Yuba City City Council
May 7, 2024

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, storage,
production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
   

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials or waste into the environment?
   

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of sensitive land uses?
   

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
   

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
   

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
   

g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
   

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Responses to Questions:
a) EA 12-2 states that only non-hazardous municipal solid waste and recyclables will be accepted at the RITS. This includes municipal solid waste generated by the residential and commercial self-haul customers and includes self-hauled solid waste. No designated, special, medical, liquid or hazardous wastes will be accepted. A Hazardous Waste Load Check Program will be implemented at the RITS to enforce this policy as noted in the project FPR.

E-waste and universal waste is currently accepted at the facility and handled and stored in compliance with all RRs as well as the RI FPR.

EA 12-2 further states that, in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, a hazardous waste screening program will be developed and implemented at the facility to detect illegally disposed liquid, hazardous and/or special wastes (infectious wastes, dead animals, and sludge). Any non-acceptable items will be returned to the customer. RI will provide a list of acceptable locations to properly dispose of non-accepted material.

The proposed project, which would increase the permitted capacity to 300 tons per day, would increase the possibility of hazardous material being brought to the RITS. By conducting periodic “load checks” pursuant to 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) the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is 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.
b) As stated above, the RITS will only accept non-hazardous municipal solid waste and recyclables. Employees will be trained to recognize and respond to any hazardous materials found in the waste-stream and which will be stored in a hazardous waste locker until a certified collection company removes it for processing and disposal. Spill kits along with personal protection equipment (PPE) will be located throughout the facility.

The proposed project, which would increase the permitted capacity to 300 tons per day, would increase the possibility of hazardous material being brought to the RITS. By training and equipping employees with the necessary PPE, conducting operations in compliance with 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) the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is 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. c) EA 12-2 indicated that the project proposed under UP 12-01 would not result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school (Lincrest Elementary School) is located over one mile west of the project site. The proposed project, which would increase the permitted capacity to 300 tons per day, would not generate

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The potential to impact a sensitive land use within one-quarter mile of the project site would be less than significant.
d) A June 2018 review of the EnviroStor database, which is the Department of Toxic Substances Control's data management system for tracking cleanup, permitting, enforcement and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination or sites where there may be reasons to investigate further, does not show any pending cases or clean-up activity for the project site including the parcel to be added under the proposed project. A Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared by Vertex and dated December 7, 2015, also concluded that there was no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with hazardous materials or contamination. Since the project site does not appear on the EnviroStor database, there is no potential for the project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
e) EA 12-2 indicated that the project site is located within the sphere of influence of the Sutter County Airport. The Sutter County Department of Public Works reviewed the project and noted that the Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan limits the project’s average density to no more than 25 people per acre per hour in a 24-hour period or no more than 50 people per acre at any time. The applicant has noted that the average concentration of people per hour is less than 25 people, and that it is unforeseeable that there will be more than 50 people per acre on the site. With compliance with the Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, UP 12-01 would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area due its proximity to the Sutter County Airport.

The proposed project would increase the permitted capacity at the RITS to 300 tons per day of solid waste and recyclables, and add six employees for a total of 22 employees. The proposed project, would meet the RRs established under the Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan which limits the project’s average density to no more than 25 people per acre per hour in a 24-hour period or no more than 50 people per acre at any time. Based on a total site area of four acres under the proposed project, no more than 100 people per hour in a 24-hour period or no more than 200 people at any time will be on the project site. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
f) EA 12-2 established that there are no private airstrips located within City limits or the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed project would therefore not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area do to its location in proximity to a private airstrip.
g) EA 12-2 established that the project approved under UP 12-01 would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Based on that finding and the fact that the proposed facilities and traffic circulation at the site are not anticipated to be substantially different than the site features evaluated in the original IS/MND, the proposed project would also not be expected to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. h) Per a June 2018 review of the Cal Fire website, Sutter County does not contain any State Responsibility Area (SRA) land, and therefore does not have any designated High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (HFHSZ). The Draft Sutter County Fire Hazard Zones in Local Responsibility map designates small portions of the City of Yuba City as Moderate Fire Hazard, and the project site designated “Unzoned”. The proposed project would, therefore, not be expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
   

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
   

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
   

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
   

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?    

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, or within a floodway or floodplain?
   

h) Place structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows, within a 100-year flood hazard area, floodway, or floodplain?
   

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
   

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?    

Responses to Questions:
a) EA 12-2 found that the project proposed under UP 12-01 would not violate any water quality or wastewater discharge requirements as the facility will not use water as part of the operation and will not discharge water off site as a byproduct of the operation. The overhead misting system may use a nominal amount of water, or an odor reducing solution, that is ultimately absorbed by the waste material so there is no possibility of runoff or discharge into the stormwater or sanitary sewer systems. With the zero-waste water operation, the facility will not have any industrial waste water discharge.

The proposed project, which would allow up to 300 tons per day of solid waste and recyclables to be delivered by collection trucks and processed at the RITS, would not be expected to substantially increase the potential to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements when compared to the project approved under UP 12-01.

Under the proposed project, potential violations to water quality standards could occur from stormwater runoff due to contact with solid waste, recyclables, maintenance supplies and vehicle travel-ways. These impacts will be mitigated by tipping and processing solid waste inside a covered building and complying with the RITS TPR and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as well the RRs contained in CCR Title 14 and Title 23. The proposed transfer station building will also include floor drains to collect and convey water tracked into the facility by customers during rain events or generated as a result of washdown water associated with steam cleaning the tipping floor and equipment inside the transfer station. Water from the floor drains will be treated pursuant to the Yuba City Department of Public Works prior to being discharged to the sanitary sewer system.

With the design features and RRs, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. b) As the City has adequate water entitlements from the Feather River as well as treatment/distribution capacity to accommodate any need associated with the project, EA 12-2 found that the project approved under UP 12-01 would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).

The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly increase water demand when compared to the project approved under UP 12-01 in that the number of employees will be similar and the amount of water required for site operations will remain essentially the same.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

As noted in this section of the TPR, the operator estimates using less than 0.49 acre-feet of water on an annual basis, which is approximately the same amount of water used by 1.8 residential households annually. The amount of water use is not considered a significant impact. This water will drain into the City’s sanitary sewer through an engineered clarifier to remove solids.

Decreased groundwater infiltration on the project site due to the larger building and additional paving associated with the larger site will be offset by the fact that stormwater runoff is conveyed through storm drains to a detention basin and on to the Feather River which is the source of the City’s water supply. The paved gutters and drains will more effectively and efficiently convey water to the Feather River than would occur under existing conditions. The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. 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 site is relatively flat and partially developed with paving and buildings which drain to an existing storm drain system. There are no streams or rivers on the project site. The undeveloped portions of the site are flat and the proposed project will not require substantial grading. Site drainage will surface flow through paved gutters and/or drains to an offsite storm drain system which will minimize the potential for erosion or siltation. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. d) The proposed project will not substantially alter existing drainage patterns of the site or area or alter the course of a stream or river. Runoff from the proposed project site will be conveyed in paved gutters and/or drains to an offsite storm drain system which will minimize the potential for on-site flooding.

The City of Yuba City maintains a stormwater conveyance system which collects all water from storm events (stormwater) and drains to the Feather River and Sutter Bypass. This system reduces the effects of localized flooding. Prior to any storm drain connections associated with the project, stormwater runoff calculations shall be provided to and approved by the City showing that the municipal storm drain infrastructure is adequate to accommodate surface water runoff from the project. The infrastructure includes a 33-inch storm drain in Putman Avenue, a 36-inch storm drain in Burns Drive, a detention basin adjacent to the City Wastewater Treatment Plant and a pump station which conveys the water to the Feather River. With City review and approval of site runoff and storm drain design calculations, any increase the rate and/or amount of surface runoff from the proposed project would be conveyed off site in a manner that does not result in on- or offsite flooding. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
e) With City review and approval of site runoff and storm drain design calculations, there is no potential for runoff from the proposed project to exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system, and while the proposed project may be a potential source of polluted runoff, any impacts will be mitigated by tipping and processing solid waste inside a

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

covered building, AND complying with the RITS TPR and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as well the RRs contained in CCR Title 14 and Title 23. The proposed transfer station building will also include floor drains to collect and convey water tracked into the facility by customers during rain events or generated as a result of washdown water associated with steam cleaning the tipping floor and equipment inside the transfer station. Water from the floor drains will be treated pursuant to the Yuba City Department of Public Works prior to being discharged to the sanitary sewer system.

The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. f) The proposed project does not include any processes or activities that could otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
g) The proposed project is classified as an industrial use and would therefore not result in the placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, or within a floodway or floodplain, based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Sutter County, California, Panel 605 of 880, Map No. 060394, Panel 0605E. h) The FEMA map indicates that the project site is within “Zone X” (shaded), a zone defined as “Areas with 0.2% annual chance flood; Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood”. The site is also subject to inundation from failure of the Oroville or YWCA Bullards Bar Dams. As the project site is protected from flooding by the Feather River Levee, the only potential for the proposed project to impede or redirect flood flows, within a 100-year flood hazard area, floodway, or floodplain, would be in the event of a levee failure or failure of an upstream dam or levee. The City’s 200-year flood map with a Feather River Breach shows the project site with flood waters of 0 to three feet. While the proposed project could impede or redirect flood flows, within a 100-year flood hazard area, floodway, or floodplain, the impacts would be considered less than significant when compared to the impacts associated with a levee or dam failure on the City. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. i) As discussed in “h” above, as the project site is protected from flooding by the Feather River Levee and subject to inundation from failure of the Oroville or YWCA Bullards Bar Dams.

In the event of levee failure, there is the potential to expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The City’s 200-year flood map with a Feather River Breach shows the project site with flood waters of 0 to three feet. The City has implemented a Flood Evacuation Management plan, and the project site is located in Zone 5 that uses the Black Burn Tally - Sports Complex at 300 Burns Dr. as a temporary gathering area for people who need transportation out of an evacuation area. With the City’s emergency evacuation plan, the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam would be considered

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

less than significant. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. j) The project site is not located near waterbodies that could cause inundation by seiche or tsunami and no associated impacts would occur. The generally flat topography of project area site would also minimize the potential for inundation from mudflow and no adverse associated impacts would occur.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?    

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?    

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) EA 12-2 found that the project approved under UP 12-01 would not physically divide an established community based on the fact that the site is zoned M-2 (Industrial District) and entitled for use as a recycling and solid waste facility and for the proposed type of development. Furthermore, the site is not within an established “residential community” is located on the periphery of the City and approximately 1,200 feet from the closest residential neighborhood. The proposed project, which would add a vacant parcel to the RITS site, would not physically divide an established community based on the fact that the new parcel to be added is adjacent to the existing site, zoned for the proposed type of use, and that the project can be considered an infill development located within an existing industrial subdivision that is comprised of similar development. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. b) EA 12-2 found that the project approved under UP 12-01 would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect since the property has the appropriate General Plan designation and Zoning classification to accommodate the proposed project.

The proposed project, which would add a vacant parcel to the RITS site, and allow collection trucks to deliver up to 300 TPD of solid waste and recyclables to the facility, would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect since the property has the appropriate General Plan designation and Zoning classification to accommodate the proposed project. In addition, the proposed

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

project is of the same nature as the existing project and only expands the footprint of the facility by 25%. 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 found that the project approved under UP 12-01 would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan based on the fact that there are currently no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservations plans within City limits or the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed project, which would add a vacant parcel to the RITS site and allow collection trucks to deliver up to 300 TPD of solid waste and recyclables to the facility, would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan the modifications included in the proposed project are of the same nature as the existing project and only expand the footprint of the facility by 25%. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
   

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) EA 12-2 found that the project approved under UP 12-01, would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state in that the project site has no known mineral resource value nor is there opportunity for mineral resource extraction that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

The proposed project, which would add a vacant parcel to the RITS site, would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state in that the vacant parcel to be added by the proposed project has no known mineral resource value nor is there opportunity for mineral resource extraction that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) EA 12-2 found that the project approved under UP 12-01, would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan in that the site is not designated for mineral extraction.

The proposed project, which would add a vacant parcel to the RITS site, would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan in that the vacant parcel to be added by the proposed project is not designated for mineral extraction.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

12. NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?    

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
   

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
   

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
   

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
   

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
   

Responses to Questions:
a) EA 12-2 found that the project approved under UP 12-01, would generate more noise than that which was generated by the RI recycling facility. Noise levels associated with solid waste facilities such as the proposed RITS include packer/collection trucks and self-haul vehicles, material handling equipment (loaders and forklifts), vehicle back-up warning alarms, material loading and unloading activities, and general maintenance activities.

EA 12-2 found that potential noise impacts would be mitigated by confining solid waste operations to the interior of the building and by properly sound-proofing, shielding and/or muffling material handling equipment and noise generating activities. EA 12-2 further found that by providing employees with ear protection as necessary and potentially implementing a Hearing Conservation Program if deemed necessary by CalOSHA, the potential for

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

exposure of workers to noise levels in excess of health and safety standards would be mitigated. As part of the Hearing Conservation Program, noise measurements will be taken by an independent noise consultant during the first full-year of operations, and as needed thereafter, to monitor long-term noise levels. If noise measurements conclude that there are potential adverse impacts, the Hearing Conservation Program would mandate hearing protection to insure worker health and safety.

EA 12-2 concluded that the project proposed under UP 12-01 was not anticipated to generate noise beyond what was anticipated in the Yuba City General Plan EIR and would be required to comply with all applicable noise regulations, including the General Plan Noise and Safety Element.

The proposed project, which would entail construction of a slightly larger transfer station building and allow delivery of up to 300 TPD of solid waste and recyclables by self-haul and commercial collection trucks, would not be expected to increase noise levels beyond those anticipated under UP 12-01.

As with the project analyzed under EA 12-2 and approved under UP 12-01, the proposed project would result in a short-term increase noise levels related to construction. With the implementation of City code requirements related to construction hours and equipment operation, construction of the proposed project would not exposure workers or the public to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Regarding operational impacts associated with the proposed project, the City’s General Plan indicates that “[n]oise produced by industrial facilities has a negligible effect on the City’s noise environment”, and “[a]lthough the City does not have a Noise Ordinance, noise issues are handled by the City’s Nuisance Ordinance, which regulates the time of day that certain noise-generating activities may take place.”
General Plan implementing policy 9.1-I-3 provides that, in making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an increase of four or more DBA is considered to be "significant" if the resulting noise level would exceed that described as normally acceptable for the affected land use. Per the City General Plan, the normal noise range for industrial uses is from 50 to 75 dB. General Plan implementing policy 9.1-I-4, seeks to “protect especially sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise, by enforcing “normally acceptable” noise level standards” which for industrial uses range from 50 to 75 dB.

Based on the City’s General Plan Noise Policies, an increase in noise levels to 79 dB would be considered a significant impact. Under the RITS TPR, through the use of design and operational controls, noise levels would not exceed 65 dB at the property line, which is within the normally established range established under the General Plan.

There is also the potential for increased offsite noise levels along travel corridors due to the proposed increase in permitted tonnage and use of the RITS by commercial solid waste collection trucks. The City’s General Plan indicates that future development within the City’s Planning Area will result in new roads and increased traffic volumes, thus increasing noise

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

levels in some areas. Specifically, community noise levels along Garden Highway and Lincoln Road are projected to increase in the future due to increased traffic. To minimize future noise impacts, General Plan Implementing Policy 9.1-I-2 proposes to regulate the hours of operation related to noise generating businesses, deliveries and trash pickup hours.

Noise levels at the RITS may adversely impact employees and require use of personal protection equipment. Implementation of a Hearing Conservation Program and compliance with the RITS TPR, health and safety standards and Cal/OSHA RRs would reduce those impacts to less than significant levels.

Based on compliance with City policies and regulations and the operating standards contained in the RITS TPR, as well as the proposed facility’s location in an industrial zone that is not near sensitive land uses, the proposed project would not expose people or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, or applicable standards of other agencies. 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, which would allow delivery of up to 300 TPD of solid waste and recyclables by self-haul and commercial collection trucks, would not be expected to expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels when compared to the impacts associated with the project approved under UP 12-01.

Onsite groundborne vibrations and noise would result from construction of the proposed transfer station building as well as from material loading and unloading and he movement of material handling equipment.

As with the project analyzed under EA 12-2 and approved under UP 12-01, the proposed project would result in a short-term increase goundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. With the implementation of City code requirements related to construction hours and equipment operation, construction of the proposed project would not exposure workers or the public to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

The site location in an industrial area away from sensitive land uses, coupled with the size of the site and the location of building where material processing operations will occur on the site, all contribute to a reduced potential to expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels associated with onsite operations.

The proposed project, which would allow delivery of up to 300 TPD of solid waste and recyclables by self-haul and commercial collection trucks, could increase the potential for off-site groundborne vibration or groundborne noise on local streets due to increased use of the facility by commercial collection trucks. Roadway conditions have a direct impact on groundborne vibration with smooth surfaces rarely producing perceptible vibration levels.

The franchise agreement for solid waste collection includes provisions for street maintenance contributions, which would reduce the potential for collection trucks associated with the proposed project to expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibrations.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Potential offsite impacts to residents or sensitive land uses from groundborne vibration or groundborne noise associated with collection trucks on local streets shall also be mitigated by using the franchise agreement to limit the hours trash can be collected to ensure that activities take place at hours that will not cause a violation of the City’s Nuisance Ordinance and General Plan. The following hours of operation will also reduce the potential for noise impacts:

Monday – Friday: Intake and tipping: 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (all customers) Other outdoor site operations: 6:30 AM to 9:00 PM
and other activities within buildings: Up to 24
hours/day.

Saturday: Intake and tipping: 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (all customers) Other outdoor site operations: 6:30 AM to 9:00 PM
and other activities within buildings: Up to 24
hours/day.

