Yuba City City Council
December 17, 2024

45 are not limited to, loss in snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.

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

The redevelopment of the property that could result from this action will create GHG emissions due to the use of motorized construction equipment. Once completed, vehicle traffic generated will contribute GHG gases. Due to the small size of the Project (less than an acre), it is not expected to create significant greenhouse gas emissions. However, on a cumulative scale, possible reasonable reductions could be applied to the project in order to further minimize those impacts. Specifically addressing this proposal, the City’s Resource Efficiency Plan addresses greenhouse gas concerns and provides a description of greenhouse gas reduction measures. A mitigation measure is included that requires any development or redevelopment resulting from this GPA/RZ to incorporate the relevant greenhouse gas reduction measures. With this mitigation the impacts from greenhouse gases will be less than significant.

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

46 3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Table 3.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

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

X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

48 3.9.2 State Regulatory Setting
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA): The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991 by Governor’s Executive Order. The six boards, departments, and office were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of State resources. The mission of CalEPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50 use. Assuming proper and legal disposal of those wastes there would not be a significant impact from use or storage of hazardous materials.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There is not a school within one-quarter mile of the proposed GPA/RZ site. Therefore, there is not a potential for any significant impacts on a school from hazardous materials. (A nearby private school is over one-quarter mile away.)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The property is not on any listings of sites that are contaminated by hazardous waste. Therefore, the potential for impacts from a known hazardous materials site is less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The Project site is not located within the Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, nor is it within two miles of a public use airport.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Yuba City Fire Department and Police Department serve this area. Since no actual development is proposed, there will be no impact on emergency response plans. When a development project is proposed that may result from this action, it will be evaluated based on its own merits for conformance with City adopted development and design standards.
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The Project site is located within the Yuba City urban area, and the Yuba City urban area is surrounded by irrigated agricultural lands. There are no wildlands on the site or in the immediate vicinity. There is natural vegetation along the Feather River floodplain, which is not far away, but separated by 20-foothigh levee that is devoid of vegetation. Accordingly, the impacts from potential wildland fires will be less than significant.

51 3.10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 3.10: Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater generated by development that could result from this GPA/RZ will flow into the City wastewater treatment facility which is in compliance with all state water discharge standards.

Wastewater generated by any commercial use that could result from this GPA/RZ is not expected to

54 generate any unique type of waste that would cause the system to become out of compliance with state standards.

All storm water runoff will drain into the Gilsizer drainage system and ultimately into the Feather River.

The water quality of the stormwater runoff is addressed through General Plan Implementing Policies 8.5- I-1 through 8.5-I-10 which require a wide range of developer and City actions involving coordination with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, protecting waterways, and following Yuba City’s adopted Best Management Practices for new construction.

With the level of oversight on the City’s water supply and wastewater treatment systems, and enforcement of Best Management Practices for stormwater management at construction sites, there will not be significant impacts on the City’s water and waste-water systems or storm water drainage system from development that would result from this GPA/RZ.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin? As the site is already connected to the City’s water system, new development that could result from this GPA/RZ will remain connected to the City’s water system. While consumption of City water may increase with the Project, very little, if any, groundwater will be utilized as the City primarily utilizes surface water supplies in its system.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? As the property is mostly covered by impermeable surfaces (paved parking and a building), it is unlikely that a future project will add to the amount of impermeable surface area. If the impermeable area is increased, that development will be required to improve the local stormwater collection facilities accordingly and pay the appropriate fees to the Gilsizer County Drainage District for its fair share of improvements and expansion to the existing drainage system that will be connected too. Also, as noted above, all new construction must involve use of Best Management Practices. Assuming all required standards are met there is not expected to be any significant impacts from additional storm water drainage from the site.
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency this portion of the City is outside of the 100- year flood plain. This is due to the existing levee system that contains seasonally high-water flows from the nearby Feather River from flooding areas outside of the levee system. Additional construction within the City that is outside of the levee system does not impact the levee system and therefore does not increase, impede, or otherwise have any effect on the highwater flows within the levee system.

Therefore, there is no significant impact on the high-water flows within the Feather River levee system.

