project modifications be submitted to the City Council for Review (Condition 60).

11. Notify project opponents (Stop the Dump) of any applications to modify the project (Condition 60).
2023 In July, Applicant submitted a new application to amend Use Permit 17-05. The application requests modifications to Conditions 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12 and 60 established as part of the City Council’s 2019 approval. A copy of the applicant’s requested changes is included as Attachment 1.

The applicant did not prepare additional environmental analysis for this proposed amendment instead asserting the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration the City Council adopted in 2019 when Use Permit 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03 were approved, adequately assessed the potentially significant environmental impacts from these proposed amendments.

The City Council previously denied several of these proposed amendments in 2019 including the request to increase the amount of material received from 100 TPD to 300 TPD, the request to remove the 10 percent daily limit on putrescible material and the request to permit packer trucks.

At the December 19, 2023, City Council Meeting, the City Council approved use of the alternative review process for this proposed use permit and development plan amendment as provided for in Municipal Code Section 8-5.7001(d) and 8-5.7003(f).

Analysis:

Adequacy of Environmental Analysis

Page 282 of 931 ends

As stated above, the applicant asserts the MND the City Council adopted in 2019 adequately analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment to UP 17-05 and DP 17-03.

Therefore, the applicant asserts that no additional environmental analysis is required. However, several of the modifications to the conditions of approval proposed in this current amendment were not identified in the 2019 MND. Specifically, the MND’s project description did not identify modifications to the transfer stations operations to allow for (1) acceptance of material generated in any jurisdiction, not just Sutter and Yuba counties; and (2) the expansion of operational hours and extension of days of operation to include Sunday.

In Section 1.1 of the initial study prepared for UP 17-05 and DP 17-03, “Purpose Of The Subsequent Initial Study” states, “The additional tonnage would be from residential and commercial franchise collection routes within Yuba City (City) if RI is a successful partner in pending procurement for these franchise services. It should be noted that there is currently under 200 TPD of solid waste generated in the City, however, growth forecasts show solid waste generation increasing to 300 TPD by the year 2030.”
The Transfer Processing Report submitted by Recycling Industries and included as an attachment to the initial study for UP 17-05 and DP 17-03 further clarifies the service area by stating on page 1-2 of 1-7 that, “…..the jurisdictions within the economically viable collection area for commercial packer trucks are secured by exclusive franchise license (within Yuba City, unincorporated Sutter County, and the City of Live Oak, as well as within adjoining Yuba County and the Cities of Marysville & Wheatland). Commercial waste collection and construction/ demolition & inert (hereinafter also “CDI”) debris collection is similarly subject to exclusive franchise license within these jurisdictions.” The Transfer Processing Report submitted by Recycling Industries in support of UP 17-05 and DP 17-03 did not consider acceptance of material generated in any jurisdiction other than Sutter and Yuba Counties.

The Traffic Study prepared in support of UP 17-05 and DP 17-03 and included as an attachment to the initial study, states the project would allow up to 300 TPD or a net increase of 200 TPD. The traffic study prepared only reviewed traffic impacts at three specific intersections within the city limits; Garden Highway / Lincoln Road
Garden Highway / Epley Drive
Garden Highway / Burns Drive / Teesdale Road
The traffic study did not analyze impacts to the State Highway system or in other adjacent communities due to the importation of recyclables from outside the area because the project description contained in the initial study did not contemplate importing recyclables from outside the Yuba City area.

Since the adoption of the MND for UP 17-05 and DP 17-03, due to a proliferation of commercial trucking activity and the development of areas for the parking of commercial trucks and trailers around Yuba City and specifically south of Yuba City, the County of Sutter prepared a report analyzing the cumulative environmental impacts of these yards to the area and this included preparation of a traffic study. This report was received by the Board of Supervisors on June 22, 2021. A copy of this report can be accessed as Agenda Item 33 at:
2021 https://suttercountyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=18906/22 03:00 PM Board of Supervisors Regular Session - Web Outline - Sutter County, California (iqm2.com) Table 4 of the completed traffic study summarizes the existing intersection operations at six study intersections. Applicable intersections for this analysis include the following study intersections:

Page 283 of 931 ends

SR 99 / Reed Road
SR 99 / Walnut Avenue
SR 99 / Barry Road
SR 99 / Oswald Road
Table 4: Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. SSSC = Side-Street Stop Controlled. AWSC = All-Way Stop Controlled. Bold indicates exceedance of Sutter County’s LOS policy. 1 For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For SSSC intersections, the LOS and control delay for the worst movement is shown in parentheses next to the average intersection LOS and delay. Intersection LOS and delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board 2016). All intersections were analyzed in Synchro.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.

In 2021, the County prepared traffic study concluded three of the study intersections operate below the County’s level of service standard. Though level of service, in and of itself is no longer a metric for determining environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), deteriorating level of service is an indicator of the creation of traffic safety impacts due to deteriorating traffic operations. Traffic safety hazards continue to be environmental impacts under CEQA.

Recycling Industry’s traffic study prepared in support of UP 17-05 and DP 17-03 analyzed select intersections within the city limits only and did not analyze potential impacts to the State Highway system around Yuba City or in the region, including potential impacts to these County study intersections due to importing material from outside the Yuba-Sutter area. It should be noted there have been no physical improvements to the County study intersections operating below standard to date; however, Sutter County and Caltrans are working on a project for the future signalization of the intersection of SR 99 and Oswald Road.

In 2023 the Grand Jury determined that “road pavements throughout Yuba City currently require

Page 284 of 931 ends

extensive maintenance and refurbishment to sufficiently provide for critical transportation infrastructure.” The City confirmed the finding and also determined that non-critical transportation infrastructure such as local residential roads required similar levels of maintenance and refurbishment.

The Sutter and Yuba County area, including the City, has also experienced unusually significant amounts of precipitation during the last two years, which has hastened the deterioration of roadway conditions. Fragile roadway infrastructure is disproportionately affected by heavy vehicles such as garbage and packer trucks have much higher ESALs (Equivalent Single Axle Loads) than lighter weight cars, having an exponential, not linear, impact on the asphalt. This can mean that a single packer truck can have several thousand times the impact of a typical car or SUV. As a result, increased truck traffic will exacerbate the already compromised streets, and there is potentially a substantial increase in the severity of previously assessed traffic impacts on public infrastructure. This change in circumstances was not assessed in the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration.

In addition to traffic impacts, increasing the permitted amount of allowed tonnage of recyclable materials from 100 TPD to 300 TPD may result in new noise and vibration impacts due to the increased number of truck trips traveling to and from the facility. Defined routes have not been established; however, referring to the road intersections analyzed as part of the project's previous traffic study and the intersection of Lincoln Road and Garden Highway, there is a significant amount of existing developed multifamily housing located along Lincoln Road between State Highway 99 and Garden Highway that is not protected from the impacts of noise by sound walls or other mechanisms.

Additionally, there are many locations along Garden Highway and Second Street where existing developed single-family homes are not protected from the impacts of noise by sound walls or other mitigation. Increasing the permitted quantity of allowed recyclables from 100 TPD to 300 TPD may significantly exacerbate noise and vibration impacts due to a significant increase in truck trips traveling to and from the Recycling Industries site.

Next, the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration assessed hours and days of operation for the project. However, the changes proposed in the project are for earlier times of operation including operations on Sunday as early as 7:00 a.m., with ancillary outdoor operations starting as early as 6:30 a.m. None of these were assessed by the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. As noted above, there are many locations along Garden Highway and Second Street where existing developed single-family homes are not protected from the impacts of noise by sound walls or other mitigation.

Increasing the time of early operations, especially during early morning hours and the weekend, may significantly exacerbate noise and vibration impacts. In turn, these impacts may be further exacerbated due to a significant increase in truck trips traveling to and from the Recycling Industries site and the overall volume being processed at the site.

Finally, the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration assessed impacts, including odor impacts, based upon green waste being removed within 48 hours of acceptance on the site. The proposed project is proposing to modify the current requirement of green waste being removed within 48 hours to allow for removal at a frequency approved by the local enforcement agency (LEA). This would allow green waste to remain on site longer than 48 hours, which was not a scenario analyzed by the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Based upon staff’s knowledge and experience, it is reasonably foreseeable the requested modifications may materially change the operations of the transfer station that could result in new significant environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of the potentially significant impacts identified in the MND. However, the applicant has failed to provide any analysis explaining why these operational changes would not require additional environmental review and has consistently maintained the changes proposed were previously analyzed in the environmental document for UP 17- 05 and DP 17-03. As such, it appears the environmental analysis for the proposed amendment to UP 17-05 and DP 17-3 is incomplete and inadequate for the purpose of evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant impacts caused by the proposed changes in the facility’s operations.

Page 285 of 931 ends

Evaluation of Findings Necessary to Approve Use Permit
Municipal Code Section 8-5.7003(d) sets forth the six (6) findings that must be made and supported with substantial evidence to approve a use permit. These same findings must be made for any amendment to a previously approved use permit. These findings are:

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.

2. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, public access, parking and loading, yards, landscaping and other features required by this chapter.