Sunday: Intake and tipping: 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (all customers) 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 project site is located in an industrial area and RI has been operating a recycling facility at the location since 2008. Surrounding businesses include steel fabricators, a sawmill, and manufacturing companies. Ambient noise levels related to current operations, as well as anticipated noise levels associated with operation of the proposed project would not exceed the normal noise range for industrial uses which, per the City’s General Plan, is from 50 to 75 dB. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project is not anticipated based on the existing land uses in the project area. Under the RITS TPR, through the use of design and operational controls, noise levels would not exceed 65 dB at the property line, which is within the normally established range established under the General Plan. 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 found that short-term noise impacts can be expected resulting from site grading and construction activities associated with the new building. Construction-related noise impacts will be less than significant because adherence to City Noise Ordinance which limits the hours of operation for construction and use of heavy machinery. The proposed project, which includes a slightly larger transfer station building, is not anticipated to increase construction related noise impacts, when compared to the project analyzed under EA 12-2, through substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above those levels existing without the project.

Existing operations which include unloading and loading of recyclables, vehicle starts and back-up warning signals all result in periodic increases in ambient noise levels that are not considered substantial in the context of surrounding industrial land uses. The proposed project, which would allow delivery of up to 300 TPD of solid waste and recyclables by selfPage 358 of 931 Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

haul and commercial collection trucks, would generate similar periodic increases in ambient noise levels similar to those associated with the existing operations as well as those associated with operations approved under UP 12-01. The proposed project would result in more frequent noise associated with loading and unloading activities but would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project since all loading and unloading activities are conducted inside a building, which is located in a heavy industrial area and surrounded my heavy industrial zoned land for at least 1,000 feet in all directions. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
e) The project is located in an airport land use planning area. The Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted in April of 1994 provides that airport operations will not exceed 65 dB which is consistent with normally acceptable “noise level standards” which for industrial uses range from 50 to 75 dB. The fact that the project site is located more than ½ mile from the airport runway would also reduce potential exposure to excessive noise levels from the airport. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. f) As there are no private airstrips in the City, there is no potential for the employees at the RITS of being exposed to excessive noise levels.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
   

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
especially affordable housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
   

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) The proposed project, which would allow delivery of up to 300 TPD of solid waste and recyclables by self-haul and commercial collection trucks, would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The project does not include housing and that would induce population growth. The proposed RITS would not induce population growth but would simply provide a mechanism safe and efficient processing of solid waste and recyclables generated by the projected growth in population. b) The proposed project would add a vacant parcel to the site development that was not part of the project approved under UP 12-01. No housing would be lost or residential land converted to non-residential uses, under the proposed project, and there is no potential to displace substantial numbers of existing housing, especially affordable housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
c) The proposed project would add a vacant parcel to the site development that was not part of the project approved under UP 12-01. No persons would be displaced due to construction of the project that would necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response time or other performance objectives for any of the following public
service:

Fire protection?    

Police protection?    

Schools?    

Parks?    

Other public facilities?    
Responses to Questions:

EA 12-2 concluded that the project proposed under UP 12-01 would not result in the need for additional fire or police protection as the City currently provides those services to the project site. The Yuba City Fire Department reviewed the plans submitted as part of UP 12- 01 and indicated that the project would require fire sprinklers.

As with the project approved under UP 12-01, the proposed project, which would allow delivery of up to 300 TPD of solid waste and recyclables by self-haul and commercial collection trucks, would not be expected to require additional fire and police personnel to maintain acceptable service ratios or response times, or the construction of any new police of fire facilities. With the provision of security fencing, exterior lighting and security cameras, the project would not place additional demands on local police. Installation of an overhead fire sprinkler system, as well as operation of the facility as set forth in the RITS TPR, would not require the need for additional fire services. Based on the proposed design of the RITS, together with the operational mandates included in the TPR, there would be no potential for substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response time or other performance objectives related to police and fire service.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

The proposed project does not include housing nor will it increase employees at the current facility. Thus, the proposed project will not increase demand for schools, parks or other public facilities. No impacts schools, parks or other public facilities such as libraries are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

15. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
   

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of such facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) EA 12-2 concluded that the project approved under UP 12- 1 would not increase the use of existing parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur based on the fact that it was an industrial use. While the proposed project would allow delivery of up to 300 TPD of solid waste and recyclables by self-haul and commercial collection trucks, the use would not increase employment at the site and is still classified as industrial and the potential to increase the use of existing parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would be less than significant. 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 does not include housing nor will it increase employment at that site and as such will not increase demand for schools, parks or other public facilities. No impacts schools, parks or other public facilities such as libraries are anticipated 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.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?    

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program (CMP), including, but not limited to, level of
service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the CMP for designated roads or highways?
   

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
   

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
   

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?    

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) A traffic assessment was conducted by KD Anderson and Associates, Inc., dated June 5, 2018, and is included as Appendix C. As part of the traffic assessment, traffic counts were taken at three intersections selected by the City in the project vicinity on May 7, 2018, while school was in session and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9: 00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., to determine the existing conditions and levels of service. These time periods were selected based on consideration of the hours of highest traffic volume in the Yuba City area and typical engineering practice. Traffic counts were conducted in 15-minute intervals, and the consecutive 60-minute period with the greatest volume was identified as the peak hour.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Per the KD Anderson traffic study, existing Level of Service (LOS) traffic conditions for the three study intersections are as follows:

INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR LOS PM PEAK HOUR LOS
Garden Hwy./Lincoln Rd. AM Peak Hour – LOS B PM Peak Hour – LOS B Garden Hwy./Epley Dr.

Southbound left turn AM Peak Hour – LOS B PM Peak Hour – LOS C Westbound approach AM Peak Hour – LOS C PM Peak Hour – LOS A Garden Hwy./Burns Dr. AM Peak Hour – LOS B PM Peak Hour – LOS B All three intersections studies are currently operating with Levels of Service that exceed the City’s Minimum LOS D standard, and no improvements are required.

The amount of vehicle traffic associated with the project is described in terms of vehicle trips. Each load traveling to or from the site generates two trips (i.e., one inbound to the site and one outbound from the site). The number of vehicle trips has been estimated based on the increase in permitted tonnage as well as the capacity of the vehicles used to transport the material. Based on an additional 200 TPD of material being processed at the site, the proposed project could result in a total of 104 total daily vehicle trips to and from the site (i.e., 52 in bound and 52 outbound).

The amount of vehicular traffic occurring in any particular hour will depend on the business’ hours of operation and the likely schedule of activities. Estimated truck activity and employee travel associated with the project will occur over an eleven (11) hour operating day from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Truck activity is expected to be relatively uniform across that period, but somewhat less truck travel would be expected in the evening as the plant begins to wind down for the day. It is estimated that the project will generate up to eight vehicle trips, or 18 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips during the a.m. peak hour.

The City of Yuba City employs a trip generation threshold to determine at a screen line level whether a traffic impact could possibly occur and whether a traffic impact analysis is justified. The screen line threshold (i.e., 50 peak hour trips (inbound plus outbound) is similar to that required by many other public agencies. There is no specific screen line for PCE’s. The project could generate up to eight vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour which is well below the 50 trips threshold for a traffic study. Even if the project’s peak hour PCE estimate was applied, this estimate (i.e., 18 PCE’s peak hour trips) is less than the 50-trip threshold used by the City of Yuba City. Based on the City’s criteria, the project is not expected to have a significant impact to the local or regional street systems.

The Yuba City General Plan addresses traffic level of service through implementing policy

5.2-I-12 which states:

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

Develop and manage the roadway system to obtain LOS D or better for all major roadways and intersections in the City. This policy does not extend to residential streets (i.e., streets with direct driveway access to homes) or bridges across the Feather River nor does the policy apply to state highways and their intersections, where Caltrans policies apply. Exceptions to LOS D policy may be allowed by the City Council in areas, such as downtown, where allowing a lower LOS would result in clear public benefits.

The primary streets providing access to the project site are Garden Highway, Bogue Road and Lincoln Road which are all classified under the City’s General Plan as Major Arterials.

The General Plan “Daily Roadway Segment Operations Summary – October 2001, shows the following levels of service:
 Garden Highway from Lincoln Road to Teesdale Road - LOS C;  Bogue Road from SR 99 to Railroad Ave. - at LOS B; and,  Lincoln Road from Walton Avenue to Highway 99 - LOS B.

The General Plan “Peak Hour Intersection Operations Summary – 2002 Conditions, does not include any intersections in close proximity to the project site.

The Yuba City General Plan seeks to achieve a balance between existing and future land use and traffic carrying capacity through planned improvements to the roadway network. Major street improvements planned or programmed for Yuba City include enhancements to Highway 99 and State Route 20. Highway 99 will be widened between Bogue Road and Lincoln Road to 6 lanes. State Route 20 from Highway 99 to Civic Center Drive is proposed to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes. Other key improvements include two new north-south parkways to provide better connections; a new bridge as an extension of Lincoln Road; and numerous new collector and local streets, to provide a well-connected circulation system.

The following street improvements as set forth in the Yuba City General Plan would benefit the project site and area:
 Upgrade Lincoln Road from Township Road to Garden Highway to a 4-lane arterial;  Upgrade Bogue Road from George Washington Boulevard to Garden Highway to a 4-lane arterial; and,
 Upgrade Garden Highway from Epley Drive to Percy Avenue to a 4-lane arterial.

The following General Plan Implementing Policies would reduce any potential project related impacts:
 5.2-I-5 - Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels.
 5.2-I-6 Require city-wide traffic impact fees on all new development to ensure that transportation improvements keep pace with new development.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

The 2011 Yuba City Bicycle Master Plan provides a set of goals and policies for development of a safe and continuous bikeway system that benefits the City’s residents and businesses that expands on the existing system. Existing bikes lanes in the project vicinity include:
 Bogue Road between South Park Drive and Garden Highway (Class 2)  Garden Highway between Stewart Road and Lincoln Road (Class 2)  Teesdale Road between Railroad Avenue and Garden Highway (Class 2)  Levee Bike Path South between boat access and Shanghai Bend Drive (Class 1) The proposed project would not impact any of the following planned bicycle facilities:
 Lincoln Road from Township Road to Garden Highway (the State Route 99 to Garden Highway is classified as a high priority) (Class 2)  Garden Highway from Stewart Road and Second Street (Class 2)  Burns Drive from Garden Highway to the Levee Access (Class 3) The proposed project will incorporate two bicycle locking racks for employees per code requirements. RI may salvage discarded bicycles which will be donated to local organizations that restore and donate them to members of the community.

Based on the proposed project generating trips that are below the screen line level threshold and below applicable warrants , the fact that the surrounding street segments were operating at LOS C or better, and the future street improvement plans contained in the City’s General Plan that would increase effectiveness of circulation in the project area, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 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 proposed project generating trips that are below the screen line level threshold and below applicable warrants and having a similar number of employees as the project approved under EA 12-2 and UP 12-01, no additional impacts to the roadway system or additional demand for public transportation would be generated. Furthermore, the project does not require preparation of a trip reduction plan since less than 500 people will be employed at the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable congestion management program (CMP) policies or regulations such as City level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the CMP for designated roads or highways. 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 proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

d) EA 12-2 determined that based on the review and recommendations of the Yuba City Engineering Division, the project proposed under UP 12-01 did not warrant traffic improvements beyond what had already been constructed in the area. The project was further conditioned to prohibit trucks from stacking in the public right-of-way as they wait to access the site. Based on the proposed project generating traffic and circulation patterns similar to those associated with the project approved under UP 12-01, incorporating any recommendations from the City Engineering Department, and providing adequate onsite stacking distance for customers, there will not be any increase in hazards due to the proposed project design. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. e) EA 12-2 determined that based on the review and recommendations of the Yuba City Fire Department, which included the requirement that a fire sprinkler system be installed, adequate emergency access would be provided. Based on the fact that the proposed project would not substantially increase the fire hazards at the site when compared to those anticipated under the proposed project, installation of a fire sprinkler system and compliance with the RITS TPR which a details emergency access points and access procedures, the proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.
f) The proposed project will provide two bicycle locking racks and the nearest public transit stops are located .6 miles to the northeast and southeast, and as such will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
   

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
   

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
   

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
   

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
   

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?    

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) The existing RI facility is connected to the sewer system and the proposed project should not generate wastewater quantities that would exceed current treatment capacity. Per EA 12- 2, Yuba City has adequate wastewater treatment to accommodate the proposed project, and effluent generated at the RITS would not be expected to exceed any requirements of the wastewater treatment plant or Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the proposed project includes clarifiers to treat washdown and contact stormwater prior to

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

discharge into the sanitary sewer system. 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 City’s water treatment plant has a capacity of 36 million gallons per day (mgd) and based on a projected 2025 water demand of 21 mgd, there would be sufficient water treatment capacity for the proposed project. The project would therefore not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

The City’s wastewater treatment facility (WTF) has a capacity of seven million gallons per day (mgd) and is currently treating approximately six mgd. The 1997 Yuba City Wastewater System Master Plan did not indicate major sewer deficiencies for either current or future flow conditions. The project would therefore not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 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 City of Yuba City maintains a stormwater conveyance system that collects water from storm events (stormwater) and drains to the Feather River and Sutter Bypass. This system reduces the effects of localized flooding. Prior to any project-related storm drain connections, the City will review and approve stormwater runoff calculations to ensure that the existing off-site municipal storm drain infrastructure is adequate to accommodate surface water runoff from the project. The infrastructure includes a 33-inch storm drain in Putman Avenue, a 36-inch storm drain in Burns Drive, a detention basin adjacent to the City Wastewater Treatment Plant and a pump station that conveys the water to the Feather River.

With City review and approval of site runoff and storm drain design calculations, any increase the rate and/or amount of surface runoff from the proposed project would be conveyed off site in a manner that does not result in on- or off-site flooding. The proposed project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. d) The project site is designated for industrial uses under the General Plan Land Use Map and assuming buildout as envisioned in the plan, a total of 27,474 acre feet of water will be required in year 2025. With an expected annual supply of 32,573 acre feet, average water demand will not exceed supply. The RITS TPR will incorporate water conservation measures related to operation of the facility as well as water conserving plumbing fixtures as required under the applicable building codes. There would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would be needed.

There will be a small increase in water use associated with the project and proposed mitigation measures such as reduced frequency of pressure washing, alternative cleaning methods and overall water conservation measures. In section 5.7.2 of the TPR, the operator stipulates to provide daily pressure washing of the tip floor as a mitigation measure to further reduce any impacts associated with odor. Daily cleaning of a tip floor with a pressure washer is a significant improvement over the minimum operating standards for solid waste facilities.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

As noted in this section of the TPR, the operator estimates using less than 0.49 acre-feet of water on an annual basis, which is approximately the same amount of water used by 1.8 residential households annually. The amount of water use is not considered a significant impact. This water will drain into the City’s sanitary sewer through an engineered clarifier to remove solids. The operator could reduce daily pressure washing of the tip floor if the City requests this as a mitigation measure. The City sewer system is capable of handling this additional amount of sewer discharge. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. e) Sanitary sewer service is currently provided to the project site. Any new connections required as part of the proposed project would be reviewed and approved by the City indicating that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND. f) EA 12-2 concluded that there is adequate landfill capacity to accommodate the proposed transfer station use. If Recology’s Ostram Road Landfill is unable to receive solid waste, then five other landfills located within a 70 mile radius of the RITS are available to accommodate this project’s solid waste disposal needs. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the amount of solid waste requiring disposal at local landfills as the waste is already being generated and disposed of in the area so there would not be impacts on local landfills 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. g) The proposed project is a solid waste facility that will require a solid waste facility permit issued under Title 14 CCR and subject to the regulations and operating standards contained therein. Operational standards set forth in the RITS TPR will ensure compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the revisions to the project do not create a new or more significant impact than was evaluated in the original IS/MND.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
   

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
   

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
   
Responses to Questions:
a) The project site is in an urbanized area with little biological value. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) The project related impacts are individually limited, and cumulatively would not be considerable when viewed in the context of existing and future development envisioned under the Yuba City General Plan.

Recycling Industries Draft Subsequent IS/MND
October 2018 Clements Environmental

c) EA 12-2 found that the potential environmental effects related to the project approved under UP 12-01 would not create environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would expand existing recycling and solid waste service permitted under UP 12-01 by allowing up to 300 tons per day of solid waste and recyclables to be delivered to the RITS in commercial collection and self-haul vehicles. Any additional impacts associated with the proposed project will be mitigated through compliance with the Regulatory Requirements contained in Title 14 CCR, as well as though the operational controls established in the RITS TPR, and would therefore not have any environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

APPENDIX A

TRANSFER/PROCESSING REPORT

APPENDIX B

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

APPENDIX C

TRAFFIC STUDY

Transportation Engineers
3853 Taylor Road, Suite G • Loomis, CA 95650 • (916) 660-1555 • FAX (916) 660-1535 July 18, 2018
Mr. Larry Miner
Clements Environmental
15230 Burbank Blvd, Suite 103
Sherman Oaks, CA 91411
RE: TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FOR RECYCLING INDUSTRIES FACILITY AT 140 EPLEY

DRIVE, YUBA CITY, CA
Dear Mr. Miner:

Thank you for contacting our firm regarding the expansion of Recycling Industries’ existing facility at 140 Epley Drive in Yuba City. As we have discussed, Recycling Industries is permitted to receive 100 tons per day of recyclables and solid waste for processing and transfer. The proposed project would allow up to 300 tons per day, or a net increase of 200 tons per day. You have asked for our opinion as to the possible significant traffic impacts associated with the project.

Approach
To provide our opinion we have established a current baseline of traffic operating conditions at key intersection in the vicinity of the project based on the volume of traffic occurring during weekday a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours. The existing setting has been described in terms of intersection operating Levels of Service at three intersections identified by City of Yuba City staff based on new traffic volume counts and calculation procedures accepted by the City. The extent to which current conditions meet minimum Level of Service standards adopted by the City has been determined. The amount of automobile and truck traffic associated with the proposed project has been estimated, and we have offered our opinion as to the likelihood that this additional traffic would create a significant traffic impact under City guidelines based on our nearly 40 years of experience preparing traffic impact analyses conducted under local and CEQA guidelines.