55 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, this portion of the City is outside of the 100- year flood plain. The City is not close to the ocean or any large lakes so a seiche is unlikely to happen in or near the City. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean, so people or structures in the City would not be exposed to inundation by tsunami. Mudflows and landslides are unlikely to happen due to the relatively flat topography within the Project area. Thus, it is unlikely that the Project site would be subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, mudflow or landslide. Therefore, there is not a potential for significant impacts from any of these types of events.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Regarding impacts on a groundwater management plan, the City primarily utilizes surface water, so any impact on groundwater from a development that could result from this action would be less than significant. Regarding water quality, as noted in Part a) above, all new construction is required to utilize Best Management Practices. Assuming all required standards are met, quality of runoff water from any development that may result from this proposal will not create any significant impacts.

3.11. Land Use and Planning
Table 3:11: Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

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

3.11.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The 0.43-acre property is flat and fully developed with a building and a parking lot.

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

3.11.3 Local Regulatory Setting
Yuba City General Plan, Land Use Element: The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes guidance for the ultimate pattern of growth in the City’s Sphere of Influence. It provides direction regarding how

56 lands are to be used, where growth will occur, the density/intensity and physical form of that growth, and key design considerations.

3.11.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Redevelopment of this property that could result from this Project will not physically divide an established community as the previously developed site is in a light industrial area, outside of a residential neighborhood. Therefore, the impact on an existing community from redevelopment of this property that could occur would be less than significant.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? This GPA/RZ is consistent with other general plan policies and programs. Any new construction that could result from this GPA/RZ must meet all City design and development standards. As such, a new development’s impacts on plans, policies and programs designed to avoid or mitigate environmental effects will be less than significant.

3.12. Mineral Resources
Table 3-12: Mineral Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
X

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

3.12.2 State Regulatory Setting
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975: Enacted by the State Legislature in 1975, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq., insures a continuing supply of mineral resources for the State. The act also creates surface mining and reclamation policy to assure that:
 Production and conservation of minerals is encouraged;

57  Environmental effects are prevented or minimized;
 Consideration is given to recreational activities, watersheds, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment;
 Mined lands are reclaimed to a useable condition once mining is completed; and  Hazards to public safety both now and in the future are eliminated.

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

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

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

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

58 3.13. Noise
Table 3.13: Noise
Would the project result in:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guiding Policies
 9.1-G-1 Strive to achieve an acceptable noise environment for the present and future residences of Yuba City.
 9.1-G-2 Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses.  Implementing Policies
 9.1-I-1 Require a noise study and mitigation for all projects that have noise exposure greater than “normally acceptable” levels. Noise mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
 Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment,
 Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings,  Retain fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers,  Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows, and  Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.  9.1-I-3 In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consider an increase of four or more dBA to be "significant" if the resulting noise level would exceed that described as normally acceptable for the affected land use in Figure 5.  9.1-I-4 Protect especially sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise, by enforcing “normally acceptable” noise level standards for these uses.  9.1-I-5 Discourage the use of sound walls. As a last resort, construct sound walls along highways and arterials when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility.
 9.1-I-6 Require new noise sources to use best available control technology (BACT) to minimize noise from all sources.
 9.1-I-7 Minimize vehicular and stationary noise sources and noise emanating from temporary activities, such as construction.
1 City of Yuba, 2004. City of Yuba General Plan. April 8, 2004.

61 Figure 1: Noise Exposure

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.13.6 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
As there is no new development proposed, there will be no direct noise impacts. Redevelopment of the site that could occur because of this GPA/RZ would involve temporary construction noise. The noise sources would include typical grading and paving equipment and miscellaneous equipment. During construction, which would occur during daylight hours, Monday through Saturday, noise from construction activities would contribute to the noise environment in the immediate Project vicinity. As there are no nearby residences or other noise sensitive uses, and due to the limited duration of the construction activities, the effects from any potential construction activity would be less than significant.

If redevelopment of the site does occur, that would be evaluated for its operational impacts based on its own merits at that time.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? For the same reasons provided in a) above, there will be no direct impacts from ground borne vibration.

If, as a result of this action, redevelopment of the property does occur the proposal would be evaluated on its own merits at that time.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Project is not within an airport land use plan nor are there any public or private airports or airfields located in this vicinity. This impact is not applicable to the Project.

63 3.14. Population and Housing
Table 4-14: Population and Housing
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

3.14.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
The proposed non-residential Project is located in an urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by nonresidential uses.