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

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

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

6. At least one of the findings in Title 6, Chapter 9, Article 6 of the Municipal Code is satisfied.

Finding 1: The site has a General Plan land use designation of Manufacturing, Processing and Warehousing and is zoned Industrial District (M-2). Use of the site as a transfer station is consistent both with the General Plan land use designation and zoning. Therefore, Finding 1 can be made.

Finding 2: It is unclear whether the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed increased operations. The Applicant seeks to increase the tonnage of material that can be received per day from 100 to 300 TPD, extend operations to seven days a week from the current six days per week, and eliminate the current limitation on receipt of putrescible materials to ten (10) percent of total daily tonnage received. Since the City Council did not approve any of these requested changes in 2019, it is unclear as to whether serious consideration was given to the potential impacts and it is unclear whether serious consideration was given as to whether these proposed changes in operations would impact the appropriateness of the size and shape of the site. The Applicant has not provided information specifically addressing this finding in the application package.

Finding 3: Based upon the discussion above, without further analysis regarding the routing and volume of truck traffic associated with the proposed amendments to the use permit, it is unclear whether the streets serving the site are adequate to carry the increased traffic generated by the proposed significant increase in operations as the MND failed to analyze truck traffic traveling more regionally from counties other than the counties of Sutter and Yuba. Therefore, staff believes there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the making of this finding.

Finding 4: The Applicant is not proposing to change the configuration or design of any of the buildings and structures on the site. As such, it would appear this finding is not relevant to the application before the City Council.

Finding 5: Staff is concerned the amendments proposed to Use Permit 17-05 and DP 17-03 in relation to health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the City. Staff is concerned the combined increase in the permitted daily tonnage, elimination of the restriction on putrescible materials, the allowance of deliveries from packer/collection trucks and the extension of operations to seven days a week may result in increased traffic, increases in conflicts between the packer/collection trucks traveling to the site and other traffic as well as the potential for the site to attract materials from locations outside of Sutter and Yuba counties that have not been analyzed. This could result in increased odors, as well as an increase in the number of trucks traveling to and from the site to

Page 286 of 931 ends

remove the increased amount of materials delivered to the site. In addition, the increased traffic and amount of putrescible materials may significantly increase Greenhouse Gas emissions and other criteria pollutants, including diesel particulate matter and other toxic air contaminants that have not been sufficiently analyzed. The GHG and air quality analysis in the 2019 MND fails to analyze the transfer center operations with all of the proposed changes to its operations. Finally, given that the impacts of the proposed project have not been fully assessed as required by CEQA, there is insufficient evidence in the administrative record that the proposed operation and use will not be detrimental or injurious to the environment, including property and improvements in the neighborhood, as well as to the general welfare of the City and surrounding area.

Finding 6: This finding (sufficient Flood protection) does not appear to apply to this proposed amendment because the Applicant is not proposing to construct a new building or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building.

Based upon the information currently available, staff recommends the City Council deny the proposed amendment as staff believes findings 2, 3 and 5 cannot be made at this time.

Evaluation of Findings Necessary to Approve Development Plan Amendment Municipal Code, Section 8-5.7001(c)(4) sets forth the four (4) findings that must be made and supported with substantial evidence to approve a development plan. These same findings must be made for any amendment to a previously approved development plan. These findings are:

1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, public access, parking and loading, yards, landscaping and other features required by this chapter.

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

3. The site design, design of the buildings and the scale of the project will complement neighboring facilities.

4. The application satisfies at least on of the findings found in Title 6, Chapter 9, Article 6 of the Municipal Code.

Staff does not believe Findings 1 and 2 can be made based on the following:

Finding 1: See basis for Use Permit Finding 2, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

There is insufficient evidence to support the finding the site for the proposed use, as amended, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, public access, parking and loading, yards, landscaping, and other features required by the Municipal Code.

Finding 2: See basis for Use Permit Finding 3, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. There is insufficient evidence to support the finding that the streets serving the site are adequate to carry the quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use.

Fiscal Impact:

Application fees pay for staff time associated with processing entitlement applications.

Alternatives:

The City Council may determine to (1) approve or (2) conditionally approve the application to amend Use Permit 17-05 or (3) direct staff and the Applicant conduct additional environmental review before the City Council considers the amendment application at a future Public Hearing.

Page 287 of 931 ends

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City denying an amendment to Use Permi 17-05 and Development Plan 17-03 based on the findings contained in the Resolution; Recycling Industries; located at 140 Epley Drive, Assessor’s Parcel 54-083-026.

Attachments:

1. Conditions of Approval - Applicant Requested Revisions

2. Approved Site Plan

3. Existing 2019 Environmental Document and MMRP

4. Potential Residential Noise Sensitive Areas

5. Public Comment Received, Brigit Barnes & Associates, Inc.

6. Public Comment Received, Recycling Industries

7. Proposed Resolution
Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

Page 288 of 931 ends

Attachment 1

Page 289 of 931 ends

PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF USE PERMIT UP 17-05:

EXISTING LARGE VOLUME TRANSFER STATION
APPLICANT/OWNER: RECYCLING INDUSTRIES, INC.

LOCATION: 140 EPLEY DRIVE
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS: 54-083-026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The applicant is proposing to amend and/or remove certain conditions related to business activities conducted at their existing Large Volume Transfer Station (LVTS) located at 140 Epley Drive.

The conditions for UP 17-05 were approved by City Council on February 5, 2019 and are listed below on this document. This proposal to amend or remove certain conditions does not alter any analyzed environmental condition approved under the Subsequent IS/MND for EA 17-10 (2019 MND) and therefore exempts any of these amendments from further environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Below is a list of each condition number to be amended or removed. The strikethrough lettering shows the original condition. Italics lettering shows amended or added language. All amendments and removals are listed in red font
INDEMNIFICATION:

1. The applicant, operator, and/or property owner ("Applicant" herein) is required to enter into an agreement with the City agreeing to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Yuba City, its officers, attorneys, agents, employees, departments, commissioners, authorized volunteers, and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this land use approval, including without limitation any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for City’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct. This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued. The land use approval shall not become effective until Applicant executes a “Covenant to Indemnify.”
a. Insurance – Applicant shall, at a minimum, provide, pay for, and maintain in force at all times during the term of this use under this entitlement adequate insurance for the proposed project as deemed necessary by a third-party waste management field expert as chosen by the Applicant. Any fee incurred by the City to receive the third-party recommendation will be paid by Applicant within 30 days. Such policy or policies shall be without any deductible amount (except as may be expressly authorized by the City), and shall be issued by companies authorized to do business in the state of California shall specifically protect City by naming City as additional insureds on the policies. The Applicant shall forward to the City updated certificates of insurance and endorsement(s) when policies

Page 290 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 2
are renewed or changed. The insurance required shall not be interpreted to relieve the Applicant of any other obligations or conditions of approval. The Applicant shall remain fully liable for all deductibles and amounts in excess of the coverage actually realized.

2. In accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the imposition of fees, dedication, reservations or exactions for this project are subject to protest by the project applicant at the time of approval or conditional approval of the development or within 90 days after the date of imposition of fees, dedications, reservation, or exactions imposed on the development project.

This notice does not apply to those fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions which were previously imposed and duly noticed; or, where no notice was previously required under the provisions of Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) in effect before January 1, 1997.

MATERIALS:

3. The facility shall not receive more than 100 300 tons per day.

4. The facility shall only receive material generated within the Sutter and Yuba Counties be able to receive material generated within any jurisdiction.
a. Applicant will maintain logs showing location of waste received and shipped and provide copies of such logs once every ninety days to City.

5. Putrescible material: maximum of 10 percent of all material. Material shall be removed within 48 hours.

6. The facility shall not accept, store, or process:
a. Hazardous Material
b. Biohazardous Material
c. Medical Waste
If any of the above waste (hazardous, biohazardous or medical) is dumped illegally at the site, the operator shall take necessary steps to properly handle and dispose of such items listed.

7. Tires: Shall be stored in a bin no larger than 40 yards in size. A maximum of one tire bin shall be at the facility at any given time. The operator may store tires acceptable to State law and approved by the Cal-Recycle Local Enforcement Agency (LEA).

8. Green Waste:
a. No green waste shall be accepted via a packer truck, including side, front, or rear loaders. b. Self-haul green waste may be accepted and processed. c. Green Waste shall be removed within 48 hours of being accepted.

9. Pallets: Shall not be stacked taller than 6 feet in height outdoors.

DELIVERY OF MATERIAL:

Page 291 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 3

10. Except for source separated curbside recyclables, material may not be accepted via packer trucks. The operator may receive material via packer trucks. This includes side, front, or rear loaders.

11. Roll off bins of up to 50 yards may be accepted.

12. The facility is closed Sunday. The facility is open from to receive refuse/waste from 7am – 5pm, Monday through Saturday Sunday with ancillary operations from 6:30am – 9pm, Monday through Saturday Sunday. Other activities within buildings may occur up to 24 hours per day, Monday thru Saturday.

STORAGE:

13. All utilized areas, including storage areas, shall be paved.

14. Bundled, packaged, and/or palletized material shall be stored on paved areas.

VECTOR CONTROL:

15. Operator shall follow all controls listed in Section 5.5 of Transfer/Processing Report (TPR).

NOISE:

16. Operator shall contract with an independent acoustical engineer to measure noise being generated by the facility within 10 working days as requested by the City. Should noise levels exceed adopted City standards, said noise levels shall be reduced to acceptable levels within 24-hours. Noise levels shall not exceed City standards as measured at the property line.