Existing Setting
Study Locations. City of Yuba City Department of Public Works staff considered the project and the adjoining circulation system to identify three (3) intersections for assessment based on their understanding of traffic conditions and patterns in the southern Yuba City area. We concur with the selection of these locations along Garden Highway based on our familiarity with this area from work on previous projects:
 Garden Highway / Lincoln Road
 Garden Highway / Epley Drive
 Garden Highway / Burns Drive / Teesdale Road

Mr. Larry Miner
Clements Environmental
July 18, 2018

Current Traffic Conditions. Current traffic conditions were evaluated based on the Level of Service occurring at study locations during typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours. Intersection turning movement counts were conducted during the week of May 7th, 2018 from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. These time periods were selected based on consideration of the hours of highest traffic volume in the Yuba City area and typical engineering practice. Traffic counts were conducted in 15 minute intervals, and the consecutive 60 minute period with the greatest volume was identified as the peak hour. Traffic count worksheets are attached.

Level of Service – Methodology / Standards. The operating Level of Service at each intersection was calculated using the methodology contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using Synchro software. "Level of Service" is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade "A" through "F", corresponding to progressively worsening operating conditions, is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment. Local agencies adopted minimum Level of Service standards through their General Plan Circulation Element and then employ uniform significance criteria to determine whether the addition of project traffic causes a significant impact under CEQA. As noted in the attached discussion of Evaluation Methodology, the City of Yuba City employs LOS D as its minimum standard, and a project that causes an acceptable Level of Service (i.e., LOS A-D) to deteriorate to an unacceptable level (i.e., LOS E or F) or appreciably worsens an unacceptable condition is typically judged to cause a significant impact.

Traffic Signal Warrants. The need for a traffic signal at an intersection controlled by stop signs is determined through review of Traffic Signal Warrants contained in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as noted in the attached Evaluation Methodology discussion.

Existing Traffic Conditions. The current Level of Service occurring at each study intersection was determined, and the results are summarized in Table 1. As indicated, all three locations operate with Levels of Service that satisfy the City of Yuba City’s minimum LOS D standard. The Level of Service reported at the Garden Highway / Lincoln Road intersection (i.e., LOS B) is identical to the results presented in a prior report based on April 2015 data. Current conditions are acceptable under City guidelines, and improvements are not needed.

TABLE 1

CURRENT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ave
Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS
Volume
Warrant
Satisfied?
Ave
Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS
Volume
Warrant
Satisfied?
Garden Highway / Lincoln Road Signal 11.3 B n.a. 11.7 B n.a.

Garden Highway / Epley Drive
Southbound left turn
Westbound approach
EB Stop 11.4

22.1 B
C
No 9.5

17.2 C
A
No
Garden Highway / Burns Drive Signal 16.9 B n.a. 14.5 B n.a. n.a. is not applicable to this location

Mr. Larry Miner
Clements Environmental
July 18, 2018

Table 2 presents the traffic volumes used at the Garden Highway / Epley Drive intersection to determine whether a traffic signal might be justified at this un-signalized location. As indicated, the volume of traffic through the intersection falls below the levels that would satisfy MUTCD peak hour volume warrants. With the current traffic volume on Garden Highway (i.e., the Major Volume), the Minor Volume would need to reach a minimum of 150 mph.

TABLE 2

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Intersection
Year 2040 Peak Hour Volumes
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Major
Volume
Minor
Volume
Warrant
Met?
Major
Volume
Minor
Volume
Warrant
Met?
Garden Highway / Epley Drive 1,397 47 No 1,424 117 No
Note: satisfaction of peak hour warrants indicates that a traffic signal may be justified but is not necessarily the preferred traffic control strategy at a particular location.

Project Characteristics
Project Description. Recycling Industries is currently permitted to receive 100 tons per day of recyclables and solid waste for processing and transfer, and the proposed project will allow up to 300 tons per day of solid waste and recyclables to be accepted, processed and transferred at the facility, or a net increase of 200 tons per day. While current traffic to and from the site is primarily self-haul customers this additional traffic would mainly be comprised of Commercial Vehicles bringing material to the site and transfer trucks taking material from the site.

Trip Generation. The amount of vehicle traffic associated with the project is described in terms of vehicle trips. Each load traveling to or from the site generates two trips (i.e., one inbound to the site and one outbound from the site). The number of vehicle trips has been estimated based on the increase in permitted tonnage and the capacity of the vehicles used to transport the material. Table 3 identifies the amount of additional material traveling to the site from various sources (i.e., commercial haulers, selfhaul and roll-off trucks), the assumed capacity of each vehicle and the resulting number of loads per day associated with 200 additional tons per day. As indicated, the 200 additional tons could result in another 104 daily vehicle trips to and from the site (i.e., 52 inbound and 52 outbound).

Mr. Larry Miner
Clements Environmental
July 18, 2018

TABLE 3

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION / PCE ESTIMATE
Source Vehicle Type
Capacity
(tons per
load)
Tons
per Day
Loads
Daily Vehicle Trips PCE’s
per Truck
Daily
Inbound Outbound Total PCE’s
Inbound
Material
Commercial
Vehicles 8.0 160 20 20 20 40 3 120
Self-Haul 0.5 4 8 8 8 16 1 16
Roll-off
Trucks 4.0 36 9 9 9 18 3 54
Subtotal 200 37 37 74 190
Outbound
Material
Transfer
Trucks 23 200 9 9 9 18 4 72
Employees Auto - - - 6 6 12 1 12
Total 104 274
Passenger Car Equivalents. Because trucks are larger and have reduced acceleration and deceleration characteristics when compared to passenger vehicles, the trip generation associated with trucks can be expressed in terms of Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE’s). Depending on size, a truck can be considered to be equivalent to 1.0 to 4.0 passenger automobiles. Applicable factors have been applied to the types of vehicles traveling to and from the site, and resulting PCE’s are noted in Table 3. As shown, on a daily basis the project could generate 274 PCE’s.

Peak Hour Trip Generation. The amount of vehicular traffic occurring in any particular hour will depend on the business’ hours of operation and the likely schedule of activities. You have provided a preliminary estimate of the truck activity and employee travel associated with the project (attached), which notes that travel will occur over an eleven (11) hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Truck activity is expected to be relatively uniform across that period, but somewhat less truck travel would be expected in the evening as the plant begins to wind down for the day. This data suggests that during peak commute hours up to 8 vehicle trips could occur per hour. This estimate would convert to 18 PCE’s per hour.

Directional Distribution. Because many of the trips associated with the project will be made by commercial haulers, the directional distribution of the trips associated will to a degree be dependent on the limits of the areas included in future service contracts. We understand that this information is not available. It is reasonable, however, to assume that trips associated with the project will be oriented to the major transportation corridors serving the south Yuba City area. For example, Garden Highway continues northerly to the 5th Street bridge and will be a logical route to eastern Yuba City and Marysville. State Route 99 (SR 99) is located about a mile west of the project site and is the logical route for trips to the balance of Yuba City or to more distant destinations. SR 99 can be reached via east-west streets such as Lincoln Road or Bogue Road, although Garden Highway does continue northerly to an intersection on SR 99 south of the SR 113 junction.

Mr. Larry Miner
Clements Environmental
July 18, 2018

The current pattern of travel at the Garden Highway / Epley Drive intersection may provide an indication of trip distribution. Today 81% to 89% of the peak hour traffic using Epley Drive is to and from the north.

Based on this information we expect that most project traffic will travel to and from the Garden Highway / Epley Drive intersection to the north via Garden Highway and Lincoln Road (i.e., 75%), and that the balance of the trips will be to the south.

Assessment of Project Impacts Way
We have considered the likelihood that the project could have significant traffic impacts from the following perspectives.

Screen Line for Analysis. The City of Yuba City employs a trip generation threshold to determine at a screen line level whether a traffic impact could possibly occur and whether a traffic impact analysis is justified. The screen line threshold (i.e., 50 peak hour trips (inbound plus outbound) is similar to that required by many other public agencies. There is no specific screen line for PCE’s.

The project could generate 8 peak hour trips. This estimate is well below the 50 trips threshold. Even if the project’s peak hour PCE estimate was applied, this estimate (i.e., 18 PCE’s per hour) is less than the 50 trip threshold used by the City of Yuba City. Based on this criteria we would not expect the project to have a significant impact to the regional street system.

Effect on Current Levels of Service. As noted earlier, current operating Levels of Service are very good at intersections near the project, and current conditions are well within the LOS D threshold employed by the City of Yuba City to define acceptable traffic operations. It has been our experience conducting traffic studies for nearly 40 years that the limited amount of additional traffic associated with this project would not be enough to cause current conditions to drop from LOS B beyond the LOS D threshold. We would not expect the project’s impact to be significant based on the General Plan Level of Service standards.

Traffic Signal Warrants. The project will add traffic to the Garden Highway / Epley Drive intersection, but the number of trips added on the Epley Drive approach to the intersection (i.e., 6 westbound trips per hour) would not be sufficient to cause the resulting volumes to satisfy MUTCD peak hour warrants for signalization.

Truck Access / Circulation. The local street system providing access to the site is currently used by trucks associated with the current Recycling Industries operation and by trucks generated by other businesses. Cursory review of the layout of these streets did not reveal any location where the turning requirements of trucks would not be accommodated. The project would not be expected to have an appreciable impact on overall circulation.

Other Safety Factors. The project could add a small amount of truck traffic on streets in the vicinity of Yuba City Unified School District (YCUSD) schools. Riverbend School (K-8) is located at the corner of Garden Highway and Stewart Street roughly 1½ miles south of Burns Drive. However, there are sidewalks along Garden Highway in the vicinity of the school, a signalized pedestrian crossing is

Mr. Larry Miner
Clements Environmental
July 18, 2018

available at the Garden Highway / Stewart Street intersection and the school access is not on Garden Highway but is actually on Stewart Street about ¼ mile to the west.

To the north there are no schools adjoining Lincoln Road or Garden Highway. The only location where residential access might generate school age pedestrians across Garden Highway is near the Garden Highway / Percy Avenue intersection, but the children of the Richards Housing area on the east side of Garden Highway are bussed to school. In any event, sidewalks and a signalized crossing exist in this area. Thus, the project’s impact to student safety is not judged to be significant.

Conclusions. Based on available information we do not anticipate that the impacts of the project based on General Plan standards for traffic operations, truck circulation or safety would be significant, and no additional analysis is required.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any question or need more information.

Sincerely Yours,
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Kenneth D. Anderson, P.E.

President
Attachments: Evaluation Methodology, hourly trips, traffic counts, Level of Service worksheets, YCUSD boundary map
Recycling Industries Assessment 7.18.2018.ltr

Attachment 1
Evaluation Methodology
The following is a description of the methods used in this impact study to analyze intersection operations.

Level of Service Analysis Procedures. Level of Service (LOS) analysis provides a basis for describing existing traffic conditions and for evaluating the significance of project-related traffic impacts. Level of Service measures the quality of traffic flow and is represented by letter designations from A to F, with a grade of A referring to the best conditions, and F representing the worst conditions. The characteristics associated with the various LOS for intersections are presented in Table 1 and further discussed below.

Both signalized intersections and un-signalized stop sign controlled intersections have been analyzed using methods presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The “Synchro” traffic simulation software has been used to calculate the levels of service at study intersections using the HCM procedures.

The calculations utilize a heavy vehicle percentage of 6%.

Un-signalized intersections with side street stop sign control have also been evaluated using Highway Capacity Manual procedures. At side street stop-sign-controlled intersections, the LOS is presented for turning movements experiencing the most delay. This is typically a left turn made from the minor street stop-sign-controlled approach onto the major street.

TABLE 1

LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersection “A” Uncongested operations, all queues clear in a single-signal cycle. Delay  10.0 sec
Little or no delay.

Delay  10 sec/veh
“B” Uncongested operations, all queues clear in a single cycle.

Delay  10.0 sec and  20.0 sec
Short traffic delays.

Delay  10 sec/veh and  15 sec/veh
“C”
Light congestion, occasional backups on critical
approaches.

Delay  20.0 sec and  35.0 sec
Average traffic delays.

Delay  15 sec/veh and  25 sec/veh
“D”
Significant congestions of critical approaches but
intersection functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long queues formed.

Delay  35.0 sec and  55.0 sec
Long traffic delays.

Delay  25 sec/veh and  35 sec/veh
“E”
Severe congestion with some long standing queues on
critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning
movements. Traffic queue may block nearby
intersection(s) upstream of critical approach(es).

Delay  55.0 sec and  80.0 sec
Very long traffic delays, failure,
extreme congestion.

Delay  35 sec/veh and  50 sec/veh
“F” Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation.

Delay  80.0 sec
Intersection blocked by external causes.

Delay  50 sec/veh
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2010)

Standards of Significance / Level of Service Thresholds. In this traffic assessment, the significance of the proposed projects impact on traffic operating conditions is based on a determination of whether project generated traffic is likely to result in roadway or intersection operating conditions below acceptable standards as defined by the governing agency. A project’s impact on traffic conditions is considered significant if implementation of the project would result in LOS changing from levels considered acceptable to levels considered unacceptable, or if the project would significantly worsen an already unacceptable LOS without the project. Relevant policies for the study area consist of the following.

Yuba City General Plan (Adopted April 2004)
Implementing Policy 5.2-1-12 (Traffic Level of Service) of the General Plan's Transportation section states the following:
 Develop and manage the roadway system to obtain LOS D or better for all major roadways and intersections in the City. This policy does not extend to residential streets (i.e., streets with direct driveway access to homes) or bridges across the Feather River nor does the policy apply to state highways and their intersections, where Caltrans policies apply. Exceptions to LOS D policy may be allowed by the City Council in areas, such as downtown, where allowing a lower LOS would result in clear public benefits.
 No new development will be approved unless it can be shown that the required level of service can be maintained on the affected roadways.
 Based upon the above, the following standards and significance criteria have been used for this analysis to identify a significant impact.
 Cause level of service at a study intersection to degrade from LOS D or better to LOS E or F.  Exacerbate the no project level of service at a study intersection operating at LOS E or F. Based upon direction provided by City staff for past studies in this area, exacerbation of unacceptable operations at a City signalized intersection is considered an impact if the proposed project causes an increase in the average vehicle delay of 5 seconds or more.

Signal Warrants. Traffic signal warrants are a series of standards which provide guidelines for determining if a traffic signal is an appropriate control. Signal warrant analyses are typically conducted at intersections of uncontrolled major streets and stop sign-controlled minor streets. If one or more signal warrants are met, signalization of the intersection may be appropriate. However, a signal should typically not be installed if none of the warrants are met, since the installation of signals would increase delays on the previously uncontrolled major street, and may increase the occurrence of particular types of accidents.

For traffic impact study in the City of Yuba City, available data is limited to peak hour volumes.

Therefore, un-signalized intersections were evaluated using the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant Number 3) from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2012). This warrant was applied where the minor street experiences delays in entering or crossing the major street for at least one hour of the day.

It should also be noted that even if the Peak Hour Warrant is met, a more detailed signal warrant study is typically recommended before a signal is installed. The more detailed study should consider volumes during the eight highest hours of the day, pedestrian traffic, and accident histories.