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

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

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

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

In the greater Sacramento region, which includes the City of Yuba City, SACOG has the responsibility of developing and approving an RHNA and a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) every eight years (Government Code, Section 65580 et seq.). This document has a central role of distributing the allocation

64 of housing for every county and city in the SACOG region. Housing needs are assessed for very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate households.2 As described above, SACOG is the association of local governments that includes Yuba City, along with other jurisdictions comprising the six counties in the greater Sacramento region. In addition to preparing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the region, SACOG approves the distribution of affordable housing in the region through its RHNP. SACOG also assists in planning for transit, bicycle networks, clean air and serves as the Airport Land Use Commission for the region.

3.14.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed GPA/RZ does not involve any residential development, so no new housing will result from this action. As thisis an amendment to the General Plan, it is by definition planned growth. As such, there will be no impacts from unplanned growth.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Since no residences will be removed as part of this GPA/RZ, there will be no impacts.

65 3.15. Public Services
Table 3.15: Public Services
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X

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

3.15.2 Federal Regulatory Setting
National Fire Protection Association: The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international nonprofit organization that provides consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education on fire prevention and public safety. The NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 such codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks. The NFPA publishes the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, which provides requirements to establish a reasonable level of fire safety and property protection in new and existing buildings

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

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

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

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

Fire Protection: Since no actual development is proposed, there will be no impacts on fire protection services. If and when a development project is proposed it will be evaluated based on its own merits for conformance with City adopted standards.

Police Protection: Since no actual development is proposed, there will be no impacts on police services.

If and when a development project is proposed it will be evaluated, it will be evaluated based on its own merits for conformance with City adopted standards.

Schools: There is no residential growth that will occur as a result of this action. Therefore, there will be no impact on schools.

Parks: There is no residential growth that will occur as a result of this action. Therefore, there will be no impact on schools.

Other Public Facilities: The site is connected to the City’s water and wastewater systems. As such, there will be no impact on the City’s water and wastewater disposal systems. The City also collects development impact fees for County services that are provided to the new development, such as the library system and justice system, so growth that may occur as a result of this action will be less than significant for public facilities.

67 3.16. Recreation
Table 3-16: Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X

3.16.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Yuba City has 23 City-owned parks and recreational areas, managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. This consists of five community parks, 15 neighborhood parks, and three passive or mini parks.

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

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

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

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

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

68 3.16.5 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Since there is no residential development that could occur as a result of this proposal, there will be no impacts on City parks.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? A redevelopment of the site that could result from this action will not likely result in any new recreational facilities. There will be no impacts.

3.17. Transportation/Traffic
Table 4-17: Transportation Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

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

Several federal regulations govern transportation issues. They include:
 Title 49, CFR, Sections 171-177 (49 CFR 171-177), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles.

69  Title 49 CFR 350-399, and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways.

3.17.2. State Regulatory Setting
The measurement of the impacts of a project’s traffic is set by the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15064.3 of the Guidelines states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. VMT is a metric which refers to the amount of distance of automobile traffic that is generated by a project. Per the Guidelines “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” “Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant environmental impact.” The CEQA Guidelines also states that the lead agency (Yuba City) may “choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled …”. As this is a new form of calculating significant traffic events, the City has not yet determined its own methodology to calculate levels of significance for VMT. Until that methodology is determined, for purposes of this initial study the information provided by the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) and the CA Office of Planning and Research is utilized. A review of these studies indicates several factors that may be utilized for determining levels of significance. One is that if the project will generate less than 110 vehicle trips per day, it is assumed that with the small size of the project, the impact is less than significant. A second criteria is that for a project, on a per capita or per employee basis, the VMT will be at least 15 percent below that of existing development is a reasonable threshold for determining significance.

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

3.17.3. Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
As there is no proposed development, there will be no direct impacts on all modes of transportation. For a commercial proposal that could result from this GPA/RZ, the Public Works Department stated that they do not have traffic concerns. Due to the small size of the property, redevelopment of the site which could result from this Project will not likely be a large traffic generator. The Public Works Department has also stated that local street improvements would be addressed if a development is proposed. As such, the potential impacts on nearby streets due to this Project will be less than significant. c) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? This CEQA section describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). But as no new development is proposed there would be no changes to traffic levels as a result of this GPA/RZ.