ODOR CONTROL:

17. Operator shall comply with all provisions listed in Section 5.4 of TPR

18. Trucks shall be washed weekly off-site or on-site where solids in water can be captured before entering the City stormwater system. City-approved industrial cleaning facilities shall be specified as approved locations for washing, if such cleaning facilities are incorporated within City limits
QUEUING:

19. All queuing of vehicles must be maintained on the Applicant’s property. All employee vehicles must be parked on the Applicant’s property.

There shall be no stacking and/or queuing of vehicles entering the facility and/or waiting to access the scale on the public right-of-way. “Public right of way” shall include Epley Drive, Garden Highway, Putman Avenue, Burns Drive, Hasset Avenue, and any alleys over which a public right of way has been retained.

Vehicles shall not be directed to leave the facility to avoid queuing; rather operational changes shall be implemented within 24 hours of notification by the City.

PROCESSING:

20. All processing, sorting, compacting, shredding, baling, crushing, etc. of solid waste destined

Page 292 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 4
to a landfill shall occur indoors.

21. All green waste shall be stored indoors unless contained in a roll-off container and covered.

22. Storage of roll off bins destined to be dumped and processed at the site shall be properly covered, unless stored indoors.

23. During construction, contractor vehicles must be parked on Applicant’s property, except to the extent to accommodate concrete, paving and asphalt work occurring on the property. Such work will be completed within 60 days, unless expressly approved by the Public Works director.

24. Litter control shall be implemented as described in section 4.11.2 of the TPR report.

25. The transfer station operator shall manage the facility in such a manner that confines litter to the work area, which prevents litter from accumulating on other parts of the site and which prevents litter from being blown off the site.

26. The transfer station operator shall implement a program requiring transfer station users to securely containerize their load to avoid littering. The program shall be subject to the approval of the City.

27. Under windy conditions, the transfer station operator shall cover the refuse with City approved cover materials as often as necessary to control blowing litter. Other options shall be considered as necessary, including the alignment of unloading areas away from the prevailing wind direction.

28. The transfer station operator shall install portable litter fencing in the work area to intercept wind-blown debris.

29. The transfer station operator shall remove litter from the litter fencing and planting screens at least once a day. On site access areas shall be policed at least daily. The City may require more frequent policing to control the accumulation of litter.

30. The transfer station operator shall provide weekly (or more frequent) litter clean up along City right-of-way to and from the facility. The City may modify the frequency of clean up and/or area of coverage. If wind-blown litter from the transfer station reaches other properties, the Public Works Director may require the transfer station operator to remove the litter and the Director may require the operator to institute additional measures to prevent recurrence of the problem.

31. Paved roadways proximate to the site shall be cleaned as necessary when soil material has been carried by patrons of the facility onto public roadways. If the operator fails to do so upon notice, the City may clean the roadway at the operator’s expense.

32. The transfer station operator shall post signs, as determined necessary by the City, along access roads to the transfer station noting littering and illegal dumping laws. The operator shall

Page 293 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 5
periodically publish these laws and operation hours in mailings postings, pamphlets or any advertisement, electronic or otherwise.

33. The transfer station operator shall post signs at the transfer station entrance noting the hours of operation.

POSTING OF SIGNS:

34. The transfer station operator shall post signs, at their expense, notifying patrons of littering regulations and the need to properly tarp their vehicles to minimize debris from exiting the vehicle onto the roadway and/or neighboring sites.

HOST FEE:

35. Prior to use of the new building, the applicant will negotiate a “host Fee” with the City. The Host Fee will be calculated based upon the amount of garbage that is ultimately transferred to the Landfill by the applicant.
a. Authorize the Community Development Director (or his designee) to approve minor technical amendments to the project Transfer Processing Report that do not alter any Conditions of Approval, as necessary to accommodate final approval from the State of California.
b. Any requests for modifications must be submitted to City Council for approval, if consistent with City Ordinances then in effect. Authorize the Community Development Director (or his designee) to provide all necessary approvals, which do not modify the conditions, required to obtain final approval from the State of California for the proposed Large Volume Transfer Station.

PUBLIC WORKS:

36. To help contain fugitive dust, construction sites shall be watered down during the construction phase of the project or as directed by the Public Works Department.

37. The applicant, at their expense, shall be solely responsible for all quality control associated with the project. The quality control shall include, but is not limited to, the following: survey work, potholing existing utilities, all geotechnical testing, soil reports, concrete testing, asphalt testing, and any other required special testing/inspections. The City will only perform necessary testing to ensure compliance.

38. Storage of construction vehicles/material is not allowed in the travel way.

39. The improvement plans for the development of the subject property shall include all measures required to ensure that no drainage runoff resulting from the development of the property flow onto the adjacent lands or impede the drainage from those properties. The rear yards and/or side yards of the parcel shall have the same finish grade elevation as those lots within tolerances as approved by the Public Works Department. If retaining walls are required, they shall be constructed of concrete or masonry block.

40. The contractor shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City prior to performing any work within public rights of way.

Page 294 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 6

41. The Developer shall place, within the property boundary, an in-line separator on the storm drain line prior to the point of connection to the storm drain line in the City right-of-way.

Property owner shall be responsible for all maintenance of the system.

42. Required Improvement Plan Notes:
a. "Any excess materials shall be considered the property of the contractor/owner and shall be disposed of away from the job site in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations."
b. "During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for controlling noise, odors, dust and debris to minimize impacts on surrounding properties and roadways. The Contractor shall be responsible that all construction equipment is equipped with manufacturers approved muffler baffles. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an order to stop work.”
c. “If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Sutter County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately.

Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.” d. "The Contractor(s) shall be required to maintain traffic flow on affected roadways during non-working hours, and to minimize traffic restriction during construction.

The Contractor shall be required to follow traffic safety measures in accordance with the CalTrans “Manual of Traffic Safety Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones.” The City of Yuba City emergency service providers shall be notified, at least two working days in advance, of proposed construction scheduled by the contractor(s).” e. “Soil shall not be treated with lime or other cementitious material without prior express permission by the Public Works Department.”

43. Prior to paving, the Developer shall vacuum test all manholes to ensure no leakage will occur.

44. The curb, gutter, sidewalk, and lot drainage shall be inspected and approved by the City. Any curb, gutter and sidewalk which is not in accord with City standards or is damaged before or during construction, shall be replaced. All sidewalks along the City right-of-way shall be free of any non-control joint cracking. In addition, any concrete with cracks, chips, blemishes, and spalling greater than an inch in diameter shall be replaced from control joint to control joint.

45. The property shall petition for formation of a Zone of Benefit of the Yuba City Lighting Maintenance District for the purpose of maintaining the street lights. The Engineering Division shall be reimbursed actual costs associated with the formation of the district.

46. All public street lighting shall be dedicated to the City of Yuba City.

47. Cross easements over all property not occupied by buildings shall be reserved in deeds for all underground utilities, ingress and egress, parking, drainage, landscaping, and the maintenance thereof to the benefit of all parcels involved in the division.

48. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall merge the parcels in to one parcel, or shall relocate the property lines between the parcels so they do not bisect any buildings.

Page 295 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 7

49. The project, including phased improvements, shall comply with the City’s Storm water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Title 4, Chapter 21 of the Yuba City Municipal Code).

50. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that a Notice of Intent has been submitted and received by the local Water Quality Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. Two copies of the project Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan shall be provided to the City.

51. Prior to obtaining final occupancy approval, the applicant shall provide, to the Public Works Director, the name and contact information of the individual(s) who will be responsible for cleaning any debris in the City right-of-way resulting from the transfer station’s operations.

52. Applicant to contact the State Water Resources Control Board to determine industrial general permit compliance.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

53. Obtain necessary permits from the Yuba City Fire Department.

CALRECYCLE:

54. Comply with letter November 5, 2018 and subsequent correspondence between CalRecycle and Larry Miner.

Feather River Air Quality Management District:

55. Comply with letter dated November 6, 2018 and subsequent correspondence between the FRAQMD and Larry Miner.

Sutter-Yuba Local Enforcement Agency:

56. Comply with letter dated November 5, 2018 and subsequent correspondence between the LEA and Larry Miner.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board:

57. Comply with letter dated October 30, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting Condition:

58. The mitigation measures identified in the initial study and mitigated negative declaration, which also include Appendix A of the Transfer Processing Report Assessment, shall be included as mitigation measures.

Additional Conditions

59. PROJECT DEADLINES: To prove good faith in completing this project in a timely manner, and to acknowledge that time is of the essence, the applicant must commence construction by March 31, 2020, and be substantially complete within 18 months of commencement. Failure to comply with either deadline will void modification of this Use Permit. Substantially complete is defined by City Code.

60. FUTURE USE PERMIT MODIFICATIONS AND EXTENSIONS:

Page 296 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 8
a. Given the repeated extensions of Use Permit 12-01, the City advises the Applicant future attempted modifications of this Use Permit will be, if consistent with City Ordinances then in effect, submitted to the City Council for review.
b. Additionally, if the Applicant fails to meet project deadlines outlined in Condition 59, the previous Use Permit 12-01 will not be eligible for extension and will expire if not effectuated.
c. City staff must notify Stop the Dump of the receipt of any applications for modification of this Use Permit when received and afford STD a minimum of 20 days to respond and request the opportunity to reply. Notice is presumed to have been properly provided to STD if mailed, emailed, faxed, or personally delivered to:

Bridgit Barnes, Esq.