1565-01
File Name :

Date :

START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Uturns Total 7:00 0 52 6 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 16 89 0 0 105 29 0 32 0 61 224 0 7:15 0 65 14 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 26 119 0 0 145 52 0 34 0 86 310 0 7:30 0 86 29 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 39 179 0 0 218 49 0 33 0 82 415 0 7:45 0 111 19 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 29 210 0 0 239 77 0 42 0 119 488 0 Total 0 314 68 0 382 0 0 0 0 0 110 597 0 0 707 207 0 141 0 348 1437 0 8:00 0 125 32 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 41 144 0 0 185 51 0 39 0 90 432 0 8:15 0 76 18 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 27 138 0 0 165 33 0 20 0 53 312 0 8:30 0 66 19 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 26 114 0 0 140 25 0 26 0 51 276 0 8:45 0 60 23 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 33 99 0 0 132 37 0 32 0 69 284 0 Total 0 327 92 0 419 0 0 0 0 0 127 495 0 0 622 146 0 117 0 263 1304 0 12:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:15 0 98 27 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 33 110 0 0 143 31 0 26 0 57 325 0 16:30 0 129 66 0 195 0 0 0 0 0 51 128 0 0 179 42 0 24 0 66 440 0 16:45 0 133 47 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 38 114 0 0 152 53 0 28 0 81 413 0 Total 0 360 140 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 122 352 0 0 474 126 0 78 0 204 1178 0 17:00 0 149 77 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 47 116 0 0 163 50 0 37 0 87 476 0 17:15 0 154 58 0 212 0 0 0 0 0 50 136 0 0 186 55 0 58 0 113 511 0 17:30 0 130 59 0 189 0 0 0 0 0 58 139 0 0 197 45 0 49 0 94 480 0 17:45 0 128 41 0 169 0 0 0 0 0 34 137 0 0 171 44 0 42 0 86 426 0 Total 0 561 235 0 796 0 0 0 0 0 189 528 0 0 717 194 0 186 0 380 1893 0 Grand Total 0 1562 535 0 2097 0 0 0 0 0 548 1972 0 0 2520 673 0 522 0 1195 5812 0 Apprch % 0.0% 74.5% 25.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.7% 78.3% 0.0% 0.0% 56.3% 0.0% 43.7% 0.0% Total % 0.0% 26.9% 9.2% 0.0% 36.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 33.9% 0.0% 0.0% 43.4% 11.6% 0.0% 9.0% 0.0% 20.6% 100.0% START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 to 08:30
Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30
7:30 0 86 29 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 39 179 0 0 218 49 0 33 0 82 415 7:45 0 111 19 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 29 210 0 0 239 77 0 42 0 119 488 8:00 0 125 32 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 41 144 0 0 185 51 0 39 0 90 432 8:15 0 76 18 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 27 138 0 0 165 33 0 20 0 53 312 Total Volume 0 398 98 0 496 0 0 0 0 0 136 671 0 0 807 210 0 134 0 344 1647 % App Total 0.0% 80.2% 19.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.9% 83.1% 0.0% 0.0% 61.0% 0.0% 39.0% 0.0% PHF .000 .796 .766 .000 .790 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .829 .799 .000 .000 .844 .682 .000 .798 .000 .723 .844 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 to 13:00
Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% App Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 17:00 to 18:00
Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00
17:00 0 149 77 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 47 116 0 0 163 50 0 37 0 87 476 17:15 0 154 58 0 212 0 0 0 0 0 50 136 0 0 186 55 0 58 0 113 511 17:30 0 130 59 0 189 0 0 0 0 0 58 139 0 0 197 45 0 49 0 94 480 17:45 0 128 41 0 169 0 0 0 0 0 34 137 0 0 171 44 0 42 0 86 426 Total Volume 0 561 235 0 796 0 0 0 0 0 189 528 0 0 717 194 0 186 0 380 1893 % App Total 0.0% 70.5% 29.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.4% 73.6% 0.0% 0.0% 51.1% 0.0% 48.9% 0.0% PHF .000 .911 .763 .000 .881 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .815 .950 .000 .000 .910 .882 .000 .802 .000 .841 .926 Lincoln Road

Westbound
Garden Hwy

Southbound

PM PEAK
HOUR
NOON
PEAK
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Lincoln Road

Westbound
Lincoln Road

Westbound
Garden Hwy

Southbound
Garden Hwy & Lincoln Rd
Unshifted Count = All Vehicles & Uturns
Lincoln Road

Eastbound
Lincoln Road

Eastbound
Nothing On Bank 2
Lincoln Road

Eastbound
Lincoln Road

Westbound

AM PEAK
HOUR
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Garden Hwy

Southbound
5/10/2018
Garden Hwy

Southbound
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Lincoln Road

Eastbound
Garden Hwy

Northbound
KD ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Yuba City
All Vehicles & Uturns On Unshifted
Bikes & Peds On Bank 1
(916) 660-1555

1565-01
AM 98 398 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 235 561 0 0 PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
210 0 194 0 0 0
0 0 0
134 0 186

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 0 136 671 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 189 528 0 PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
234 0 424 0 0 0
344 0 380 0 0 0

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM
West Leg West Leg
532 807 1339
South Leg South Leg
0 0 0
East Leg
578 0 804 0 0 0
0 796 722 1518
747 717 1464
East Leg
0 0
Northbound Approach
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
North Leg North Leg
496 881 1377
NOON 12:00 PM 1:00 PM
747
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Count Periods Start End 532
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
0 Westbound Approach
234 0 424

CONTROL
0 0 0
Lincoln Road

Eastbound Approach
Day: Thursday
Garden Hwy

07:30 - 08:30
NOON Peak Hour 12:00 - 13:00
17:00 - 18:00
Garden Hwy & Lincoln Rd
Peak Hour Summary
Project #:

Garden Hwy & Lincoln
Date: 5/10/2018 Southbound Approach Rd
AM Peak Hour
722 PM Peak Hour
881
0

1565-01
File Name :

Date :

START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Uturns Total 7:00 11 55 9 0 75 4 0 6 0 10 6 78 2 0 86 20 3 3 0 26 197 0 7:15 13 37 6 0 56 2 0 3 0 5 6 139 4 0 149 15 7 3 0 25 235 0 7:30 26 74 13 0 113 3 6 7 0 16 8 182 5 0 195 24 5 7 0 36 360 0 7:45 19 66 17 0 102 5 5 7 0 17 21 216 7 0 244 44 9 11 0 64 427 0 Total 69 232 45 0 346 14 11 23 0 48 41 615 18 0 674 103 24 24 0 151 1219 0 8:00 13 106 24 0 143 10 5 11 0 26 19 145 15 0 179 18 8 22 0 48 396 0 8:15 7 88 12 0 107 17 4 12 0 33 9 133 10 0 152 15 4 12 0 31 323 0 8:30 16 56 16 0 88 10 2 17 0 29 13 103 6 0 122 16 4 8 0 28 267 0 8:45 15 53 11 0 79 6 1 12 0 19 6 88 13 0 107 26 6 6 0 38 243 0 Total 51 303 63 0 417 43 12 52 0 107 47 469 44 0 560 75 22 48 0 145 1229 0 12:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:00 8 153 16 0 177 10 8 13 0 31 13 123 4 0 140 15 2 10 0 27 375 0 16:15 10 119 19 0 148 10 4 12 0 26 15 119 6 0 140 13 3 7 0 23 337 0 16:30 5 163 34 0 202 7 6 15 0 28 14 147 10 0 171 15 4 3 0 22 423 0 16:45 6 116 27 0 149 5 2 15 0 22 10 78 6 0 94 15 6 11 0 32 297 0 Total 29 551 96 0 676 32 20 55 0 107 52 467 26 0 545 58 15 31 0 104 1432 0 17:00 8 169 33 0 210 8 3 14 0 25 17 123 2 0 142 21 2 8 0 31 408 0 17:15 7 171 31 0 209 5 3 17 0 25 13 128 5 0 146 20 4 10 0 34 414 0 17:30 6 150 41 0 197 10 3 18 0 31 13 141 9 0 163 18 4 13 0 35 426 0 17:45 11 91 23 0 125 4 4 7 0 15 23 117 7 0 147 23 2 7 0 32 319 0 Total 32 581 128 0 741 27 13 56 0 96 66 509 23 0 598 82 12 38 0 132 1567 0 Grand Total 181 1667 332 0 2180 116 56 186 0 358 206 2060 111 0 2377 318 73 141 0 532 5447 0 Apprch % 8.3% 76.5% 15.2% 0.0% 32.4% 15.6% 52.0% 0.0% 8.7% 86.7% 4.7% 0.0% 59.8% 13.7% 26.5% 0.0% Total % 3.3% 30.6% 6.1% 0.0% 40.0% 2.1% 1.0% 3.4% 0.0% 6.6% 3.8% 37.8% 2.0% 0.0% 43.6% 5.8% 1.3% 2.6% 0.0% 9.8% 100.0% START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 to 08:30
Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30
7:30 26 74 13 0 113 3 6 7 0 16 8 182 5 0 195 24 5 7 0 36 360 7:45 19 66 17 0 102 5 5 7 0 17 21 216 7 0 244 44 9 11 0 64 427 8:00 13 106 24 0 143 10 5 11 0 26 19 145 15 0 179 18 8 22 0 48 396 8:15 7 88 12 0 107 17 4 12 0 33 9 133 10 0 152 15 4 12 0 31 323 Total Volume 65 334 66 0 465 35 20 37 0 92 57 676 37 0 770 101 26 52 0 179 1506 % App Total 14.0% 71.8% 14.2% 0.0% 38.0% 21.7% 40.2% 0.0% 7.4% 87.8% 4.8% 0.0% 56.4% 14.5% 29.1% 0.0% PHF .625 .788 .688 .000 .813 .515 .833 .771 .000 .697 .679 .782 .617 .000 .789 .574 .722 .591 .000 .699 .882 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 to 13:00
Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% App Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 17:00 to 18:00
Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00
17:00 8 169 33 0 210 8 3 14 0 25 17 123 2 0 142 21 2 8 0 31 408 17:15 7 171 31 0 209 5 3 17 0 25 13 128 5 0 146 20 4 10 0 34 414 17:30 6 150 41 0 197 10 3 18 0 31 13 141 9 0 163 18 4 13 0 35 426 17:45 11 91 23 0 125 4 4 7 0 15 23 117 7 0 147 23 2 7 0 32 319 Total Volume 32 581 128 0 741 27 13 56 0 96 66 509 23 0 598 82 12 38 0 132 1567 % App Total 4.3% 78.4% 17.3% 0.0% 28.1% 13.5% 58.3% 0.0% 11.0% 85.1% 3.8% 0.0% 62.1% 9.1% 28.8% 0.0% PHF .727 .849 .780 .000 .882 .675 .813 .778 .000 .774 .717 .902 .639 .000 .917 .891 .750 .731 .000 .943 .920 KD ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Yuba City
All Vehicles & Uturns On Unshifted
Bikes & Peds On Bank 1
(916) 660-1555
Garden Hwy & Burns Dr
Unshifted Count = All Vehicles & Uturns
Burns Drive

Eastbound
Burns Drive

Eastbound
Nothing On Bank 2
Burns Drive

Eastbound
Burns Drive

Westbound

AM PEAK
HOUR
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Garden Hwy

Southbound
5/15/2018
Garden Hwy

Southbound
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Burns Drive

Eastbound
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Burns Drive

Westbound
Garden Hwy

Southbound

PM PEAK
HOUR
NOON
PEAK
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Burns Drive

Westbound
Burns Drive

Westbound
Garden Hwy

Southbound

1565-01
AM 66 334 65 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 128 581 32 0 PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
37 0 56
20 0 13
0 0 0 35 0 27
101 0 82 0 0 0
26 0 12
52 0 38

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 0 57 676 37 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 66 509 23 PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
143 0 207 92 0 96
179 0 132 128 0 67

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM
07:30 - 08:30
NOON Peak Hour 12:00 - 13:00
17:00 - 18:00
Garden Hwy & Burns Dr
Peak Hour Summary
Date: 5/15/2018 Southbound Approach Project #: Garden Hwy & Burns Dr AM Peak Hour
647 PM Peak Hour
814
0 Burns Drive

Eastbound Approach
Day: Tuesday
Garden Hwy

Westbound Approach
143 0 207

CONTROL
128 0 67
Count Periods Start End 421
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
0 NOON 12:00 PM 1:00 PM
646
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
North Leg North Leg
465 814 1279
Northbound Approach
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
0 741 647 1388
646 598 1244
East Leg
0 0
East Leg
322 0 339 220 0 163
South Leg South Leg
0 0 0
West Leg West Leg
421 770 1191

1565-01
File Name :

Date :

START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Uturns Total 7:00 23 80 0 0 103 1 0 6 0 7 0 110 2 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 7:15 14 87 0 0 101 1 0 8 0 9 0 170 4 0 174 0 0 0 0 0 284 0 7:30 21 111 0 0 132 3 0 6 0 9 0 242 2 0 244 0 0 0 0 0 385 0 7:45 33 118 0 0 151 2 0 9 0 11 0 279 1 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 442 0 Total 91 396 0 0 487 7 0 29 0 36 0 801 9 0 810 0 0 0 0 0 1333 0 8:00 22 154 0 0 176 2 0 12 0 14 0 125 1 0 126 0 0 0 0 0 316 0 8:15 16 111 0 0 127 2 0 11 0 13 0 158 3 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 301 0 8:30 16 66 0 0 82 1 0 8 0 9 0 136 2 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 229 0 8:45 21 64 0 0 85 3 0 19 0 22 0 86 2 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 195 0 Total 75 395 0 0 470 8 0 50 0 58 0 505 8 0 513 0 0 0 0 0 1041 0 12:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:00 12 146 0 0 158 3 0 18 0 21 0 139 3 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 321 0 16:15 21 145 0 0 166 4 0 24 0 28 0 125 3 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 322 0 16:30 11 154 0 0 165 4 0 28 0 32 0 182 5 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 384 0 16:45 11 166 0 0 177 4 0 30 0 34 0 187 3 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 Total 55 611 0 0 666 15 0 100 0 115 0 633 14 0 647 0 0 0 0 0 1428 0 17:00 15 178 0 0 193 7 0 25 0 32 0 153 4 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 382 0 17:15 20 182 0 0 202 6 0 13 0 19 0 150 3 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 374 0 17:30 12 149 0 0 161 3 0 27 0 30 0 165 4 0 169 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 17:45 18 145 0 0 163 4 0 22 0 26 0 137 4 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 330 0 Total 65 654 0 0 719 20 0 87 0 107 0 605 15 0 620 0 0 0 0 0 1446 0 Grand Total 286 2056 0 0 2342 50 0 266 0 316 0 2544 46 0 2590 0 0 0 0 0 5248 0 Apprch % 12.2% 87.8% 0.0% 0.0% 15.8% 0.0% 84.2% 0.0% 0.0% 98.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total % 5.4% 39.2% 0.0% 0.0% 44.6% 1.0% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 48.5% 0.9% 0.0% 49.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 to 08:30
Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30
7:30 21 111 0 0 132 3 0 6 0 9 0 242 2 0 244 0 0 0 0 0 385 7:45 33 118 0 0 151 2 0 9 0 11 0 279 1 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 442 8:00 22 154 0 0 176 2 0 12 0 14 0 125 1 0 126 0 0 0 0 0 316 8:15 16 111 0 0 127 2 0 11 0 13 0 158 3 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 301 Total Volume 92 494 0 0 586 9 0 38 0 47 0 804 7 0 811 0 0 0 0 0 1444 % App Total 15.7% 84.3% 0.0% 0.0% 19.1% 0.0% 80.9% 0.0% 0.0% 99.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% PHF .697 .802 .000 .000 .832 .750 .000 .792 .000 .839 .000 .720 .583 .000 .724 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .817 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 to 13:00
Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% App Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:30 to 17:30
Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 16:30
16:30 11 154 0 0 165 4 0 28 0 32 0 182 5 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 384 16:45 11 166 0 0 177 4 0 30 0 34 0 187 3 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 401 17:00 15 178 0 0 193 7 0 25 0 32 0 153 4 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 382 17:15 20 182 0 0 202 6 0 13 0 19 0 150 3 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 374 Total Volume 57 680 0 0 737 21 0 96 0 117 0 672 15 0 687 0 0 0 0 0 1541 % App Total 7.7% 92.3% 0.0% 0.0% 17.9% 0.0% 82.1% 0.0% 0.0% 97.8% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% PHF .713 .934 .000 .000 .912 .750 .000 .800 .000 .860 .000 .898 .750 .000 .904 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .961 Epley Drive

Westbound
Garden Hwy

Southbound

PM PEAK
HOUR
NOON
PEAK
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Epley Drive

Westbound
Epley Drive

Westbound
Garden Hwy

Southbound
Garden Hwy & Epley Dr
Unshifted Count = All Vehicles & Uturns
Epley Drive

Eastbound
Epley Drive

Eastbound
Nothing On Bank 2
Epley Drive

Eastbound
Epley Drive

Westbound

AM PEAK
HOUR
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Garden Hwy

Southbound
5/16/2018
Garden Hwy

Southbound
Garden Hwy

Northbound
Epley Drive

Eastbound
Garden Hwy

Northbound
KD ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Yuba City
All Vehicles & Uturns On Unshifted
Bikes & Peds On Bank 1
(916) 660-1555

1565-01
AM 0 494 92 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 680 57 0 PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
38 0 96
0 0 0
0 0 0 9 0 21
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 0 0 804 7 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 0 672 15 PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
0 0 0 47 0 117
0 0 0 99 0 72

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM
West Leg West Leg
503 811 1314
South Leg South Leg
0 0 0
East Leg
0 0 0 146 0 189
0 737 768 1505
701 687 1388
East Leg
0 0
Northbound Approach
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
North Leg North Leg
586 842 1428
NOON 12:00 PM 1:00 PM
701
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Count Periods Start End 503
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
0 Westbound Approach
0 0 0

CONTROL
99 0 72
Epley Drive

Eastbound Approach
Day: Wednesday
Garden Hwy

07:30 - 08:30
NOON Peak Hour 12:00 - 13:00
16:30 - 17:30
Garden Hwy & Epley Dr
Peak Hour Summary
Date: 5/16/2018 Southbound Approach Project #: Garden Hwy & Epley Dr AM Peak Hour
768 PM Peak Hour
842
0

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary AM EXISTING
1: Garden Hwy & Lincoln Rd 5/30/2018
RECYCLING INDUSTRIES Synchro 8 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 210 134 136 671 398 98
Number 7 14 5 2 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1792 1792 1792 1792 1792 1792
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 250 160 162 799 474 117
Adj No. of Lanes 211221
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Percent Heavy Veh, % 666666
Cap, veh/h 501 231 203 2159 1389 621
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.63 0.41 0.41
Sat Flow, veh/h 3312 1524 1707 3495 3495 1524
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 250 160 162 799 474 117
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1656 1524 1707 1703 1703 1524
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 4.2 3.9 4.7 4.0 2.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 4.2 3.9 4.7 4.0 2.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 501 231 203 2159 1389 621
V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.69 0.80 0.37 0.34 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 592 273 204 3533 2762 1235
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.3 16.9 18.0 3.7 8.5 8.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 6.0 19.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 3.8 2.9 2.1 1.9 0.9
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.1 22.8 37.6 3.8 8.7 8.1
LnGrp LOS B C D A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 410 961 591
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.3 9.5 8.6
Approach LOS B A A
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.1 10.8 9.5 21.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 43.5 7.5 5.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 6.2 5.9 6.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.2 0.2 0.0 11.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.3
HCM 2010 LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 2010 TWSC AM EXISTING
2: Epley Dr & Garden Hwy 5/30/2018
RECYCLING INDUSTRIES Synchro 8 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Vol, veh/h 9 38 804 7 92 494
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 160 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 6 6 6 6 6 6
Mvmt Flow 11 46 980 9 112 602
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1511 495 0 0 989 0
Stage 1 985 - - - - -
Stage 2 526 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.92 7.02 - - 4.22 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.92 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.92 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.56 3.36 - - 2.26 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 107 510 - - 671 -
Stage 1 313 - - - - -
Stage 2 546 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 89 510 - - 671 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 89 - - - - -
Stage 1 313 - - - - -
Stage 2 455 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22.1 0 1.8

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 268 671 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.214 0.167 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 22.1 11.4 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0.6 -

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary AM EXISTING
3: Garden Hwy & Burns Dr 5/30/2018
RECYCLING INDUSTRIES Synchro 8 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 101 26 52 35 20 37 57 676 37 65 334 66
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1792 1792 1900 1792 1792 1900 1792 1792 1900 1792 1792 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 115 30 59 40 23 42 65 768 42 74 380 75 Adj No. of Lanes 110110120120
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 666666666666
Cap, veh/h 146 78 153 75 58 106 106 1118 61 115 983 192 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.07 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1707 541 1064 1707 569 1040 1707 3284 180 1707 2842 556 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 115 0 89 40 0 65 65 398 412 74 226 229 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1707 0 1605 1707 0 1609 1707 1703 1761 1707 1703 1694 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 2.2 1.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 9.0 9.0 1.9 4.5 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 2.2 1.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 9.0 9.0 1.9 4.5 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 0 230 75 0 164 106 580 600 115 589 586 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.39 0.53 0.00 0.40 0.61 0.69 0.69 0.64 0.38 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 0 649 192 0 651 192 689 713 192 689 686 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.0 0.0 17.3 20.8 0.0 18.7 20.3 12.6 12.6 20.2 11.0 11.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.9 0.0 1.1 5.8 0.0 1.5 5.6 2.3 2.2 5.9 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.9 4.6 4.7 1.1 2.1 2.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.9 0.0 18.3 26.6 0.0 20.2 26.0 14.9 14.8 26.1 11.4 11.4 LnGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 204 105 875 529
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.7 22.7 15.7 13.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 19.6 6.4 10.9 7.3 19.9 8.3 9.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 11.0 3.0 4.2 3.7 6.5 4.9 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.9
HCM 2010 LOS B

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary PM EXISTING
1: Garden Hwy & Lincoln Rd 6/5/2018
RECYLING INDUSTRIES Synchro 8 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 194 186 189 528 561 235
Number 7 14 5 2 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1792 1792 1792 1792 1792 1792
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 209 200 203 568 603 253
Adj No. of Lanes 211221
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 666666
Cap, veh/h 643 296 258 2014 1134 507
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.59 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 3312 1524 1707 3495 3495 1524
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 209 200 203 568 603 253
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1656 1524 1707 1703 1703 1524
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 5.1 4.8 3.4 6.0 5.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 5.1 4.8 3.4 6.0 5.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 643 296 258 2014 1134 507
V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.68 0.79 0.28 0.53 0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1421 654 427 2680 1462 654
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.5 15.7 17.1 4.2 11.3 11.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 2.7 5.3 0.1 0.4 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 4.4 2.6 1.6 2.8 2.4
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.8 18.4 22.4 4.3 11.7 12.0
LnGrp LOS B B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 409 771 856
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.6 9.1 11.8
Approach LOS B A B
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.3 12.6 10.8 18.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 10.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 7.1 6.8 8.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.6 1.1 0.2 5.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.7
HCM 2010 LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary PM EXISTING
3: Garden Hwy & Burns Dr 6/5/2018
RECYLING INDUSTRIES Synchro 8 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 82 12 38 27 13 56 66 509 23 32 581 128
Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1792 1792 1900 1792 1792 1900 1792 1792 1900 1792 1792 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 89 13 41 29 14 61 72 553 25 35 632 139 Adj No. of Lanes 110110120120
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 666666666666
Cap, veh/h 127 52 164 58 28 122 113 1294 58 67 1009 222 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 1707 381 1200 1707 293 1275 1707 3319 150 1707 2778 610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 89 0 54 29 0 75 72 283 295 35 387 384 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1707 0 1581 1707 0 1567 1707 1703 1766 1707 1703 1685 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 1.8 5.5 5.5 0.9 8.4 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 1.8 5.5 5.5 0.9 8.4 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.81 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 0 216 58 0 150 113 664 689 67 619 612 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.64 0.43 0.43 0.52 0.63 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 266 0 330 194 0 261 254 826 856 216 788 779 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 0.0 17.4 21.3 0.0 19.3 20.5 10.0 10.0 21.2 11.8 11.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.7 0.0 0.6 6.6 0.0 2.6 5.9 0.4 0.4 6.1 1.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.6 2.7 0.5 4.0 4.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.1 0.0 18.0 28.0 0.0 21.9 26.4 10.5 10.5 27.3 12.8 12.9 LnGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 143 104 650 806
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.6 23.6 12.2 13.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer 12345678
Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 22.0 6.0 10.6 7.5 20.8 7.9 8.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.7 21.8 5.1 9.4 6.7 20.8 7.0 7.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 7.5 2.8 3.4 3.8 10.4 4.3 4.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.5
HCM 2010 LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

{00036577;1 }

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

{00036577;1 }
1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM:

RECYCLING INDUSTRIES TRANSFER STATION
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, enacted by passage of AB 3180 (Cortese Bill), requires public agencies approving projects with significant environmental impacts to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The objective of the program is to ensure that mitigation measures adopted to avoid or mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts are implemented. Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires all state and local agencies establish monitoring and reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR). In accordance with these requirements, this mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared to ensure that mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Recycling Industries Transfer Station (RITS), Yuba City, California (or subsequent revisions thereto), are implemented in an effective and timely manner, and that identified impacts are avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. This plan identifies responsible parties for the mitigation program and includes a detailed discussion of monitoring and reporting procedures for each mitigation measure.

I. Responsible Party
RITS will be responsible for implementing and reporting mitigation measures in this program and will have responsibility for ensuring that mitigation measures are accomplished in an environmentally responsible manner. RITS will be responsible for ensuring that the status of mitigation measures is reported in accordance with this program and will be responsible for ensuring that the cost of mitigation is included in its budget, as appropriate. Mitigation measures will be included, if applicable, in any future operating agreements. The City and Local Enforcement Agency (“LEA”) will be responsible for ensuring that applicable mitigation measures are carried forward in operational and maintenance procedures for this proposed expansion through reporting requirements and site inspections.

II. Mitigation Requirements
Based on the findings of the Initial Study, mitigation measures are not required for agriculture resources, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, and recreation. Specific mitigation measures are required or otherwise included for aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and services. Potentially significant impacts in these environmental resource areas will be avoided or minimized with implementation of forty-two (42) specific mitigation measures summarized on Table A-1.

RI Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Category Mitigation
No
TABLE A-1
Mitigation Measure
Initial
Study
Section
{00036577;1 }
2 Aesthetics A1 Perimeter fencing shall be provided and maintained around the RITS to screen operations from view, and all MSW will be tipped and loaded-out inside the proposed transfer station.

1.c
A2 All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with a City approved plan and shall be shielded and directed downward so as to minimize glare and impacts to adjacent properties.

1.d
Air Quality
Air Quality
(Cont.)
AQ1 All incoming material shall be tipped inside the building during periods when wind speeds are greater than 15 miles per hour (mph) averaged over a 15-minute period or when
instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 mph. Fencing, tarping, watering, misting, wind screens and other appropriate means will also be used to prevent liter and dust from blowing around outdoor tipping and storage areas.

3.b,c
AQ 2 An overhead misting system at tipping and loadout areas and hoses are available for employees to lay down a mist of water over any dusty material during loading or unloading activities.

The water is absorbed into the material and does not run off site.

3.b,c
AQ 3 Open-top trailers in a top-loading configuration are required to cover or otherwise protect the load within 15 minutes after loading.

3.b,c
AQ 4 Regular sweeping shall be used to clean the maneuvering area, and around the perimeter of the facility.

3.b,c
AQ 5 Maintain off-road as well as on-road diesel-fueled collection trucks in tune with the manufacturer’s specifications.

3.b,c
AQ6 Trucks shall not be permitted to idle for more than five minutes during loading or unloading activities.

3.b,c
AQ 7 All incoming loads are checked for excessive odors. Loads may be rejected at the scalehouse or, if accepted, transferred out as soon as possible.

3.e
AQ 8 Should odiferous material be found in the tipping areas, it will be immediately sprayed with a deodorizer and loaded out in the next transfer truck leaving the site.

3.e
AQ 9 A misting system with odor neutralizing agent shall be used over tipping and transfer/load-out areas, as needed, to control potential odors as well as dust emissions.

3.e

RI Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Category Mitigation
No
TABLE A-1
Mitigation Measure
Initial
Study
Section
{00036577;1 }
3 AQ 10 All MSW, received at the facility will be transferred out within 48 hours and within 24 hours if possible.

3.e
AQ 11 Regular site inspections will be conducted by site supervisor(s) to assure that all MSW is removed as required, the facility is cleaned on a daily basis and to minimize any other source for odors on site.

3.e
AQ 12 The receiving/transfer area, where residue from waste transfer, recycling or material recovery operations can accumulate, will be swept and cleaned throughout the day and pressured
washed on a regular basis.

3.e
AQ 13 Should odor complaints go unabated, limits on the types of waste materials accepted or a reduction in the amount of incoming tonnage may be specified by the LEA.

3.e
Cultural
Resources
CR1 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.

5.b,c,d
Geology
and Soils
GS1 The structural plans shall be designed in accordance with the most recent seismic building code requirements as required by the City, and shall incorporate the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations. The structural plans shall be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.

6.a,c
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
HHM1 If inbound material contains prohibited material or hazardous material that is not detected at the time of delivery, then such material is separated, using procedures and methods to ensure employee safety, segregated by class, and manifested in accordance with federal and state regulations. Only employees with proper training will handle hazardous waste.

8.a

RI Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Category Mitigation
No
TABLE A-1
Mitigation Measure
Initial
Study
Section
{00036577;1 }
4 HHM2 All drivers, spotters and loader operators will attend a HazMat course to be able to identify hazardous materials in their collection routes to avoid picking them up.

8.a
HHM3 RITS Transfer/Processing Facility will implement an approved Hazardous Waste Load Checking Program as described in the TPR. Inbound loads are inspected prior to or during unloading to prevent the acceptance of waste which is prohibited by the facility. When load checking reveals the presence of hazardous liquid, special waste, or medical waste the material is rejected entirely.

8.a
HHM4 A spill response kit will include absorbent material, brooms, shovels, 55-gallon drums, protective gloves, clothing, boots, goggles and respiratory equipment.

8.a
HHM5 Hazardous waste shall be kept in a special area which is restricted. This material is stored in a secure and safe area within a designated hazardous material locker as indicated in the facility’s TPR.

8.a
HHM6 Records of load checks and the training of personnel in the recognition, proper handling, and disposition of prohibited waste, as well as a copy of the load checking program and copies of the load checking records for the prior year shall be maintained in the operating record and be available for review by the appropriate regulatory agencies.

8.a
Hydrology
and Water
Quality
Hydrology
and Water
Quality
(cont.)
HWQ1 The facility will comply with the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ.

9.a,f
HWQ2 The facility will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in order to minimize the potential for stormwater contamination from runoff.

9.a,f
HWQ3 Proposed non-structural BMPs include: 1) Turning away any leaking truck; 2) Regularly scheduled preventative
maintenance of facility vehicles; 3) Use of absorbent material to soak-up spots of leaked fluids; 4) Implementing a litter control plan as contained in the Facility Plan; and 5) Regular cleaning of all areas.

9.a,f
HWQ4 The operator will implement and comply with a “Litter Control Program” as set forth in the facility Transfer/Processing Report.

A cleanup crew will be assigned to keep the site, ingress and

9.a,f

RI Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Category Mitigation
No
TABLE A-1
Mitigation Measure
Initial
Study
Section
{00036577;1 }
5 egress points, and adjacent streets and alleys, free of litter. A designated litter control team will patrol adjacent public streets and sidewalks at least two times per day.

HWQ5 A General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit), as required under Construction General Permit Order No. 2009- 009-DWQ, will be obtained prior to any onsite grading activities.

If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Risk General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board's Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Risk Waiver) R5-2013- 0145. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults.

Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

9.a,f
Hydrology
and Water
Quality
(cont.)
HWQ6 Onsite infiltration of stormwater in compliance with the MS4 and City Low Impact Development requirements will be provided to offset the additional runoff associated with the proposed project. Preliminary calculations indicate that approximately 4,271 cubic feet of infiltration volume will be required (3 feet wide, 200 feet long and 7.1 feet deep or equivalent infiltration trench) to be provided onsite. The final design and supporting calculations for the LID will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.

9.d
Noise N1 The project shall comply with the City of Yuba City noise regulations, and any subsequent ordinances, which prohibit the emissions or creation of noise beyond certain levels at adjacent uses unless technically infeasible.

12.a-c

RI Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Category Mitigation
No
TABLE A-1
Mitigation Measure
Initial
Study
Section
{00036577;1 }
6 N2 Proper training will be provided to all employees to ensure facility operations are conducted in a manner that minimizes noise impacts.

12.a-c
N3 Hearing protection for personnel is provided to equipment operators and others subject to excessive noise levels from operations, in compliance with OSHA. Equipment meets
OSHA requirements and is maintained to operate in a clean, quiet and safe manner.

12.a-c
N4 All vehicles operated by RITS shall be maintained with properly muffled exhaust systems.

12.a
N5 The project will be limited to the hours of operation as set forth in the current Solid Waste Facility Permit as follows: Receipt and process refuse/waste from 7:00am-5:00pm, Monday
through Saturday with ancillary operations/facility operating hours from 6:30am-8:00pm, Monday through Saturday.

12.a
Public
Services
Public
Services
(cont.)
PS1 The RITS transfer station shall be equipped with a fire sprinkler and alarm system. All fire suppression equipment shall be continuously available and properly maintained.

14.a
PS2 Class ABC fire extinguishers shall be located throughout the facility to provide additional fire protection.

14.a
PS3 Emergency safety and spill equipment shall be inspected monthly and maintained as required.

14.a
PS4 Fire extinguishers shall be inspected once a month and recharged yearly by a contractor.

14.a
PS5 Fire hoses shall be located throughout the site. 14.a Transportati
on /Traffic
TT1 All recommendations of the City Engineering Department shall be incorporated into the project’s final design.

16.d
TT2 Customer vehicles are prohibited from stacking in the public right-of-way as they wait to access the site.

16.d
Utilities and
Services
U1 A Revised Large Volume Transfer/Processing Solid Waste Facility Permit shall be obtained from CalRecycle and the LEA.

17.g

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
{00036577;1 }
7 III. Schedule and Reporting Frequency
Table A-2 describes the method for executing the mitigation measure, organization responsible for implementing and funding the measure, estimated completion date for each measure, frequency of reporting, and significance after mitigation. Due to possible funding conditions and other external factors, facility construction and operation could be delayed. These delays may also affect the start and completion of mitigation measures.

It should be noted that although impacts to noise from the proposed project will not be considered significant, mitigation measures to reduce noise have been included as part of this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

The monitoring and accomplishment of each mitigation measure will be documented on a Mitigation Monitoring Report form (see Exhibit A). This form will be filled out by the appropriate individual in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological materials, paleontological materials, or human remains as described in Table A-2. Supplemental recordkeeping, report preparation and documentation will be required for some mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Report form will be filled out by the appropriate individual verifying that steps to prevent or minimize environmental degradation have been completed as described in Table A-2.

Monitoring reports will be submitted to City of Yuba City Planning Department and/or Building and Safety Department and be available for inspection upon request. Completion of these forms will demonstrate and document compliance with Public Resources Code 21081.6.

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
8 A1 Perimeter fencing shall
be provided and
maintained around the
RITS to screen
operations from view,
and all MSW will be
tipped and loaded-out
inside the proposed
transfer station.

A fencing plan shall be
included as part of the plans
submitted for building permit.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for maintaining
screening and fencing.

Architect
and Facility
Operator.

Prior to
submittal of
building
permit
application
with
ongoing
maintenanc
e
Facility
inspections which
will include
perimeter fencing
are conducted
daily.

Less than
significant
A2 All exterior lighting
shall be in compliance
with a City approved
plan and shall be
shielded and directed
downward so as to
minimize glare and
impacts to adjacent
properties.

A lighting plan shall be
included as part of the plans
submitted for building permit.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for maintaining the
exterior lights.

Facility
Operator
Plan Design
with
ongoing
maintenanc
e
Facility
inspections which
will include all
facility lighting are
conducted daily.

Less than
significant
AQ1 All incoming material
shall be tipped inside
the building during
periods when wind
speeds are greater
than 15 miles per hour
(mph) averaged over a
15-minute period or
when instantaneous
The facility manager and scale
house attendant shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out by visually
inspecting incoming and
outgoing traffic.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log and repeat
offenders will be
barred from using
or conducting
business at the
facility.

Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
9 wind speeds exceed 25
mph. Fencing, tarping,
watering, misting, wind
screens and other
appropriate means will
also be used to prevent
liter and dust from
blowing around outdoor
tipping and storage
areas.

AQ2
An overhead misting
system at tipping and
loadout areas and
hoses are available for
employees to lay down
a mist of water over
any dusty material
during loading or
unloading activities.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out by properly training
all staff.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Broken and or
clogged hoses
will be noted in
the special
occurrences log
book and
repaired within 24
hours of being
found to be
broken or
clogged.

Less than
significant
AQ3
Open-top trailers in a
top-loading
configuration are
required to cover or
otherwise protect the
load within 15 minutes
after loading.

The facility manager and scale
house attendant shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out by visually
inspecting outgoing trailers.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log and repeat
offenders will be
barred from using
or conducting
Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
10 business at the
facility.

AQ4
Regular sweeping shall
be used to clean the
maneuvering area, and
around the perimeter of
the facility.

The scale house attendant
shall be responsible for
insuring that this mitigation
measure is carried out by
visually inspecting incoming
and outgoing loads.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log and repeat
offenders will be
barred from using
or conducting
business at the
facility.

Less than
significant
AQ5
Maintain mobile
equipment in tune with
the manufacturer’s
specifications.