Brigit S. Barnes & Associates, Inc.
3262 Penryn Road, Suite 200
Loomis, CA 95650
Tel: 916-660-9555
Fax: 916-660-9554
Email: [email protected]
In total, nine of the sixty conditions are being amended or removed. Below is a description of the reasoning for the request to amend or remove these conditions:
x Condition #3: The operator is seeking to obtain the limits as approved in 2019 MND. This condition as amended has been analyzed and is exempt from further environmental review.

See Sections 1.2 of the 2019 MND.
x Condition #4: The operator has business opportunities to receive material originating outside of Yuba and Sutter County. The condition should be removed so as to allow the operator to grow its business. The 2019 MND did not include a limitation on where the material could be sourced. As such, this change is covered by the scope of the 2019 MND.

See Section 7 of the 2019 MND.
x Condition #5: The 2019 MND already analyzed the results of removing this condition.

The 2019 MND contains mitigations measures for the operator to use, such as shipping out potentially odorous material within 48-hours of receipt at the site. Therefore removing this condition is exempt from further environmental review. See Sections 3e of the 2019 MND. x Condition #7: The operator is not always able to store tires in a 40-yard container. Instead the operator stacks tires on pallets and stores tires according to state law. State law restricts the number of tires stored on-site to approximately 499 tires. In addition, state law prescribes acceptable methods of storage, record keeping and disposal (See Title 14 CCR Section 17350 – 17359). The operator is a licensed Tire Collection Site. The Tire Enforcement Agency inspects the site according to state law. The 2019 MND did not include any limitation on how to store tires. This condition as amended does not require further environmental review.
x Condition #10: The operator requests to receive all materials as analyzed in the 2019

Page 297 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 9
MND. The 2019 MND analyzed the impacts of allowing packer trucks to transport materials to the Facility. Therefore, the 2019 MND covers this proposed amendment to the CUP and is exempt from further environmental review. See Section 1.2, 3, 7 & 12 of the 2019 MND.
x Condition #12: Amending this condition allows the operator the latitude to modify its hours with approval from the LEA as long as the hours of operation are consistent with what was analyzed in 2019 MND. This condition as amended was analyzed in 2019 MND and does not require any additional environmental review. See Section 12 of the 2019 MND.
x Condition #59: The requirements of this condition have been completed. Therefore, this condition should be removed.
x Condition #60: This condition was requested for reasons noted in #60a and #60b.

Specifically, this condition was added in case an “extension” was filed or if the operator had failed to complete the project in a timely manner. Since both conditions were completed, no further notification should be needed to this group. Any further amendments to the conditions of approval will be noticed to the public according to state law.

In accordance with the requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 8-5.2101, a Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission is required to operate a recycling and collection facility in the M-2 Zoning District. It is noted that in addition to being required to comply with local regulations and requirements, the Recycling Industries Transfer Station (RITS) must also comply with all applicable State statutes & regulations and other agency requirements. As a LVTS, this facility is inspected by the Yuba-Sutter Local Enforcement Agency on a minimum monthly basis, with enforcement-empowered corrections ordered for all conditions that do not meet State standards for human and environmental health. Additional details regarding the applicable State and local agency requirements are provided in the Environmental section below.

General Plan Designation:

Manufacturing, Processing, and Warehousing.

Zoning Classification:

Industrial District (M-2).

Property Description:

The project site is located at the southwest corner of Epley Drive and Putman Avenue. There are seven existing metal buildings and existing improved surface upon APN 54-083-26. Street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) exist along the Epley Drive and Putman Avenue frontages of this parcel, together with existing street shade trees and frontage landscaping. The

Page 298 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 10
site is complete with respect to all construction requirements evaluated for DP 17-03. No modifications are being requested to DP 17-03 as part of this application.

Surrounding Land Use:

Undeveloped industrial land which is utilized for the truck storage business is located immediately north of the site across Epley Drive. Escalara Manufacturing is located across Epley Drive to northwest of the site, and Unity Forest is located across Epley Drive to northeast of the site. To the east, across Putman Avenue, are multiple industrial businesses including: Andean Foods, a truck repair site; and, North State Tire/ Bandag Repair. Immediately to the west of the project site is a heavy industrial use by Hilo Erectors, and to the immediate south of the site is a parcel under construction as a truck storage yard, which separates the project from the Kingsbury Bearings industrial business located further to the south.

All parcels within 1,000 feet of the project site are zoned M-2 (Industrial District). The nearest residentially zoned or residentially occupied property is over 1,850 feet to the west of the project site boundary.

Previous Planning Commission & City Council Actions and/or Policies:

On February 29, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (File # EA 07-29) and approved a Use Permit (File # UP 07-12) to relocate an existing recycling facility from 389 Wilbur Avenue to the subject property at 140 Epley Drive.

On July 23, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (File # EA 12-02) and approved a Use Permit (File # UP 12-01) to approve the LVTS upon the subject property at 140 Epley Drive, subject to certain conditions of approval.

On August 24, 2016, the Planning Commission granted a 2-year extension for Use Permit UP 12- 01 for completion of development of the LVTS upon the subject property at 140 Epley Drive subject to compliance with all conditions and/or mitigation measures as approved by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2014.

On November 18, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted the Subsequent IS/MND for EA 17- 10, which states that with the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed modification of UP 12-01 would not create any significant environmental impacts. The Commission also approved DP 17-03 and UP 17-05 with a total of 58 conditions that enabled RI to modify its three-acre Large Volume Transfer/Processing Solid Waste Facility and add an additional 1-acre parcel.

Following an appeal of the Planning Commission’s November 18th approval UP 17-05 & IS/MND EA 17-10, the City Council conducted a hearing on January 15, 2019 and February 5, 2019. The City Council adopted a Resolution denying the appeal, and approving and adopting the Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 17-10 for the project and Use Permit 17-05. In addition the City Council added modified the conditions of approval to a total of 60 conditions.

Page 299 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 11
Environmental:

A Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 12-02) was prepared for the UP 12-01 project.

In addition to complying with all applicable local ordinances and requirements, the UP 12-01 project further complied with applicable State standards requirements for solid waste management facilities. The LVTS considered in EA 12-02 is required to meet the State standards for solid waste handling as promulgated within the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14. The Yuba-Sutter Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) is responsible for ensuring that the design and the ongoing operations of this project is in compliance with all applicable State-mandated requirements within the aforementioned regulations. Facility inspection by the LEA is at a minimum monthly frequency, and items which are not conforming to State standards must be corrected under penalty of enforcement. The modified project continues and enhances compliance with these State standards, other state and local agency requirements, and all applicable local ordinances.

As part of the State-mandated requirements of CCR Title 14, the applicant is required to prepare a Transfer/ Processing Report (TPR) which details how the proposed RITS will comply with all statutes, regulations and standards/ requirements (State, City, and local agencies) by fully describing the RITS operations, and providing engineered designs for purposes including the protection of human health and safety and the environment. An amended TPR is being prepared for the RITS to this end for the modified project.

In addition to the LVTS being subject to compliance with the provisions Title 14 CCR under the enforcement authority of the Yuba-Sutter LEA, the following regulatory requirements also apply to the RITS facility:
• Use Permit - A Use Permit (UP) for the RITS is required by the City of Yuba City to allow the operation of a solid waste transfer station on the subject property. This is, in part, required to ensure conformance with the Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Integrated Waste Management Plan is required by AB 939 and includes a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE) which identify how the City will comply with AB 939 recycling and diversion mandates and reduce solid waste disposal in landfills. The site operates under UP 17-05
• Non-Disposal Facility Element - The Regional Waste Management Authority (RWMA) has amended the NDFE to include the RITS facility. The amendment to the RWMA’s NDFE for this LVTS was completed in September 2014, and is based the consistency of recycling/ diversion rates of the RITS facility with the Integrated Waste Management Plan adopted by RWMA, and a facility design capacity of up to 500 TPD. The UP 17-05 project is consistent with the NDFE amendment adopted by RWMA during September 2014. • Storm Water Permit - The facility maintains compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Industrial Storm Water Permit (NPDES) program as administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (RWQCB).

A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Monitoring Plan have been developed for the RITS facility by a qualified professional. Best Management Practices (BMPs) set forth within the SWPPP for control of stormwater discharge quality, together with sampling and analysis of stormwater, is performed as required for the General Industrial NPDES program,

Page 300 of 931 ends

Project Description
Recycling Industries: 140 Epley Drive
July 18, 2023 / page 12
and evaluated for effectiveness and modified as warranted on a minimal annual basis. The RITS is subject to periodic unannounced inspections by RWQCB enforcement staff to ensure that all elements of these stormwater programs are current, and that BMPs are being implemented and periodically evaluated for efficacy.
• California Division of Recycling Processor Certification Permit – The State of California Department of Conservation has issued a Certification for the facility to operate as a State Certified Processor to support Certified Recycling Centers and Collection Programs. • Hazardous Waste Generator ID Number - The RITS does not generate over 250 gallons of hazardous waste per year. Operating under this threshold, the facility is not required to obtain a Hazardous Waste Generator ID Number from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
• Solid Waste Facilities Permit – A Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) for the UP 12-01 project was recommended for issuance by the Yuba County Community Services Department, Environmental Health Division (also the Sutter County LEA) on 13 March 2015, with concurrence by CalRecycle granted on 27 March 2015 (SWFP No. 51-AA-0008). Changes to any solid waste facility permitted acreage, layout, nature and quantity of waste materials received by the facility, changes to facility capacity, changes to facility traffic, and similar operational attributes for a LVTS must first be set forth in detail within an updated TPR submitted to the LEA, thence to CalRecycle for amended permit concurrence.

In compliance with the requirements of CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the UP 12-01 project (EA 12-02), which was routed to the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (SCH# 2014052082). The public review period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration began on May 23, 2014 and closed on June 25, 2014. A Subsequent IS/MND was prepared for UP 17-05 (EA 17-10). This Subsequent IS/MND was routed again to the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (SCH# 2014052082). The public review period closed on November 6, 2018. City staff received several responses from agencies, and a concerned citizens group represented as “Stop the Dump.” All comments and concerns were addressed and mitigated in EA 17-10.

MODIFIED PROJECT SUMMARY:

Provided below is the applicant’s evaluation of the criteria which may be required by Yuba City in order to approve the use permit modification.

This proposal is intended to be consistent with the General Plan.

The property is zoned M-2, Industrial District, which is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Manufacturing, Processing, and Warehousing. With UP 17-05, the City determined that the M-2 District allows recycling and collection facilities, including a LVTS, subject to the issuance of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission.

The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, public

Page 301 of 931 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 302 of 931 ends

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

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

Page 303 of 931 ends

Page 304 of 931 ends

Attachment 2

Page 305 of 931 ends

Page 306 of 931 ends

Attachment 3

Page 307 of 931 ends

RECYCLING INDUSTRIES TRANSFER STATION

USE PERMIT REVISIONS

DRAFT SUBSEQUENT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE (SCH) # 2014052082
Prepared For:

City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993
Prepared By:

Clements Environmental
15230 Burbank Boulevard, Ste. 103
Sherman Oaks, California, 90401
October 2018

Page 308 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 1 ends

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT INITIAL STUDY
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.) require that a government agency analyze the potential changes to the environment that would accompany implementation (including construction and use) of a project and that these environmental impacts be disclosed to decision makers and the public prior to project approval. In addition, measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts should be incorporated into the project. Comments received during an open house held by Recycling Industries on June 26, 2018, are also incorporated into this initial study.

The City of Yuba City Development Services Planning Division prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) 12-2 to analyze the impacts associated with construction and operation of a Large Volume Transfer Station with a maximum throughput of 100 tons per day (TPD) of mixed waste and recyclables. On July 23, 2014, the City Planning Commission approved UP 12-01 with conditions and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Conditions of approval included:
 A 10 percent cap on the amount of putrescible material of all material collected,  A prohibition on packer trucks bringing garbage to the facility; and,  Operations to be conducted on a 3-acre site.

On July 24, 2014, a Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed with the State Clearinghouse (reference SCH #2014052082). A Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) 51-AA-0008 has been issued by the YubaSutter County Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for a maximum throughput of 100 TPD. On June 13, 2018, the City of Yuba City Planning Commission granted a two-year extension for Up 12-01 which will now expire on July 23, 2020.

The facility operator, Recycling Industries (RI), is permitted to operate as a Large Volume Transfer Station that can accept 100 TPD of mixed recyclables and solid waste with a cap of 10 percent putrescible material of all material collected. Solid waste can include garbage from self haul vehicles, commercial box vans and roll-off trucks. As conditioned, the facility is not permitted to receive packer trucks with garbage. Only self-haul loads which can include are allowed at the facility.

RI is proposing to modify UP 12-01 and obtain a revised Large Volume Transfer/Processing SWFP to:
 Accept up to 300 tons per day (TPD) of solid waste and recyclable materials from 100 TPD;  Allow material to be delivered to the facility in commercial packer/collection trucks;  Remove 10 percent limitation on putrescible material;  Expand the site from 3 acres to 4 acres; and,
 Increase the transfer and processing building from 18,000 square feet to 21,600 square feet.

Page 309 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 2 ends

The additional tonnage would be from residential and commercial franchise collection routes within Yuba City (City) if RI is a successful partner in pending procurement for these franchise services. It should be noted that there is currently under 200 TPD of solid waste generated in the City, however, growth forecasts show solid waste generation increasing to 300 TPD by the year 2030.1 In addition to the Mitigation Measures (MMs) included as part of the MND, the City also relied on the Regulatory Requirements (RRs) set forth under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) which establish “Minimum Standards” for solid waste handling facilities and delegates CalRecycle and LEA with permitting, compliance and inspection responsibilities. The RRs set forth in Title 14 and contained in the RI Facility Processing Report (FPR), dated December 2011, were made part of the UP and MND. During the public review process, staff received comments from affected agencies that were classified as advisory in nature.

While the impacts of operating a 100 ton per day (TPD) large volume solid waste facility were previously analyzed by the City, the impacts associated with proposed project revisions could result in new environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the previous IS/MND. Thus, this Subsequent IS uses the information and analysis in the previous RI IS/MND that remain relevant to the project, and where necessary, discusses the impacts of the proposed project that are different than the impacts discussed in the previous IS/MND. The focus of a subsequent IS/MND is limited to identifying revisions to the approved project, new information and changed circumstances that creates a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. In addition, this Subsequent IS identifies RRs and MMs in the previous IS/MND that remain applicable to the proposed project.

The City, as the lead agency, is responsible for completing the environmental review process, as required under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and that has authorized the preparation of this Initial Study by Clements Environmental with the understanding that the Initial Study would be peer reviewed by a third party consultant chosen by the City. Written and verbal comments received during an open house held by RI on June 26, 2018, have also been incorporated into this Initial Study.

Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines identifies the purposes of an IS as follows:

1. To provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration;

2. To enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration;

3. To assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects;

4. To facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;

1 “Final: Transfer Station, Material Recovery Facility and Fleet Storage and Maintenance Facility Feasibility Study” prepared by TetraTech/BAS (12/2013).

Page 310 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 3 ends

5. To provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;

6. To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and

7. To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared by Clements Environmental on behalf of the lead agency, the City of Yuba City, for proposed modifications to the Recycling Industries Transfer Station (RITS) Use Permit (UP) 12-01 and Environmental Assessment (EA) 12-2 for a Large Volume Transfer Station with a maximum throughput of 100 tons per day (TPD) of mixed waste and recyclables.

The City Planning Commission approved UP 12-01 with conditions and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on July 23, 2014, and a Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed with the State Clearinghouse (reference SCH #2014052082) on July 24, 2014.

The proposed project would modify UP 12-01 to:
 Increase the maximum throughput from 100 TPD to 300 TPD of mixed waste and recyclables;
 Remove the 10% putrescible waste limit condition in UP 12-01. This removal will allow RI to receive waste that might contain more than 10% putrescible waste;  Allow packer trucks to bring garbage to the Recycling Industries’ Large Volume Transfer Station. Packer trucks are waste collection vehicles such as rear loaders, side loaders and front loaders. They are used primarily for the collection of waste that will be delivered to a disposal site for transfer, reprocessing, treatment or a landfill. These trucks are equipped with mechanized compaction abilities that allow the waste to be compressed or densified, thus allowing for greater route efficiencies. In the Yuba Sutter Area, the current waste hauler uses front-loaders and side loaders as commercial compaction vehicles;  Disallow packer trucks to deliver source separated residential and commercial green waste to the RITS;
 Expand the project site area from three (3) to four (4) acres through the addition of Assessor’s Parcel 54-083-15;
 Add an inbound truck scale and modular scale-house/weighmaster office (approximately 700 square feet);
 Add, modify and abandon driveways;
 Relocate onsite an existing 1,800 square foot metal building that had been slated for demolition;
 Expand the proposed transfer and processing building from 18,000 square feet to 21,600 square feet and,
 Merge APN 54-083-015 with APN 54-083-014.

Page 311 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 4 ends

1.3 PROJECT TITLE
Recycling Industries Transfer Station Revised UP 12-01 for a Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility.

1.4 LEAD AGENCY
City of Yuba City Planning Division

1.5 PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON
Mr. Arnoldo Rodriguez, AICP, Development Services Director City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd.

Yuba City, CA 95993

1.6 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the City of Yuba City as shown on the Regional Vicinity Map (Figure 1) at 140 Epley Drive within Garden Highway Industrial Park. Major roads providing access to the facility include Lincoln Road, Bogue Road Garden Highway, Epley Drive and Burns Drive.

The operations currently permitted under UP 12-01 and SWFP 51-AA-008 occur on two contiguous parcels under the same land ownership. The parcels are referred as Sutter County Assessor's Parcel Number (hereinafter “APN”) 54-083-014 and APN 54-083-023, which occupy approximately three acres. The proposed project would add the adjacent vacant, one-acre parcel to the south (APN 54- 083-015) for a total site area of approximately four acres.