Maintenance shall be
performed at the
manufacturer’s recommended
intervals.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Monthly Less than
significant
AQ6
Trucks shall not be
permitted to idle for
more than five minutes
during loading or
unloading activities.

The facility manager and
spotters shall be responsible
for insuring that this mitigation
measure is carried out by
monitoring all queuing and
tipping areas.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log and repeat
offenders will be
barred from using
or conducting
business at the
facility.

Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
11 AQ7
All incoming loads are
checked for excessive
odor. Loads may be
rejected at the
scalehouse or, if
accepted, transferred
out as soon as
possible.

The facility manager and scale
house attendant shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
monitoring all incoming loads.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log and repeat
offenders will be
barred from using
or conducting
business at the
facility.

Less than
significant
AQ8
Should odiferous
material be found in the
tipping areas, it will be
immediately sprayed
with a deodorizer and
loaded out in the next
transfer truck leaving
the site.

The facility manager and
spotters shall be responsible
for insuring that this mitigation
measure is carried out by
monitoring all tipping and
storage areas for odiferous
materials.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log and repeat
offenders will be
barred from using
or conducting
business at the
facility.

Less than
significant
AQ9
A misting system with
odor neutralizing agent
shall be used over
tipping and
transfer/load-out areas,
as needed, to control
potential odors as well
as dust emissions.

The facility manager is
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out by monitoring site
conditions and deploying and
using the overhead misting
system as necessary.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Daily. All misting
systems shall be
maintained in
good operating
condition and the
LEA will be
notified is the
system is not
working and/or
Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
12 repairs are
required.

AQ10
All MSW received at
the facility will be
transferred out within
48 hours and within 24
hours if possible.

Material will be
processed on a first in,
first out, basis.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out by monitoring when
incoming MSW is brought to
the facility and when it needs
to be loaded out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing If MSW can’t be
moved out within
48 hours as
required, the LEA
shall be notified.

Less than
significant
AQ11
Regular site
inspections will be
conducted by site
supervisor(s) to assure
that all MSW is
removed as required,
the facility is cleaned
on a daily basis and to
minimize any other
source for odors on site
.

The facility manager is
responsible for ensuring that
housekeeping is being
regularly conducted.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing High traffic areas
as well as MSW,
storage bunkers
shall be cleaned
on a daily basis.

Less than
significant
AQ12
The receiving/transfer
area, where residue
from waste transfer,
recycling or material
recovery operations
can accumulate, will be
swept and cleaned
throughout the day.

The facility manager and their
designees will monitor tipping
and loadout areas for waste
accumulation and clean daily.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log and repeat
offenders will be
barred from using
or conducting
business at the
facility.

Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
13 AQ13
Should odor complaints
go unabated, limits on
the types of waste
materials accepted or a
reduction in the amount
of incoming tonnage
may be specified by
the LEA.

The facility manager shall work
with the LEA to ensure the
facility is operated in
compliance with all
regulations.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log and repeat
offenders will be
barred from using
or conducting
business at the
facility.

Less than
significant
CR1
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
Inform and education building
contractor and heavy
equipment operators prior to
start of construction.

RITS During site
preparation
and
foundation
excavation.

As needed. Less than
significant.

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
14 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.

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
15 GS1
The structural plans
shall be designed in
accordance with the
most recent seismic
building code
requirements as
required by the City,
and shall incorporate
the geotechnical
engineer’s
recommendations. The
structural plans shall
be reviewed and
approved by the
geotechnical engineer
prior to the issuance of
building permits.

Use licensed structural and
geotechnical engineers,
supplemented with field
investigations prior to
preparation of structural plans.

RITS Prior to
submittal of
building
permit
application.

Pre-construction Less than
significant.

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
16 HHM1
If inbound material
contains prohibited
material or hazardous
material that is not
detected at the time of
delivery, then such
material is separated,
using procedures and
methods to ensure
employee safety,
segregated by class,
and manifested in
accordance with
federal and state
regulations. Only
employees with proper
training will handle
hazardous waste
All employees are trained to
recognize and respond to
potential hazardous materials
discovered in the waste
stream.

Key employees are trained in
the handling of hazardous
materials.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Any incident
involving
hazardous
material,
including spills,
will be noted in
the special
occurrences log
and the
appropriate
agencies notified
as necessary.

Less than
significant
HHM2 All drivers, spotters and
loader operators will
attend a HazMat
course to be able to
identify hazardous
materials in their
collection routes to
avoid picking them up.

Employees trained in
identifying hazardous
materials will be responsible to
try to avoid picking up
hazardous waste.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Any incident
involving
hazardous
material will be
noted in the
special
occurrences log
and the
appropriate
agencies notified
as necessary.

Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
17 HHM3 RITS will implement an
approved Hazardous
Waste Load Checking
Program as described
in the facility Transfer
Processing Report.

Inbound loads are
inspected prior to or
during unloading to
prevent the acceptance
of waste which is
prohibited by the
facility. When load
checking reveals the
presence of hazardous
liquid, special waste, or
medical waste the
material is rejected
entirely.

All employees are trained to
recognize and respond to
potential hazardous materials
discovered in the waste
stream.

Key employees are trained in
the handling of hazardous
materials.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Any incident
involving
hazardous
material will be
noted in the
special
occurrences log
and the
appropriate
agencies notified
as necessary.

Less than
significant
HHM4
A spill response kit will
include absorbent
material, brooms,
shovels, 55gallon
drums, protective
gloves, clothing, boots,
goggles and respiratory
equipment.

The facility manager will
inspect the spill response kit to
ensure it is stock with
appropriate materials.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Any incident
involving
hazardous
material,
including spills,
will be noted in
the special
occurrences log
Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
18 and the
appropriate
agencies notified
as necessary.

HHM5
Hazardous waste shall
be kept in a special
area which is
restricted. This material
is stored in a secure
and safe area within a
designated hazardous
material locker as
indicated in the Facility
Plan.

Key employees are trained in
the handling of hazardous
materials.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Any incident
involving
hazardous
material,
including spills,
will be noted in
the special
occurrences log
and the
appropriate
agencies notified
as necessary.

Less than
significant
HHM6
Records of load checks
and the training of
personnel in the
recognition, proper
handling, and
disposition of
prohibited waste, as
well as a copy of the
load checking program
and copies of the load
checking records for
Key employees are trained in
the handling of hazardous
materials.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Daily. Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
19 the prior year shall be
maintained in the
operating record and
be available for review
by the appropriate
regulatory agencies.

HWQ1
The facility will comply
with the Industrial
Storm Water General
Permit Order No. 2014-
0057-DWQ.

The facility manager will
ensure that the facility is in
compliance with the Industrial
General Permit.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Annually Less than
significant
HWQ2
The facility will
implement Best
Management Practices
(BMPs) contained in a
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) in order to
minimize the potential
for stormwater
contamination from
runoff.

The facility manager will
prepare and/or update the
storm water pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) and
mitigation monitoring plan
(MPP), inspect, monitor and
sample storm water
conveyance facilities and
runoff in compliance with the
general storm water permit.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Daily, weekly,
monthly, and
annually
Less than
significant
HWQ3
Proposed nonstructural BMPs
include: 1) Turning
away any leaking truck;
2) Regularly scheduled
preventative
maintenance of facility
vehicles; 3) Use of
absorbent material to
The facility manager and
Stormwater Pollution
Prevention team will ensure all
non-structural BMPs are
implemented and properly
conducted. All structural BMPs
shall be cleaned and inspected
before and after every storm.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Daily and before
and after storms
Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
20 soak-up spots of
leaked fluids; 4)
Implementing a litter
control plan as
contained in the Facility
Plan; and 5) Regular
cleaning of all areas.

HWQ4
The operator will
implement and comply
with a “Litter Control
Program” as set forth
in the facility
Transfer/Processing
Report. A cleanup
crew will be assigned
to keep the site,
ingress and egress
points, and adjacent
streets and alleys, free
of litter. A designated
litter control team will
patrol adjacent public
streets and sidewalks
at least two times per
day.

The facility manager and
designees will ensure all nonstructural litter patrols are implemented and properly
conducted.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Daily Less than
significant
HWQ5
A General Permit for
Storm Water
Discharges
Associated with
Construction Activities
(Construction General
Obtain required permits from
Central Valley Water Board as
necessary
RITS Prior to
construction
As required by
permit.

Less than
significant.

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
21 Permit), as required
under Construction
General Permit Order
No. 2009-009-DWQ,
will be obtained prior
to any onsite grading
activities.

If the proposed project
includes construction
or groundwater
dewatering to be
discharged to land, the
proponent may apply
for coverage under
State Water Board
General Water Quality
Order (Low Risk
General Order) 2003-
0003 or the Central
Valley Water Board's
Waiver of Report of
Waste Discharge and
Waste Discharge
Requirements (Low
Risk Waiver) R5-2013-
0145. Small temporary
construction
dewatering projects
are projects that
discharge
groundwater to land

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
22 from excavation
activities or
dewatering of
underground utility
vaults. Dischargers
seeking coverage
under the General
Order or Waiver must
file a Notice of Intent
with the Central Valley
Water Board prior to
beginning discharge.

HWQ6
Onsite infiltration of
stormwater in
compliance with the
MS4 and City Low
Impact Development
requirements will be
provided to offset the
additional runoff
associated with the
proposed project.

Preliminary
calculations indicate
that approximately
4,271 cubic feet of
infiltration volume will
be required (3 feet
wide, 200 feet long
Civil engineer to prepare LID
plans for approval by City.

RITS Prior to
submitting
building
permit
application
with periodic
inspections
as required
by City.

Prior to building
permit
issuance/ongoing
maintenance.

Less than
significant.

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
23 and 7.1 feet deep or
equivalent infiltration
trench) to be provided
onsite. The final
design and supporting
calculations for the
LID will be reviewed
and approved by the
City prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

N1
The project shall
comply with Yuba City
noise regulations and
any subsequent
ordinances, assist in
minimizing potential
noise impacts which
prohibit the emissions
or creation of noise
beyond certain levels
at adjacent uses unless
technically infeasible.

The facility manager and
employees shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Sources of noise
that could
potentially cause
and impact shall
be noted in the
special
occurrences log
book.

Less than
significant
N2 Proper training will be
provided to all
employees to ensure
facility operations are
conducted in a manner
that minimizes noise
impacts.

The facility manager will
monitor the site operation to
insure noise levels are kept to
a minimum.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
24 N3
Hearing protection for
personnel is provided
to equipment operators
and others subject to
excessive noise levels
from operations,
incompliance with
OSHA. Equipment
meets OSHA
requirements and is
maintained to operate
in a clean, quiet and
safe manner.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant
N4
All vehicles operated
by RITS shall be
maintained with
properly muffled
exhaust systems.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
25 N5
The project will be
limited to the hours of
operation as set forth in
the current Solid Waste
Facility Permit as
follows: Receipt and
process refuse/waste
from 7:00am-5:00pm,
Monday through
Saturday with ancillary
operations/facility
operating hours from
6:30am-8:00pm,
Monday through
Saturday.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant
PS1 Fire suppression
equipment shall be
continuously available
and properly
maintained.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant
PS2
Class ABC fire
extinguishers shall be
located throughout the
facility to provide
additional fire
protection.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
26 PS3
Emergency safety and
spill equipment shall be
inspected monthly and
maintained as required.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant
PS4
Fire extinguishers shall
be inspected once a
month and recharged
yearly by a contractor.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant
PS5
Fire hoses shall be
located throughout the
site.

The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant
TT1
All recommendations of
the City Engineering
Department shall be
incorporated into the
project’s final design.

Project architect and civil
engineer.

Facility
Operator
Prior to
building
permit
submittal.

Prior to the
issuance of
building permits.

Less than
significant
TT2
Customer vehicles are
prohibited from
stacking in the public
right-of-way as they
wait to access the site,
and
The facility manager shall be
responsible for insuring that
this mitigation measure is
carried out.

Facility
Operator
Ongoing Violations will be
noted in the daily
log.

Less than
significant

RITS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table A-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
No. Mitigation Measure Method for Execution of
Mitigation
Responsible
Entity
Completion
Date
Reporting
Frequency
Significance After
Mitigation
{00036577;1 } City of Yuba City
November 2018
27 U1
A Revised Large
Volume
Transfer/Processing
Solid Waste Facility
Permit shall be
obtained from
CalRecycle.

An application for a revised
large volume full solid waste
facility will be obtained from
the Yuba Sutter LEA Program
in partnership with the
California Department of
Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle) prior to
the start of any new operations
proposed under this Draft
IS/MND.

RITS Prior to the
processing
the
increased
amount of
material
proposed
under this
Draft
IS/MND.

Monthly
inspections will
be conducted by
the LEA to insure
the facility is
operating as
required under
the solid waste
facility permit.

Less than
significant

{00036577;1 }

Attachment 4

GARDEN HWY

FRANKLIN AVE

PLUMAS BLVD

BRIDGE ST

PLUMAS ST
Document Name: Recycling UP

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT IS

NOT PROTECTED BY SOUND WALLS

GARDEN
HWY

RAILROAD AVERICHLAND RD

BUNCE RD
/
1 inch = 600 feet
Document Name: Recycling UP

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT ISNOT PROTECTED BY SOUND WALLS

Attachment 5

Attachment 6

Exhibit 1

'7
<
RESOLUTION NO. 19-005
19-005
G>
WHEREAS, Recycling Industries (applicant) currently operates a recycling center under Use Permit (UP) 07-12 at 140 Epley Drive; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the City approved Use Permit (UP) 12-01, which allowed the applicant to convert its recycling center into a Large Volume Transfer Station (LVTS); and WHEREAS, prior to said approval the City also prepared an environmental assessment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) resulting in a finding of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) per Environmental Assessment (EA) 12-2 (2014 MND); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has yet to develop the site as approved per UP 12-01, and has received two extensions from the City such that use under the UP 12-01 must commence by no later than July 23, 2020, or UP 12-01 could become null and void for inaction; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to modify its previously approved use of the property to a revised Large Volume Transfer/Processing Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP); and

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

DENYING THE APPEAL OF, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF, THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17-03, USE PERMIT NO. 17- 05, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 17-10 (SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT/140 EPLEY DRIVE (RECYCLING INDUSTRIES, INC.), AND INDEPENDENTLY APPROVING AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 17-10 (SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION), DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17-03, AND USE PERMIT NO. 17-05, WITH

CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, said revisions require a Development Permit (DP), UP and appropriate Environmental Assessment (EA) of the project; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for the project, resulting in a proposed Subsequent MND; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a notice of intent to adopt the Subsequent MND on November 16, 2018, and provided a review period regarding the proposed mitigated negative declaration; and
WHEREAS, under the City's Municipal Code, the Yuba City Planning Commission is authorized to review and approve the Development Permits, Use Permits and environmental assessments for associated projects on behalf of the City; and WHEREAS, the City provided notice of the Planning Commission hearing as required by law; and
WHEREAS, applicant submitted an application to the City for DP 17-03, UP 17-05, and EA 17-10; and

19-005
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2019, the City Council received,and reviewed the appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision granting UP 17-05 and EA 17-10 at a duly noticed meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City provided notice of the City Council hearing on the appeal as required by law; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2018, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on approving the project was timely made on behalf of “Stop the Dump” and received by the City Clerk’s office; and datA af!er con®ider^g al* Public testimony and receiving information provided to de'ibera,ed °n thS aPPea’ taSed the
info™a,ion i" the record, the SSSXxSSSF-ts
and effects, » taSSTe Subsets Mn£
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and reviewed DP 17-03, UP 17-05, and EA 17-10 at a duly noticed meeting on November 28, 2018; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held, and the public was provided an opportunity to comment on DP 17-03, UP 17-05, and EA 17-10; and
WHEREAS, public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, as part of this review, the Planning Commission also conducted an assessment of the proposed project as required by CEQA; and WHEREAS, after considering all public testimony and receiving information provided to date, the Planning Commission closed public testimony and granted, with modified conditions of approval, DP 17-03 and UP 17-05, as well as EA 17-10; and WHEREAS, said adoption also included approval of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration to the 2014 MND and its initial study (Subsequent MND) for the project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162, as set forth in EA 17-10; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held, and the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the appeal of the Planning Commission decision; and WHEREAS, public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered bv the City Council; and

19-005
WHEREAS, the City Council continued consideration of the appeal and project until the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting, so as to also concurrently consider the appeal of DP 17-03 regarding the Project; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council held a duly-noticed hearing to consider the appeal of DP 17-03, UP 17-05, and EA 17-10; and WHEREAS, after consideration of said public testimony and information in the record, the City Council determined that there was substantial evidence in the record that the project complied with the City’s Municipal Code and requirements for issuance of a Development Permit and User Permit for the operations as proposed; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held, all documents and comments from the January 15, 2019, were incorporated into the record, and the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the appeal and the project; and
WHEREAS, after considering all public testimony and receiving information provided to date, the City Council closed the public hearing and deliberated on the appeal based on the evidence in the administrative record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did not find any substantial evidence in the record that DP 17-03 or UP 17-05 failed to comply with specific requirements of the City’s Municipal Code as applicable, or which would require overturning the Planning Commission decision and denial of either DP 1 7-03 or UP 1 7-05; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also determined that the proposed project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the “Mandatory Findings of Significance” contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and with the mitigation imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project will have any direct, indirect or cumulative significant effects on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve DP 17-03, UP 17-05, and EA 17-10 as further conditioned; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve and adopt Environmental Assessment No. 17-10 (Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration), Development Permit No. 17-03, and Use Permit No. 17-05, as further conditioned.

BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AS FOLLOWS:

Section 2. Administrative Record. The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing, including staff reports, attachments, and presentations, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any staff reports, documents, testimony or evidence submitted to the City Council, including all documents specified under applicable State law including Public Resources Code section 21 167.6(e), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under CEQA.