Page 312 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 5 ends

FIGURE 1 – REGIONAL VICINITY MAP

Page 313 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 6 ends

The Site is located approximately 0.55 miles south-southwest of the Sutter County Airport runway (at closest Site property line) and is within the Overflight Zone of this Airport (Airport Land Use Commission, 1994). Figure 2 shows a Vicinity Map and Figure 3 shows an Aerial Map of the project area.

Existing buildings, parking, access, as well as other relevant existing site features and improvements associated with the current RI facility are shown on Figure 4, Existing Plan. Existing buildings on site will be retained under the proposed project with an 1,800 square foot metal building (Building #2) relocated. The proposed project improvements are shown in Figure 5, Proposed Site Plan.

The RITS is located at 140 Epley Drive in the City of Yuba City in an industrial area of the Yuba City, and the property is zoned M-2. The RI facility is located on the south side of Epley Drive 1,900 feet east of Garden Highway and north of Burns Dr. The facility is located on approximately three (3) acres, zoned M-2 for heavy industrial and surrounded by compatible industrial/manufacturing land uses.

Page 314 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 7 ends

FIGURE 2 – VICINITY MAP

Page 315 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 8 ends

FIGURE 3 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

Page 316 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 9 ends

FIGURE 4 – EXISTING SITE PLAN

Page 317 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 10 ends

FIGURE 5 – PROPOSED SITE PLAN

Page 318 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 11 ends

SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This section contains the environmental checklist prepared for the proposed modification of Use Permit (UP) 12-01 for the Recycling Industries Transfer Station (proposed project). The checklist used is consistent with Appendix G of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

Page 319 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 12 ends

Responsible Agencies:
 Yuba-Sutter Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
 CalRecycle
 DTSC
 State Water Resources Control Board
 Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD)

Page 320 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries
October 2018
11 Draft Subsequent IS/MND
Clements Environmental

Page 321 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 14 ends

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Department has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. (Mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced.) 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15063(c)(3)(D).) In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) The explanation of each issue should identify: the significance threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question, and; mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Sources of thresholds include the City General Plan, other City planning documents, and County ordinances. Some thresholds are unique to geographical locations. 8) Climate Change Impacts: When determining whether a project’s impacts are significant, the analysis should consider, when relevant, the effects of future climate change on: 1) worsening hazardous conditions that pose risks to the project’s inhabitants and structures (e.g., floods and wildfires), and 2) worsening the project’s impacts on the environment (e.g., impacts on special status species and public health).

Page 322 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 15 ends

1. AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?    

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
   

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings because of height, bulk, pattern, scale, character, or other features?
   

d) Create a new source of substantial shadows, light, or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) City of Yuba City EA 12-2 determined that UP 12-01 would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista as there are no officially designated scenic vistas in Yuba City.

Therefore, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. In addition, it should be noted that the site is in an industrial area and the proposed project will only expand the overall area 25% and the increased building coverage would be 18%. The relocation of the building that was slated to be removed will not add additional buildings to what exists today and was evaluated in the IS/MD. The newly proposed and a new 700 square foot modular office trailer that is proposed to be located adjacent to a new 70-foot truck scale would not significantly increase the nature of the site. The proposed project will be similar in scale and massing as compared to other development in the area. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
b) City of Yuba City EA 12-2 determined that UP 12-01 would not substantially damage any scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway based on the fact that there are no officially designated or eligible scenic highways in Sutter County.

The proposed project includes the addition of the undeveloped one-acre parcel to the south (reference APN 54-083-15). The new parcel proposed under the project does not include any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, and no new impacts to scenic resources are anticipated. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.

Page 323 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 16 ends

c) City of Yuba City EA 12-2 determined that the 18,000 square foot transfer building approved under UP 12-01 would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

The proposed project would increase the size of the transfer station building to 21,600 square feet and relocate it to the southern portion of the expanded site. An existing 1,800 square foot metal building previously proposed for demolition will retained on site and a new 700 square foot modular office trailer will be located adjacent to a new 70-foot truck scale. Visually, the bulk and massing of an 18,000 square foot and 21,600 square foot metal building are similar. Therefore, the proposed floor area increase would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings because of height, bulk, pattern, scale, character, or other features will be similar to the existing nature of the site.

The proposed addition of an undeveloped one-acre parcel to the south (reference APN 54- 083-15) will allow the proposed building to be sited in manner that provides more open space for traffic circulation and material storage. While the expanded site increases the scale of the project when compared to UP 12-01, it is consistent with surrounding industrial development and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Perimeter fencing consistent with the existing fencing and industrial setting will screen the additional acre.

Maintaining the 1,800 square foot metal building previously proposed for demolition and adding a new 700 square foot modular office trailer and 70-foot truck scale would be consistent with the surrounding industrial development in terms of height, bulk, pattern, scale and character, and no additional impacts are anticipated.

Under EA 12-2, potential adverse visual impacts related to the “collection, storage and distribution of recyclables and waste materials” were mitigated by perimeter fencing and mature landscaping as well as compliance with the regulatory requirements (RRs) set forth under Title 14 and included in the RI Facility Processing Report (FPR) dated December 2011.

While the proposed project would increase the amount of recyclables and waste processed each day at the RITS, no new impacts are anticipated in relation to the collection, storage and distribution/transfer of those materials. With perimeter fencing and material tipping and processing occurring inside the proposed building, as well as the RRs contained in Title 14, CCR and implemented in the RITS Transfer/Processing Report (TPR) dated October 19, 2017 (which supersedes the FPR dated December 2011) and included as Appendix A of this IS/MND, the potential for the increased tonnage to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. d) City of Yuba City EA 12-2 determined that the RI site was developed in compliance with City-approved lighting and that the development approved under UP 12-01 would not result

Page 324 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 17 ends

in a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

The proposed project would create new sources of shadows, light, and glare, but they would not be substantial or adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Shadow patterns associated with the expanded and relocated building would be similar to the project approved under UP 12-01 as there is no change in the proposed building height. While the proposed project could result in new sources of light and glare from the modular office windows, as well as from the additional exterior lighting associated with the expanded site area, any new exterior lighting would be developed in compliance with the “Exterior Lighting” requirements under City of Yuba City Municipal Code Article 58, and low or nonglare windows will be used in compliance with State and local building standards. The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial shadows, light, or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.

Page 325 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 18 ends

2. AGRICULTURE / FOREST
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
   

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or with a Williamson Act contract?
   

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined in Government Code § 51104(g))?
   

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
   

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) The project site is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” as shown on the Sutter County Important Farmland Map (2016) prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Per the Important Farmland Map, urban and built-up land is “occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.” The proposed expansion of the

Page 326 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 19 ends

project site would not affect Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland).
b) The entire project site, as well as surrounding properties, are zoned M-2 (Industrial), and there is no potential to conflict with an existing zoning for agricultural use. The undeveloped parcel (APN 54-083-15) included as part of the proposed project is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.
c) There are no forest lands, timberlands or lands zoned for timberland production within the City of Yuba City, and there is no potential for the proposed project to impact any of those resources.
d) There are no forest lands within the City of Yuba City and no forest land would be lost or converted to non-forest uses as a result of the proposed project. e) The proposed project would develop vacant, urban lands, zoned for industrial use. The proposed project would not result in changes to the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The project site is already subject to vector control requirements via the TPR (see section 5.5), which will also apply to any additional tonnage collected at the site.

Page 327 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 20 ends

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan of the Feather River Air Quality Management District?
   

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
   

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
   

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
   

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) The project site is located within the North Sacramento Valley Planning Area (NSVPA) and the Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD). In 2014, ozone levels in the City of Yuba City exceeded the 1-hour and 8-hour California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) one and three times, respectively.

The Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area, 2015 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan assesses the progress made in implementing the previous triennial update and proposes modifications to the strategies necessary to attain the CAAQS by the earliest practicable date.

Under the 2015 Triennial Plan projected emissions show a downtrend for both ROG and NOx, which are the precursor emissions for ozone. The NOx emissions are forecasted to reduce by 32% and the ROG missions are forecasted to reduce by 16% between 2010 and 2020.

Page 328 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 21 ends

In the NSVPA, ozone can be caused by stationary source emissions, such as from boilers, mobile sources such as cars, trucks, and trains, or area sources such as consumer products or wildfires. The 2015 Triennial Plan indicates that mobile sources comprise the majority of the NOx emission inventory in 2015, an estimated 65% of the total.

Based on an additional 200 TPD of solid waste being processed at the RITS, the proposed project could result in a total of 104 total daily vehicle trips to and from the site (i.e., 52 inbound and 52 outbound). It is estimated that the project will generate up to eight vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour.

Any potential air quality impacts associated with an increase in project related vehicle emissions are mitigated by the current levels of service (LOS) at the intersections in proximity to the proposed project. All intersections studied are operating at LOS C or better, which indicates a lack congestion that is the primary source of concentrated vehicular emissions and adverse air quality impacts. The potential for local air quality impacts due to increased collection truck trips would therefore be considered less than significant From a basin-wide perspective, the proposed project would result in reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and overall reduced NOx emissions due to the RITS proximity to customers in the City of Yuba City. Based on the nominal increase in collection and transfer trucks using the facility, the LOS of adjacent intersections and lack of congestion as well as the potential reduction in VMT, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2015 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan.

Potential air quality impacts associated with the use of commercial collection/packer trucks under the proposed project will also be mitigated through compliance with the State Solid Waste Collection Vehicle (SWCV) regulation. The SWCV regulation is intended to reduce the harmful health impacts and smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions of exhaust from diesel-fueled waste collection trucks by requiring SWCV owners to use California Air Resources Board verified control technology that best reduces emissions and to replace older trucks with new trucks that emit less pollutants.

Under a July 2005 Staff Report, regarding “Implementation of SB656 Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter” the entire FRAQMD is classified as non-attainment for PM10 under the CAAQS and unclassified for PM2.5.

The increase in solid waste processing under the proposed project will increase the potential for fugitive dust emissions. Compliance with FRAQMD Rule 3.16, regarding “Fugitive Dust Emissions” will be achieved by employing dust suppression methods such as water hoses, overhead misting and by conducting solid waste tipping and transfer activities inside an enclosed building to mitigate the potential impacts associated with the proposed project.

Sources of PM10 and PM2.5 also include internal combustion engines (ICEs), wood burning stoves and fireplaces, dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture, wildfires and brush/waste burning, industrial sources, and windblown dust from open lands. Potential project related increases in PM10 or PM 2.5 associated with the increased use of on and offroad ICE powered vehicles at the RITS will be mitigated through the use of required

Page 329 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 22 ends

pollution control equipment and maintaining company owned equipment and vehicles in tune. With new development and site paving on the one-acre parcel to be added, the use of dust suppression techniques such as an overhead misting system inside the transfer station building, and required vehicle emission control equipment, the proposed project would not be considered to have the potential for a significant impact on fugitive dust, PM 10 or PM

2.5 levels in the FRAQMD.

The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan of the Feather River Air Quality Management District by controlling fugitive dust emissions and complying with the SWCV mandates. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
b) Construction and operation of the RITS project will not result in any violations of air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

The proposed project will not substantially change the timing and methods of construction when compared to the project reviewed under EA 12-2 and approved under UP 12-01, and no new construction related air quality impacts are anticipated. Off-road diesel equipment associated with construction and operation of the facility will meet the California Air Resources Board Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulations which are intended to reduce oxides of nitrogen and PM. FRAQMD regulations related to visible emissions (Rule 3.0), architectural coatings (Rule 3.15 and fugitive dust emissions (Rule 3.16) will also mitigate potential construction related air quality impacts. On-road emissions associated with construction worker and facility employee vehicles will also remain similar to the project analyzed under EA 12-2 and approved under UP 12-01.

Finally, potential air quality impacts associated with the use of commercial collection/packer trucks under the proposed project will be mitigated through compliance with the State Solid Waste Collection Vehicle (SWCV) regulation. The SWCV regulation is intended to reduce the harmful health impacts and smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions of exhaust from diesel-fueled waste collection trucks by requiring SWCV owners to use California Air Resources Board verified control technology that best reduces emissions, and to replace older trucks with new trucks that emit less pollutants. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. .
c) The collection trucks that would utilize the RITS are currently operating in the air basin so the project would not represent a new source of vehicle emissions. Any potential air quality impacts associated with an increase in project related vehicle emissions are mitigated by the current levels of service (LOS) at the intersections in proximity to the proposed project. All intersections studied are operating at LOS C or better, which indicates a lack congestion that is the primary source of concentrated vehicular emissions and adverse air quality impacts. In addition, and effective October 1, 2019 via the new franchise hauler agreement with the City, all collection and transfer vehicles will have the most up-to-date pollution control equipment and, over time, fleets will be upgraded to clean fuel engines such as Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

Page 330 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 23 ends

The operation of on-site diesel-powered equipment to load-out solid waste will increase under the proposed project. At 100 tons per day, a loader would be expected to operate two hours per day and at 300 tons per day, the loader would be anticipated to operate six hours per day.

The following emissions would be associated with the additional loader operations associated with the proposed 200 ton per day increase in tonnage per day:

Under the FRAQMD rules, projects that would exceed 25 pounds per day of ROG or NOX, or 80 pounds per day of PM10, or greater would be considered having a significant impact for the respective criteria pollutant. The proposed project would generate 0.8 pounds per day of ROG, 5.4 pounds per day of NOx and 0.195 pounds of PM10 and would therefore not exceed any of the FRAQMD’s significance thresholds and the air quality impacts associated with the increased tonnage would be considered less than significant.

Off-road equipment used in the operation of the facility would not result in emissions that exceed the FRAQMD’s significance thresholds. As shown in the Table above, the proposed project would result in increased air emissions associated with increased use of off-road equipment onsite. Multiplying the emission factors by the six (6) additional hours of loader operation, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 0.8 lbs/day of ROGs, 5.4 lbs/day of NOx and 0.2 lbs/day of PM10. None of the project related emissions will exceed the 25 pounds per day of ROG or NOX, or 80 pounds per day of PM10 significance thresholds set by the FRAQMD, and no significant air quality impacts are anticipated.

Emissions associated with the proposed use of commercial solid waste collection and transfer vehicles at the RITS will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) due to the use of the most up-to-date pollution control equipment on both on- and off-road vehicles. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, ROG emissions are forecasted to decrease by 32% and the ROG emissions are forecasted to decrease by 16% between 2010 and 2020 in the NSVPA. The commercial collection vehicles that would potentially utilize the RITS are collecting or will collect waste

Page 331 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 24 ends

generated within the FRAQMD with or without the proposed Project. As noted above, City growth forecasts show solid waste generation increasing to 300 TPD by the year 2030. This growth will occur with or without the project. Thus, there will not be any net increase in emissions of oxides of nitrogen or PM due to the proposed project. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
d) EA 12-2 indicated that there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project.

Specifically, the nearest residence is located approximately 1,900 feet west of the project site (on Eastwind Drive) and the nearest school (Lincrest Elementary School) is located over one mile west of the project site. The potential for the proposed project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be considered less than significant. e) EA 12-2 acknowledged that potential odor impacts associated with operation of the project as proposed under UP 12-01 could be mitigated by tipping and processing solid waste in an enclosed building, installing an overhead misting system with an odor neutralizing compound and not accepting solid waste with over ten percent putrescible material.

The proposed project would revise UP 12-01 to remove the condition prohibiting the RITS from receiving packer trucks with garbage. Allowing solid waste collection vehicles to use the RITS could result in an increased potential for odor impacts. By conducting material tipping and processing inside the proposed transfer 21,600 sf building, as well as the Regulatory Requirements contained in Title 14, CCR and implemented in the RITS Transfer/Processing Report (TPR) dated October 19, 2017 (which supersedes the FPR dated December 2011) the potential odor impacts associated with packer trucks bringing garbage to the RITS would be mitigated and the potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Odor control provisions included in the TPR include an overhead misting system with odor neutralizing compound, removal of waste within 48 hours of receipt and maintaining a clean site are used to control odors. Provisions requiring weekly washing of collection and transfer trucks will either be included as a condition of approval or incorporated into the franchise agreement to further reduce the potential for odor impacts associated with those vehicles.

It should also be noted that the TPR adopted under the proposed Use Permit revision will only allow RITS to accept green waste/ yard waste from self-haul customers. RI intends to segregate greenwaste/ yard waste from mixed loads (within franchise debris box intake and mixed public/ self-haul loads) for diversion to a regional greenwaste/ compost facility. RI will not accept source-separated curbside greenwaste. Instead, all franchise curbside collection of residential yard waste and food scraps will be delivered directly to a regional greenwaste/ compost facility, thus eliminating a major potential odor source from potentially impacting the facility and local area. Since UP 12-01 currently allows RI to accept source-separate curbside greenwaste, the proposed revisions to UP 12-01 may provide an improvement to odor impacts over baseline conditions. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.

Page 332 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 25 ends

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
   

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
   

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, and drainages) or waters of the United States, as defined by § 404 of the federal Clean Water Act or California Fish & Game code § 1600, et seq. through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
   

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
   

e) Conflict will any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation ordinance?    

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) Based on the Yuba City General Plan, EA 12-2 concluded that there no special status species on the site or within the vicinity of the project site. The Yuba City General Plan designates the project site as developed land and shows that the location of potential Hartweg’s Golden

Page 333 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 26 ends

Sunburst Habitat, which is a designated Special Status Species, approximately .8 miles east of the project area. The project site, as well as the undeveloped parcel to be added under the proposed project, are not considered Hartweg’s Golden Sunburst habitat, and therefore no adverse impacts to special status species will occur as a result of the proposed project.

Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
b) Based on the Yuba City General Plan, EA 12-2 concluded that there are no riparian habitats or any other sensitive natural communities within the vicinity of the project. While the project site, and the undeveloped parcel to be added under the proposed project are located approximately 1,200 feet west of the Feather River and associated wetlands, the Yuba City General Plan, dated April 8, 2004 provided that the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) does not list any riparian-related special status vegetation species in the Yuba City Planning Area. Furthermore, the riparian habitat is separated from the project site by intervening development and the Feather River Levee. Based on the fact that the Yuba City General Plan designates the project site as developed land, and the Feather River Levee physically separates the project area from the river and associated riparian habitat no impacts are anticipated. The proposed project will therefore not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. c) EA 12-2 concluded that there are no federally protected wetlands within the vicinity of the property. While the project site, and the undeveloped parcel to be added under the proposed project are proximate to the Feather River and associated wetlands, that sensitive habitat is separated from the project site by the Feather River Levee. The Yuba City General Plan designates the project site as developed land, and the Feather River Levee physically separates the project area from the river and associated riparian habitat. The proposed project will therefore not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, and drainages) or waters of the United States, as defined by § 404 of the federal Clean Water Act or California Fish & Game code § 1600, et seq. through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. d) EA 12-2 concluded that the project proposed under UP 12-01 would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The project site, as well as the undeveloped parcel to be added under the proposed project are located in an urbanized area as designated by the Yuba City General Plan and thus experiences nominal wildlife movement. The proposed project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.

Page 334 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 27 ends

e) EA 12-01 stated that there are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans within the project vicinity. Although the Yuba City General Plan, dated April 8, 2004 provided that the CNDDB does not list any riparian-related special status vegetation species in the Yuba City Planning Area, the Feather River provides important fish and riparian habitat areas. As such, the City recently began the preparation of a strategic master plan for the 750-acre Feather River corridor, the purpose of which is to create a vision for the River, one that would make the most of the River as a recreational resource, while providing habitat for a variety of wildlife. The vacant parcel to be added under the proposed project will not increase the potential for conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved or proposed local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan due to the lack of any such designated protection areas in the project vicinity. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.

Page 335 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 28 ends

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §
15064.5?
   

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
   

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
   

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) Under EA 12-2, a visual inspection of the project site was conducted and no historical resources as defined by Section 15046.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act were observed. As the additional parcel included under the proposed project is undeveloped there is no potential for any impacts that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. b) EA 12 -02 concluded that with mitigation, the project proposed under UP 12-01 would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. The mitigation measure states:

Should artifacts or unusual amounts of bone or shell be uncovered during demolition or construction activity, all work shall be stopped and a qualified archeologist shall be contacted for on-site consultation. Avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation shall be completed according to CEQA guidelines.

The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archeological Resource Management Reports which shall be used for guidelines. If the bone appears to be human, California law mandates that the Sutter County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission be contacted.

Application of the same mitigation measure to the undeveloped parcel to be added under the proposed project would reduce the potential for any substantial adverse changes to an archaeological resource associated with development on the new parcel. In addition,

Page 336 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 29 ends

pursuant to AB 52, the Ione Band of the Miwok Indians and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria were notified of the proposed project by letter, dated May 9, 2018, and delivered via certified mail on May 11, 2018. No requests for consultation were received during the 30-day AB 52 comment period. Therefore, the revisions to the project and new information do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
c) EA 12 -02 concluded that with the mitigation included under 5 b) above, the project proposed under UP 12-01 would not destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Application of the same mitigation measure to the undeveloped parcel to be added under the proposed project would reduce the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature to less than significant levels.
d) EA 12 -02 concluded that with the mitigation included under 5 b) above, the project proposed under UP 12-01 would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Application of the same mitigation measure to the undeveloped parcel to be added under the proposed project would reduce the potential impacts associated with any human remains found onsite during the construction to less than significant levels. In addition, the RRs contained in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 subdivision (c) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 related notification of local Native Americans of any buried remains based on the corner’s review, will further reduce the potential impacts on buried remains that may be encountered during development of the proposed project.

Page 337 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 30 ends

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known active fault trace? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
   

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction and lateral spreading?
   

iv) Landslides?    

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?    

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
   

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
   

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of onsite wastewater treatment systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) EA 12-2 cited the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City’s 2010 General Plan, which concluded erosion, landslides, and mudflows are not considered to be a significant risk in the City limits or within the Urban Growth Boundary. No active earthquake faults

Page 338 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 31 ends

are known to exist in Sutter County, although active faults in the region could produce motion in Yuba City.

Potentially active faults do exist in the Sutter Buttes. The faults are considered small and have not exhibited activity in recent history (last 200 years). Earthquakes of up to a 5.8 magnitude on the Richter Scale have been recorded approximately 35 miles away in the last 50 years.

A geotechnical report prepared by Gularte & Associated, dated January 7, 2016, and updated June 29, 2018, for the RITS project approved under UP -12-01 found that the site will experience a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.731 g to 0.294g in the next 50 years which is considered a relatively low level of ground shaking for California. This report is provided as Appendix B to this Initial Study.

The Gularte report also found that the risk of lateral spreading from landslides and liquefaction is considered to be low. Liquefiable soils were not encountered during the investigation. Risk from landsliding should be minor considering the predominantly level topography of the site and area.

The Gularte geotechnical report has been updated to include the undeveloped parcel to be added under the proposed project, and based on the findings and recommendations contained in the report, the proposed project would not be expected to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading, or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading.
b) While the proposed project will result in loss of topsoil due to building construction and paving, the project site is not considered prime agricultural land as designated a on the “Sutter County Important Farmland Map 2016”, as published by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, published June 2017. Under the proposed project, site drainage and runoff will be controlled through the use of curbs, gutters and storm drains in order to minimize the potential for on and off-site soil erosion. c) The Gularte geotechnical report, cites 1992 Geologic Map of the Chico Quadrangle prepared by the California Department of Mines and Geology which shows the project site as being composed of unconsolidated and semi-consolidated alluvium, and that the risk of lateral spreading from landslides and liquefaction is considered to be low. The geotechnical report concludes that from an earthwork, pavement, and foundations viewpoint, the soils at this site are considered suitable for support of the anticipated loads provided the engineering recommendations are followed properly.

The Gularte geotechnical report has been updated to include the undeveloped parcel to be added under the proposed project, and based on the findings and recommendations contained in the January 7, 2016 and June 30, 2018 reports, the proposed project would not be expected to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Page 339 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 32 ends

d) An expansive soil (usually clayey) increases in volume when water is added (expands) and shrinks when water content is reduced. EA 12 -02 concluded the extreme southwest corner of the Yuba City Growth Boundary is the only known area with expansive soils. The project site is not located within this area and therefore will not be impacted by the presence of expansive soils.

The Gularte geotechnical report cites 1992 Geologic Map of the Chico Quadrangle prepared by the California Department of Mines and Geology which shows the project site as being composed of unconsolidated and semi-consolidated alluvium, and their onsite boring observations show the presence of silts and sands. Based on the findings and recommendations contained in the updated June 29, 2018 report, the proposed project is not expected be to be located on expansive soil, thereby creating substantial risks to life or property.
e) As the proposed project does not include use of septic tanks or alternative onsite wastewater disposal systems, there would no potential environmental impacts associated with soils incapable of adequately supporting such systems.

Page 340 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 33 ends

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
   

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) The proposed project will increase the permitted capacity at the RITS to 300 TPD and allow packer trucks to bring garbage to the facility. The additional waste and recyclables that would be processed by the RITS are currently being delivered to the Recolgy Yuba-Sutter Integrated Waste Recovery Facility located at 3001 N. Levee Road in Marysville, CA 95901. Use of the RI facility would reduce each collection truck trip traveled by approximately four miles (two miles in each direction) as measured from 1446 Colusa Highway to the Recolgy Yuba-Sutter Integrated Waste Recovery Facility and result in reduced GHG emissions. It is anticipated that the additional tonnage proposed for processing at the RITS would be diverted from the Recolgy Yuba-Sutter Integrated Waste Recovery Facility, that VMT would be reduced by approximately four miles per packer truck, and that there would be no net increase in GHG emissions associated with the proposed. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment as packer truck’s would use the most up-to-date pollution control equipment and VMT would be reduced.

When compared to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with the project approved under UP 12-1 and EA 12-2, any additional GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be associated with the additional loader operations onsite. As shown in the table provided in Section 3(c) above, operation of the loader would result in 4,048 pounds per day of CO2e emissions, which equates to 1.8 metric tons per day of 562 metric tons CO2e per year. Operation of the proposed loader would increase CO2e emissions by approximately 562 metric tons per year which is less that the 10,000 MT/year threshold of significance for industrial facilities. The additional vehicles using the facility are currently operating in the air basin and would not result in a new source of emissions.

Furthermore, considering the GHG reduction baseline analysis approved under UP 12-1 and EA 12-2, it is assumed that diverting the additional 200 tons per day to the project site will further reduce GHG in the area, given that fewer miles will be driven to the project site as compared to the existing disposal site located in Marysville, CA. Use of the RI facility would

Page 341 of 931 ends

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Page 34 ends

reduce each collection truck trip traveled by approximately four miles (two miles in each direction) as measured from theCity centroid (at 1446 Colusa Highway) to the Recolgy YubaSutter Integrated Waste Recovery Facility. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. b). The proposed project will expand solid waste and recycling services in the City, which are services recognized as part of the California Climate Plan approved under AB 32. Under AB 32 the State intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today’s levels. As mentioned previously, the proposed project will reduce packer truck VMT by approximately four miles per trip as well as the associated GHG emissions in the air basin, and its cumulative impact is not considerable. Thus, the proposed project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.

Page 342 of 931 ends

Yuba City City CouncilMay 7, 2024

Yuba City City Council
May 7, 2024