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

"7
Section 3. CEQA Findings.
19-005
(9)
The City Council finds and determines that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Planning Commission determination that the project has been adequately environmentally assessed as required by CEQA per EA 17-10.

Additionally, the City Council also finds and determines that in light of the entire A. Subsequent MNP. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed project and has prepared a Subsequent MND to the approved 2014 MND in order to evaluate the changes to the previouslyapproved project proposed by DP 17-03 and UP 17-05, (the foregoing collectively referred to herein as the proposed modified project) and to determine whether substantial changes in circumstances surrounding the property and the approved project per UP 12-10 (if any), and new information of substantial importance (if any), require further analysis under CEQA. The City Council also finds:

The City Council has fully considered the original MND and the Subsequent MND, and finds that DP 17-03 and UP 17-05 are consistent with, and have been fully assessed by, the Subsequent MND, and that DP 17-03 and UP 17-05 are permits anticipated for the proposed modified project in the Subsequent MND, and are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Subsequent MND, and that the approval of EA 17-10 regarding said Subsequent MND by the Planning Commission was likewise consistent and appropriate.

In this regard, based on the Council's independent judgement and analysis and record before it, the Council additionally finds as follows:
i. No substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the 2014 MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. ii. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. iii. There is no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the 2014 MND that the project will have significant effect not discussed in the 2014 MND.
i. The Subsequent MND reflects the Council’s independent judgement and analysis; ii. The project mitigation -imposed, as described in the Initial Study and supporting documents, will avoid any potentially significant effects to a point where no significant adverse impact on the environment will occur, and there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are potentially significant and adverse. iii. The proposed project, as modified after the appeal, will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the “Mandatory Findings of Significance” contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
iv. The mitigation measures described and specifically identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and shall become binding upon the entity (such as the project applicant or the City) assigned thereby to implement the particular mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

19-005
7 B. Findings Regarding Recirculation: The Council further finds recirculation is not required by CEQA as the Development Plan, Use Permit and conditions approved were more - not less - stringent than those analyzed in the Subsequent MND, and were not mitigation measures or project revisions added to reduce a new, avoidable significant effect to insignificance.

Further, the Planning Commission did not add these conditions of approval after determining that mitigation measures in the Subsequent MND were inadequate to ensure effects would be less than significant.

The project description originally utilized for the environmental document was based on the applicant’s request. The environmental document analyzed that request and found that, with mitigation measures imposed, there were no potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed expansion. While a reduced, smaller project than originally proposed was approved by the Commission, such reductions would serve to likewise reduce - not increase - impacts that were already less than significant with mitigation imposed.

The CEQA Guidelines explain that recirculation of a negative declaration is required if the negative declaration has been “substantially revised after public notice of its availability.” (14 C.C.R., § 15073.5(a).) The Guidelines expand on this language, explaining that:

The Commission added multiple conditions of approval for the project at the hearing below.

Notably, none of the Commission’s conditions of approval were mitigation measures or project revisions added to reduce a new, avoidable significant effect to insignificance.

Further, the Planning Commission did not add these conditions of approval after determining that mitigation measures in the Subsequent MND were inadequate to ensure effects would be less than significant. That is, the Planning Commission did not identify any new significant effects that required new mitigation measures or project revisions or determine that proposed mitigation was inadequate, and no changes the Subsequent MND were made or warranted.
administrative record and the substantial evidence before it, the project has been adequately environmentally assessed as required by CEQA per EA 17-10. (b) A "substantial revision” of the negative declaration shall mean:
(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. (c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1.
(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.
(3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA , which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
(4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.

A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
19-005
Basis for Finding: The property is zoned Industrial District (M-2) which is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Manufacturing, Processing, and Warehousing.

As explained in the Subsequent MND, and as the Council finds, all environmental effects would be less than significant after incorporation of mitigation proposed in the Subsequent MND, as the project is currently conditioned by the City. Council. The additional conditions of approval required by the Planning Commission will further reduce environmental effects, but no further mitigation was required by CEQA. Thus, the Planning Commission’s incorporation of conditions of approval is consistent with the text in the CEQA Guidelines, explaining that recirculation is not required when: "Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.” (14 C.C.R., § 15073.5(c)(3).) Thus, the Planning Commission’s conditions of approval (and corresponding changes to the project description) do not meet the definition of a “substantial revision” as found in the CEQA Guidelines, and the City Council finds that recirculation was and is hot required.
©
Likewise, with regard to the conditions of approval further modified by the City Council, the Council further finds recirculation is not required by CEQA as the Development Plan, Use Permit and conditions approved were more - not less - stringent than those analyzed in the Subsequent MND, and were not mitigation measures or project revisions added to reduce a new, avoidable significant effect to insignificance. Further, the City Council has not added these conditions of approval after determining that mitigation measures in the Subsequent MND were inadequate to ensure effects would be less than significant. As such, and consistent with the analysis as noted above and the record as a whole, the City Council finds that recirculation is not required.

Section 4. Adoption of Subsequent MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby adopts the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 17-10) for the project, including the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program, as the project will not result in any significant, adverse, environmental impacts with the mitigation imposed. The Department of Development Services located at Yuba City Hall at 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA 95993 shall serve as the custodian of all documents or other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the Council's adoption of this Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is based. The Council authorizes and directs the Director of the Department of Development Services, or designee, to execute and file with the Sutter County Clerk, a Notice of Determination for the approval of the project that complies with the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 5. Findings Regarding UP. The City Council finds and determines that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the City Council’s review of the Planning Commission’s adoption of revised conditions, as further amended by the City Council, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code requirements applicable to the UP. Additionally, the City Council also finds and determines that there is substantial evidence in the entire administrative record that the UP, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code requirements applicable to the UP. The City Council further approves, accepts as its own, incorporates as if set forth in full herein, and makes each and every one of the findings, based on the evidence in the record, as follows:

19-005
B. 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 the Municipal Code.

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

The project, as modified, will not reach the City’s significance threshold. D. The site design and size and design of the buildings will complement neighboring facilities.

The M-2 district permits recycling and collection facilities (including a LVTS) subject to the issuance of a Use Permit by the Commission.

Estimated truck activity and employee travel associated with the project will occur while the facility is open from to refuse/waste from 7 a.m. - 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday with ancillary operations from 6 a.m. - 9 p.m., Monday through Saturday Truck activity is expected to be relatively uniform across that period, but somewhat less truck travel is expected in the evening as the plant begins to wind down for the day.

Basis for Finding: The design of the site meets the requirements of the Zoning Regulations relative to the provision of adequate parking and shading and buffer landscaping. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 21,600 sf transfer/processing building. The proposed building will be similar in size and design to the buildings built immediately to the south. The proposed building will be compatible with other nearby industrial buildings and will ensure that the proposed business operations are kept inside an enclosed space. Presently the project site is surrounded by a six-foot high chain-link fence and landscaping.

Basis for Finding: Under the revised project, the site has been increased from three to four acres. The expanded site will allow improved circulation and queuing, and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed LVTS facility and related operations. The proposed site plan is in conformance with the Zoning Regulations with perimeter landscaping and fencing, and will include the necessary site improvements to allow for a safe and efficient operation. Utilized areas of the site will be paved, directional signage will be provided, and stormwater runoff will be controlled. Truck loading docks will be provided to allow efficient transfer of material and prevent potential impacts to off-site circulation. The proposed flow of vehicle and truck traffic entering and exiting the site will minimize the potential for vehicular conflicts while allowing for a safe and efficient flow of traffic and facility use. The site has sufficient on-site space to prevent trucks from queuing on the public right-of-way in the event of a surge of visiting trucks to the site. To ensure that there is safe and efficient traffic movement at the site, the applicant is required to have an on-site traffic management plan as part of the Transfer/Processing Report document and will employ spotters to direct traffic. This will ensure that during material receiving hours, facility personnel will monitor and direct incoming traffic.

Basis for Finding: The applicant is proposing to expand the facility from 100 tons per day (TPD) to a 300 TPD, however the Planning Commission, and City Council on appeal, have limited the maximum to 100 TPD. Regardless, traffic will increase in comparison to what exists today, however this increase was previously assessed per the 2014 MND for UP 12-01.

19-005
(D
E. 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.

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

As the project is considered a Large Volume Transfer Station, the County of Yuba Environmental Management Department, Environmental Health Division (LEA), will be responsible for ensuring the project complies with all applicable State mandated requirements. Given this designation, the applicant will be responsible for monthly reporting to the LEA to ensure compliance with State requirements. Additionally, the LEA will also be responsible for enforcement of all local restrictions placed on the proposed use which includes key elements that ensure the compatibility of the use with the surrounding properties.

Basis for Finding. Municipal Code Section 6-9.602. - Permits and entitlements, identifies findings including:
(a)The facilities of the State plan of flood control or other flood management facilities protect the property to the urban level of flood protection in urban and urbanizing areas or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection in i. Station Control Plan which addresses:
• Nuisance controls (i.e. daily cleanup of the site);
• Dust control measures to mitigate on-site dust;
• Vector and bird control measures to prevent these items from becoming nuisances;
• Litter control measures;
• Noise control measures;
• Odor control measures; and,
• Traffic control measures.
ii. Records and Reporting Plan which addresses the types of on-going reporting required for the operation of the LVTS. This includes:
• Employee training program;
• Facility self-inspection program;
• Health and safety program;
• Hazardous waste reporting program;
• Public complaint log; and,
• A monitoring and inspection schedule report.

Basis for Finding: The project site is suited for a LVTS. The surrounding uses are industrial in nature, while the nearest homes are located approximately 1 ,900 lineal feet from the site, thus the operation of the LVTS facility will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. As detailed in the Subsequent MND and the Transfer Processing Report (TPR), the proposed LVTS must incorporate multiple components to ensure its compatibility with the surrounding properties. These components, which are mandated by the State's application process, include:

C. The site design and size and design of the buildings will complement neighboring 19-005
A. 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 the Municipal Code.
nonurbanized areas;
(b) The City has imposed conditions on the permit or discretionary entitlement that will protect the project to the urban level of flood protection in urban and urbanizing areas or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection in nonurbanized areas;
(c) The local flood management agency has made adequate progress (as defined in California Government Code § 65007) on the construction of a flood protection by 2025 system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection in nonurbanized areas for property located within a flood hazard zone, intended to be protected by the system; (d) The property in an undetermined risk area has met the urban level of flood protection based on substantial evidence in the record;
(e) The property is located in an area of potential flooding of three feet or less from sources other than local drainage or potential flooding from local drainage that meets the criteria of the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection; or
(f) The property is located within a watershed with a contributing area of ten or fewer square miles, as determined by the City.

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

This project complies with this finding as the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) is the “Local Flood Management Agency” for the Sutter-Butte Basin and as such, has the responsibility to prepare an annual report demonstrating adequate progress as defined in California Government Code Section 65007(a). SBFCA has prepared Adequate Progress Report Updates for ULOP and transmitted them to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.

Basis for Finding: See Basis for Finding in Section 5(B), which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

Basis for Finding: See Basis for Finding in Section 5(C), which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

Section 6. Findings Regarding DP. The City Council finds and determines that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Planning Commission determination that the DP, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code requirements applicable to the DP. Additionally, the City Council also finds and determines that there is substantial evidence in the entire administrative record that the DP, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code requirements applicable to the DP. The City Council further approves, accepts as its own, incorporates as if set forth in full herein, and makes each and every one of the findings, based on the evidence in the record, as follows:

facilities.

Section 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately. ;hon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:

IPatricia Buckland, City Clerl
19-005
IC>
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Basis for Finding: See Basis for Finding in Section 5(F), which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

Basis for Finding: See Basis for Finding in Section 5(D), which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

Councilmember Boomgaarden, Cardoza, Espindola, Shaw and M^yor Harris None
None
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 5th day of February, 2019.

Section 7. Appeal Denied. For all the foregoing reasons, and each of them, the City Council finds that there was no substantial evidence submitted into the administrative record that would warrant denial of either the DP or UP, including the CEQA for the project, as conditioned during the public hearing and appeal process. As such, the appeal is denied in its entirety.

Section 9. Development Permit Approved. For all the foregoing reasons, and each of them, the City Council upholds the Planning Commission approval of Development Permit 17-03, as further conditioned by the City Council. Further, for all of the foregoing reasons and based upon the substantial evidence in the record before it, nd given that there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record that would warrant denial, the City Council also independently approves Development Permit 17-03 as further conditioned as set forth in Exhibit “A.”.

Section 8. Use Permit Approved. For all the foregoing reasons, and each of them, the City Council upholds, after adding addition conditions, the Planning Commission approval of Use Permit 17-05, as further conditioned by the City Council. Further, for all of the foregoing reasons and based upon the substantial evidence in the record before it, and given that after the conditions and restrictions added by the Planning Commission and after the appeal, there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record that would warrant denial, the City Council also independently approves Use Permit 17-05 as further conditioned by the City Council as set forth in Exhibit “A.”.

T PM 23, : = Hos ’.’^3

A;
SI
19-005
II
AR
"cot
lAFFiN, City Attorney
shire & Wynder, LLP

TO FORM

UBA CITY

19-005

EXHIBITA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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 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.

19-005
I.

Delivery of Material:

10. Except for source separated curbside recyclables, material may not be accepted via packer trucks. This includes side, front, or rear loaders. 1 1 . Roll off bins of up to 50 yards may be accepted

12. The facility is closed Sunday. The facility is open from to refuse/waste from 7am - 5pm, Monday through Saturday with ancillary operations from 6am - 9pm, Monday through 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).

Materials:

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

4. The facility shall only receive material generated within the Sutter and Yuba Counties. 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 1 0 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.

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.

19-005
I
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.

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
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.

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.

Processing:

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

Litter Control:

24. Litter control shall be implemented as described in section 4.1 1 .2 of the TPR report.

19-005
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

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 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.

19-005
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 insure 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.
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-ofway. 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.

19-005
Fire Department

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

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.

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.

*
a.
b.
c.
19-005
Bridgit Barnes, Esq.

Brigit S. Barnes & Associates, Inc.

CalReycle:

54. Comply with letter November 5, 2018 and subsequent correspondence between CalRecycle 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, 201 8
Feather River Air Quality Management District:

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

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:

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.

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.

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:

19-005
4 3262 Penryn Road, Suite 200
Loomis, CA 95650
Tel: 916-660-9555
Fax: 916-660-9554
Email: [email protected]

01248.0005/980255.1
Attachment 7

RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY DENYING AMENDMENTS TO USE PERMIT NO. 17-05 AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 17-03 FOR RECYCLING INDUSTRIES; LOCATED AT 310 EPLY DRIVE, ASSESSOR’S PARCEL 54- 083-026
WHEREAS, Recycling Industries (Applicant) currently operates a recycling center (“Facility”) under Use Permit (UP) 07-05 and Development Permit (DP) 17-05 at 140 Epley Drive; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the City approved Use Permit (UP) 12-01, which allowed the applicant to convert its recycling center into a Large Volume Transfer Station (LVTS); and WHEREAS, the City provided notice of the City Council hearing on the appeal as required by law; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2019 at a duly noticed meeting, on appeal from Planning Commission. the City Council conditionally approved UP 17-05 and EA 17-10, subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, to modify the project approved with UP 12-01, with the following key limitations:
a. Continue to limit maximum throughput to 100 Tons per Day (TPD) where the Applicant requested 300 TPD (Condition 3).
b. Restricted to accepting waste generated only from Sutter and Yuba Counties (Condition 4).
c. Continue to limit putrescible waste material to 10 percent where the Applicant requested no threshold (Condition 5).
d. Continue to prohibit packer trucks (garbage trucks) where the Applicant requested that packer trucks with side, front or rear loaders be allowed (Condition 10). e. Project site expanded from three to four acres.
f. Relocate an existing 1,800 square foot (sf) metal building. g. Expand transfer and processing building from 18,000 sf to 21,600 sf. h. Limit tire storage to a 40-yard bin (Condition 7).
i. Prohibit operations on Sunday (Condition 12).
j. Require future project modifications be submitted to the City Council for Review (Condition 60).
k. Notify project opponents (Stop the Dump) of any applications to modify the project (Condition 60).
;(“2019 Approval”) and

WHEREAS, in July, 2023 Applicant submitted a new application to amend UP 17-05. and DP 17-03 to modify Conditions 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12 and 60 established as part of the City Council’s 2019 Approval: and,
WHEREAS, these requested modifications to the identified Conditions established in the 2019 Approval would modify the Project’s operations as follows:

1. Increase the maximum throughput from 100 TPD to 300 TPD;

2. Allow the facility to receive material from any county or region by removing the restriction on receiving material only from Sutter and Yuba counties;

3. Remove the limitation on the amount of putrescible waste the facility may accept, currently limited to ten (10) percent;

4. Allow the facility to accept material from packer trucks;

5. Extend the hours of operation and allow for operations on Sunday

6. Remove the limitation on the number of used tires the facility may receive and default to what is permitted under applicable state regulations. and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant advised the City that all of the proposed modifications to the identified conditions were environmentally assessed in the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration the City Council adopted on January 15, 2019, and that no additional environmental analysis was required; and,
WHEREAS, at its 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); and, WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration the City Council adopted on January 15, 2019, and has determined it did not analyze the potential increased truck traffic and noise impacts associated with extending the hours of the facility’s operations, allowing for packer trucks to deliver material to the facility, and allowing the facility to accept material from any county or region; and,
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council to consider the requested amendments to UP 17-05 and DP 17-03 was published in the Appeal Democrat newspaper, stating the hearing will take place on May 7, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter; and,
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2024, the City delivered to the Applicant by email and by placing in the U.S. Mail a letter notifying the Applicant of the City’s intent to recommend denial of the application to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2024, the City delivered by placement in the U.S. Mail, to the Applicant, a Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council to consider Applicant’s requested amendments to UP 17-05 and DP 17-03 on May 7, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter; and, WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held public hearing to consider Applicant’s requested amendments to UP 17-05 and DP 17-03, and the Applicant and the public were provided an opportunity to comment and present documents, material and other evidence

relevant to the City Council’s consideration of Applicant’s request for amendments to UP 17-05 and DP 17-03; and,
WHEREAS, at the May 7, 2024 hearing the Applicant and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, after considering all public testimony and receiving information provided to date, the City Council closed public testimony and deliberated on Applicant’s requested amendments to UP 17-05 and DP 17-03 based on the evidence in the administrative record; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council determined the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration the City Council adopted on January 15, 2019, did not adequately environmentally assess Applicant’s requested amendments to UP 17-05 and DP 17-03 and that subsequent environmental review was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15162; and WHEREAS, the City Council did not find substantial evidence in the record to support several of the findings required to approve the amendments to UP 17-05 and CP 17-03; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to deny Applicant’s requested amendments to UP 17-05 and DP 17-03.

BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AS FOLLOWS:

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

Section 2. Determination Regarding Adequacy of Environmental Analysis. The City Council determines, based upon the administrative record including the Staff Report to the City Council dated May 7, 2024, that the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on January 15, 2019 fails to adequately assess the potential environmental impacts from the requested amendments to UP 17-05 and DP 17-03 because substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects and, therefore, subsequent environmental analysis is required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.

Basis for Determination: Each of the following serve both independently and collectively as grounds for the determination:

The traffic study prepared for the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for UP 17-05 and DP 17-03, due to a proliferation of commercial trucking activity and the development of areas yards 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. That traffic study concluded three of the study intersections (SR 99/Reed, SR 99/Walnut, SR 99/Oswald) that would

foreseeable be used by trucks delivering and removing materials of the facility, already operate below the County’s level of service standard. It is reasonably foreseeable the additional truck trips to and from the facility resulting from the expanded operations at the facility would exacerbate these conditions and create traffic safety hazards at these intersections due to the conflicts between trucks and vehicles traveling through these intersections. The subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and its supporting traffic study did not analyze this scenario.

Furthermore, in 2023 the Grand Jury determined that “road pavements throughout Yuba City currently require extensive maintenance and refurbishment to sufficiently provide for critical transportation infrastructure.” The City confirmed the finding and also determined that noncritical 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 projects 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. The subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and its supporting studies did not analyze this scenario.

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.

Section 3. Findings Regarding UP. The City Council finds and determines that there is insufficient substantial evidence in the administrative record to support three of the six findings required under Municipal Code, Section 8-5.7003(d), for the proposed expansion as follows:

A. There is insufficient substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the finding that 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.

Basis for Finding: 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.

B. There is insufficient evidence in the administrative record to support a finding the streets serving the site are adequate to carry the quantity of traffic generated by the use allowed by the proposed Amendments.

Basis for Finding: Based upon the discussion above regarding the traffic analysis in the traffic study prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, without further analysis regarding the routing and volume of truck traffic associated with the proposed amendments to the use permit, it MND adopted by the City Council in 2019, 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 analyzed truck traffic traveling more regionally from counties other than the counties of Sutter and Yuba.

Therefore, there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the making of this finding.

C. The is insufficient evidence in the administrative record to support the finding that the establishment or operation of the use, as amended, 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.

Basis for Finding: The combined increase in the permitted daily tonnage, elimination of the restriction on putrescible materials, the allowance of delivers 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 two and from the site to 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 criterial 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. Further, these increased facility operations may exacerbate existing noise impacts to residences located along the routes trucks use to access the facility. Finally, given that the impacts of 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.

Section 4. Findings Regarding DP. The City Council finds and determines that there is insufficient evidence in the administrative record to support two of the four findings required under Municipal Code, Section 8-5.7001(c)(4), for the proposed expansion as follows:

A. 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.

Basis for Finding: See Basis for Finding in Section 3(A), which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

B. 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.

Basis for Finding: See Basis for Finding in Section 3(B), which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

Section 5. Amendments to Use Permit No. 17-05 Denied. For all the foregoing reasons, and each of them, the City Council denies the requested amendment of Use Permit 17-05 without prejudice.

Section 6. Amendment to Development Permit No. 17-03 Denied. For all the foregoing reasons, and each of them, the City Council denies the requested amendment to Development Permit 17-03 without prejudice.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

_____________________________

Shon Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk Administrator

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
________________________________
SHANNON CHAFFIN, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

Agenda Item 23

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: Boat, Trailer, RV Parking Ordinance Update
Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing; then
B. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City amending regulations for the parking of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles in one and two family residential districts by title only and waive the first reading, and approve exemptions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15301 (Existing Facilities)
Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal impact will result from amending the Municipal Code to revise the standards discussed
Purpose:

Consideration to update Section 8-5.6104 of the Yuba City Municipal Code to establish alternative parking standards for boats, utility trailers and recreational vehicles in one and two-family (R-1 and R-2) Zone Districts.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item is consistent with the Council’s Public Safety Strategic Goal because establishing the proposed standards will not jeopardize public safety in the community.

This item could also be considered consistent with the Council’s Fiscal Responsibility Strategic Goal.

Establishing clear standards for citizens and code enforcement regarding the parking of boats, trailers and RVs will make code enforcement more efficient, effective and assist in operating the City in a more fiscally responsible and responsive manner.

Background:

Staff periodically brings forward recommended code revisions to incorporate statutory changes and other miscellaneous revisions for consideration to keep the Zoning Code contemporary for the City’s needs.

Due to comments made by citizens to individual Council members and feedback to Code Enforcement, the parking of boats, trailers, and RVs was discussed at City Council workshops on January 26, 2023,

and September 7, 2023. As a result of Council feedback, staff prepared draft Municipal Code revisions to generally allow the parking of a single boat, trailer, or recreational vehicle (RVs) within front yard areas of one and two-family residentially zoned areas when in compliance with specific standards.

It's important to note the standards proposed apply to the keeping of boats, trailers, and RVs on private property only and do not apply to one of these items being located within a public right-of-way. The City Police Department utilizes Ordinance 911, effective October 7, 1982 and Ordinance 09-95, effective October 19, 1995 for its enforcement efforts within a public right of way that apply to the removal of certain vehicles from a street, non-motorized vehicle parking and the keeping of oversized vehicles. If a person is camping within a public right-of-way, the Police Department utilizes Municipal Code Section 5-23050 (a) (7) to remove them.

On October 3, 2023, the City Council unanimously initiated a Municipal Code Amendment to revise the standards associated with the parking of boats, trailers and RVs within residential front yard areas.

On December 13, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a noticed Public Hearing. Notice was advertised in the newspaper and was separately provided to citizens known to code enforcement who could have an interest in this matter. No member of the public was present or spoke at the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended an additional standard be added requiring boats, utility trailers, or RVs exceeding 8 feet in height be set back a minimum of 5 feet from adjoining property lines in front yard areas. This recommendation has been incorporated into the proposed Ordinance.

Analysis:

The parking of boats, utility trailers and RVs within front yard areas within one and two-family (R-1 and R-2) zoning districts is not an uncommon sight within the city limits.

Municipal Code Section 8-5.6104 currently requires these items be parked behind the front wall of the residence or, in the case of a corner lot, behind the wall of the residence facing each street right-ofway. Screening to a height of 6-feet from view of the public right-of-way is required. An exception is provided that recreational vehicles used as daily transportation may be parked overnight on recognized parking areas.

The question of “where” to allow parking for these items can be controversial as there are citizens passionate on both sides of this issue. Some citizens want the ability to keep a unit at home to reduce storage costs and have ready access to it. Others are equally passionate that units stored in front of homes within one and two-family residential areas result in a cluttered aesthetic look that can reduce property values.

The proposed Ordinance will establish alternate standards in addition to today’s requirements:
• Establish new definitions for Recreational Vehicle and Utility Trailer. • Establish standards providing for the parking of a single boat, trailer, or RV in a front yard area when in conformance with specific criteria. Additionally, there is a provision to park a second item on lots larger than 0.5 acre.
• If a property owner is unable to comply with the proposed standards, they must comply with the

City’s existing standards of parking an item behind the front wall of a residence and providing screening to a height of 6-feet from view of the public right-of-way. • Citizens having two items (i.e. a boat and an RV) would be allowed to park one in the front yard consistent with the new alternate standards and a second item behind the front wall of a residence that is screened to a height of 6-feet from view of the public right-of-way, as they are allowed today.

It is important to recognize the proposed revisions will not, under most circumstances, allow the parking of a larger utility trailer, boat or RV in a driveway. Most homes constructed within the last 30-years or more have a 20± foot-deep front yard setback from the back of sidewalk to a home’s attached garage.

In this situation, the largest RV that could likely be parked in front of a residential garage is a unit that is approximately 15–16 feet in length. The remaining area will be occupied by the trailer frame, rear bumper, and hitch/tongue of the unit.

Large units will still be required to park within an adequately sized side yard/rear yard and be screened to existing City standards or stored offsite at an approved location.

Providing an opportunity for the parking of a boat, utility trailer, or RV within residential front yard areas, when compliant with specific criteria that does not compromise public safety, could result in code enforcement being more effective because they will spend less time on this issue.

If this Ordinance is introduced at this meeting and adopted at a future City Council meeting, the Ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption.

As part of bringing this matter forward, a public hearing notice was advertised in the Appeal Democrat newspaper and mailed notice was provided to known persons who may have filed code enforcement complaints, as well as property owners who may be or have been in violation of the current ordinance requirements.

Environmental Considerations:

After reviewing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Guidelines, staff believes this project is covered by the general rule specified at CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and determined with certainty that there is no possibility the proposed update to the Municipal Code would cause a significant adverse, effect on the environment. This is because the proposed revisions merely provide for refinements to existing allowed uses and for additional clarity regarding the standards for the parking of boats, utility trailers and recreational vehicles on residential property.

Additionally, this project can also be considered exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities. The proposed amendments to the standards for the parking of boats, trailers and RVs could potentially result in minor alterations to existing residences involving negligible or no expansion of the residential use at these existing residences. Additionally, none of the exceptions to this exemption as set forth in CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2 apply and the project does not present an “unusual circumstance.”
Fiscal Impact:

No direct fiscal impact will result from amending the Municipal Code to revise the standards regulating the parking of boats, trailers, and RVs. Existing budgeted monies are paying for staff’s time to address this item.

Alternatives:

The City Council may decide not to amend the standards regulating the parking of boats, utility trailers, and RVs or may provide alternative guidance to staff concerning this issue.

Recommendations:

A. Conduct a Public Hearing; then
B. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City amending regulations for the parking of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles in one and two family residential districts by title only and waive the first reading, and approve exemptions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15301 (Existing Facilities).

Attachments:

1. Proposed Ordinance

2. Public Comments Received
Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

ATTACHMENT 1

ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

AMENDING REGULATIONS FOR THE PARKING OF BOATS, TRAILERS AND

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City has adopted standards in its Municipal Code for the parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City desires to update these standards to better reflect the desires of the community and to assist code enforcement by having clear standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yuba City discussed the parking of boats, utility trailers and recreational vehicles at public workshops on January 26, 2023 and September 7, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2023, the City Council of the City of Yuba City unanimously initiated an update to the Municipal Code to revise the standards applicable to the parking of boats, utility trailers and recreational vehicles within one and two-family residential districts; WHEREAS, the City on December 2, 2023, published a legal notice in compliance with State law concerning the Planning Commission’s consideration on December 13, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this ordinance at its meeting on December 13, 2023, and made a recommendation to the City Council.

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

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

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds this project is covered by the general rule of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and has determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed update to the Municipal Code would cause a significant, adverse, effect on the environment. This is because the proposed update merely provides for refinements to existing allowed uses and for additional clarity regarding the standards for the parking of boats, utility trailers and recreational vehicles on residential property.

Additionally, this project can also be considered exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities. The proposed amendments to the standards for the parking of boats, trailers and RVs could potentially result in minor alterations to existing residences involving negligible or no expansion of the residential use at these existing residences.

Additionally, none of the exceptions to this exemption as set forth in CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2 apply and the project does not present an “unusual Circumstance.” SECTION 3. Subsection (c) of Section 8-5.6104 of the Yuba City Municipal Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
(c) One- and two-family residential standards.

(1) Parking in yards. The parking of any vehicles is prohibited in any portion of a required front or street side yard, except on a driveway leading to required parking or to an improved parking space (see Section 8-5.6104(7)). Any driveway leading to a garage, carport or required parking space shall not be less than 20 ft. in length measured from the back of an existing or planned sidewalk.
(2) Boat, utility trailer and recreational vehicle parking. A boat, utility trailer and recreational vehicle may only be parked on the portions of a lot behind the front wall of the residence facing each street or right-of-way. The recreational vehicle shall be screened to a height of 6 ft. from view from any public right-of-way. A recreational vehicle used as daily transportation may be parked overnight on recognized parking areas.
(3) Alternative standards. As an alternative to the requirement of Section 8-

5.6104(c)(2), a single trailered boat, utility trailer or recreational vehicle may be parked in the front yard of the residence only when in conformance with all of the following standards:
(i) The parking area shall be developed to a similar standard as the existing established driveway (i.e. concrete, asphalt concrete, pavers, or gravel). Strip driveways utilizing concrete, asphalt or pavers may be installed under each wheel from the edge of right-of-way to a designated parking area.
(ii) The parking area shall connect with the public right-of-way consistent with City standards under approval of an encroachment permit, if applicable.
(iii) New parking areas shall not result in stormwater runoff onto neighboring properties.
(iv) Parking areas shall not be located in front of an existing residence’s living area and shall occur in front of an existing garage or front side yard area. The parking area shall be approximately perpendicular to the existing street and shall not be angled.
(v) A parked recreational vehicle, utility trailer or boat shall be setback a minimum of twelve (12) inches from the back of side walk or edge of the public right-of-way and shall not be artificially raised or angled in order to meet this requirement.
(vi) A parked recreational vehicle, utility trailer or boat shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height.
(vii) A recreational vehicle, utility trailer or boat exceeding 8 feet in height shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from an adjoining side yard property line.

(viii) Utility connections (electricity, water, wastewater) shall be temporary for servicing only (up to 7-days).
(iv) Covers shall be fitted and in good order and untorn; tarps are prohibited.
(x) Parking areas shall be kept free of accumulation of leaves, cobwebs, weeds, or miscellaneous debris.
(xi) Parking areas shall not create a site distance hazard to neighboring property owners or users of streets or sidewalks.
(xii) Parking areas shall be maintained so as not to create a public nuisance as defined by this Code.
(xiii) On lots greater than 0.3 of an acre, alternative parking locations and surfacing may be approved by the Planning Director. (xiv) On lots greater than 0.5 of an acre, a second recreational vehicle, utility trailer or boat may be stored within a front yard area and alternative parking locations and surfacing may be approved by the Planning Director.
(xv) A front fence screening a side or rear yard shall not be removed in order to accommodate a larger boat, utility trailer or recreational vehicle.

SECTION 4. Section 8-5.8046.5 of Article 80 of Chapter 5 of Title 8 of the Yuba City Municipal Code is added to read in its entirety as follows:

Sec. 8-5.8046.5. Recreational Vehicle (RV).

A motor home, converted bus, travel trailer, truck camper or camping trailer, designed for temporary human habitation for recreation or emergency occupancy, which, when transported upon a public roadway, measures 8 feet or less in width and 40 feet or less in length and which is either self-propelled, truck-mounted or permanently towable on the highway without a permit. A recreational vehicle does not include utility trailers.

SECTION 5. Section 8-5.8063.5 of Article 80 of Chapter 5 of Title 8 of the Yuba City Municipal Code is added to read in its entirety as follows:

Sec. 8-5.8063.5. Trailer, Utility. A trailer used for the transportation of the user’s personal property, commerce, or designed to be used for transportation of livestock, and does not exceed a gross weight of 10,000 pounds or a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision(s) of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any other provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. The City Council

hereby declares that they would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, parts or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after its adoption.

This Ordinance was introduced on May 7, 2024, and duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at its duly noticed regular meeting _____________, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Member(s):

NOES: Council Member(s):

ABSENT: Council Member(s):
______________________________
Shon Harris, Mayor
City of Yuba City
Attest:
___________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk
City of Yuba City

APPROVED AS TO FORM

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

ATTACHMENT 2

Agenda Item 24

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 7, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works
Presentation By: Joshua Wolffe, Associate Engineer
Summary
Subject: City-County Cooperative Agreement - FY 2023-24 Sutter County Road Overlay Project
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the execution of a Cooperative Agreement with the County of Sutter for the roadway and roadway component improvements associated with the FY 2023-24 Sutter County Road Overlay Project Fiscal Impact: $460,052.12 – CIP Account No. 1051 (Road Rehabilitation) $400,045.32 – Construction Amount
$ 60,006.80 – Contingency and Construction Management (15%) Purpose:

To construct roadway improvements in areas that cross both City and County jurisdictions.

Council Strategic Goal:

This project addresses the Council Strategic Goals, of “Infrastructure.” This project will construct improvements on various roadways which have shared boundaries between the City and County.

Background:

In 2023, staff from Sutter County's Engineering Department approached the City regarding a County paving project which would install overlays on roadways that share jurisdictional boundaries with the City. The County desired to coordinate with the City's Engineering staff to construct a project that would benefit both the City and the County. Since the initial discussions, City and County staff have met multiple times to discuss roadway segments, pavement rehabilitation methods, and design standards.

Through this process, City staff recommend entering into a Cooperative Agreement with Sutter County, which will allow the County to manage the construction of the projects in cooperation with the City, and facilitate reimbursement for the City's share of the work.

Analysis:

The attached agreement with Sutter County (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) ensures that the City will reimburse the County for all construction items to be installed in City right-of-way by the County’s contractor(s). The costs to be reimbursed will be based on the line-item prices given by the lowest responsible bidder and actual materials installed within City right-of-way for the project. Sutter County is