As redevelopment of the property may result from changing uses from light industrial to commercial, an increase in levels of traffic would be expected, but cannot be known. If and when a redevelopment project is proposed those impacts will be evaluated at that time. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

70 Public Works Department review of the Project did not indicate that there are any street design issues on nearby streets. Therefore, any increase in street hazards generated by development that would result from this Project are less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the Project proposal and have not expressed concerns about emergency access to the property. As such there will not be a potential for any significant impacts on emergency access to this area.

3.18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Table 3-18: Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project cause of substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X

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

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

71 authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also

72 require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nisenan settlement locations depended primarily on elevation, exposure, and proximity to water and other resources. Permanent villages were usually located on low rises along major watercourses. Village

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

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

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

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

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

In assessing substantial adverse change, the City must determine whether or not the project will adversely affect the qualities of the resource that convey its significance. The qualities are expressed through

74 integrity. Integrity of a resource is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association [CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)]. Impacts are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired [CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)]. Accordingly, impacts to a TCR would likely be significant if the project negatively affects the qualities of integrity that made it significant in the first place. In making this determination, the City need only address the aspects of integrity that are important to the TCR’s significance.

3.18.7 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).

There is no proposal to modify or remove the existing building on the property. Therefore, there is no potential significant impacts on any historical resources. While the building does not appear to have historic value, if a proposal to remove or modify the building results from this action, it will be evaluated on its own merits at that time.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The City solicited consultation with culturally affiliated California Native American tribes (regarding the proposed project in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52. No tribe responded to the request. Even though the potential for a TCR to underly the property appears unlikely, it is possible. As such, the Unanticipated Discoveries mitigation is applied to this Project. With this mitigation measure, the impact on cultural resources will be less than significant.

3.18.8 Tribal Cultural Mitigation Measures
Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation 1: Unanticipated Discoveries: If any suspected TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find, or an agreed upon distance based on the project area and nature of the find. A Tribal Representative from a California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area shall be immediately notified and shall determine if the find is a TCR (PRC 21074). The Tribal Representative will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary.

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

The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by the CEQA lead agency to be necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize impacts to the resource, including but limited to,

75 facilitating the appropriate tribal treatment of the find, as necessary. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a Tribal Cultural Resource may include Tribal monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil.

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

3.19. Utilities and Service Systems
Table 3-19: Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water or wastewater
treatment or storm drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projected demand in addition to the existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

3.19.1 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment
Wastewater:

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

76 Water:

The City’s primary watersource is surface water from the Feather River, with use of a backup groundwater well. The City of Yuba City is a public water agency with over 18,000 connections. City policy only allows areas within the City limits to be served by the surface water system.

Reuse and Recycling:

Solid waste generated in Yuba City is collected by Recology Yuba-Sutter. Recology offers residential, commercial, industrial, electronic, and hazardous waste collection, processing, recycling, and disposal, as well as construction and demolition waste processing, diversion, and transfer to a disposal facility. The City’s municipal solid waste is delivered to the Ostrom Road Landfill; a State-permitted solid waste facility that provides a full range of transfer and diversion services. As of June 2021, the Recology Ostrom Road Landfill Remaining Site Net Airspace is 33,764,000 cy; and has a remaining capacity of 21,297,000 tons; and remaining landfill service life is 53 years.

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

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

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

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

This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of

77 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.

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

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into water of the United States. In California, it is the responsibility of Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve and enhance the quality of the state’s waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge requirements (WDRs). WDRs for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits.

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

3.19.4 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The site is already connected to the City water and wastewater disposal systems, as well as stormwater drainage and all other services. As a result, the impacts on the City’s systems from any redevelopment of the site that may result from this action will be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? See a) above.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the existing commitments? See a) above.
d). Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

See e) below.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

78 Recology Yuba-Sutter provides solid waste disposal for the area as well as for all of Sutter and Yuba Counties. There is adequate collection and landfill capacity to accommodate the proposed development that could result from this GPA/RZ.

3.20. Wildfire
Table 3-20: Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

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

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

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

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

79 3.20.2 Impact Assessment/ Environmental Consequences a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As discussed in Section 3.17 of this Initial Study, redevelopment of this site that could result from this GPA/RZ is not expected to substantially obstruct emergency vehicles or any evacuations that may occur in the area. Therefore, the impacts of the Project related to emergency response or evacuations is less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The Project site is in a level urban area with no native vegetation remaining, and the urban area is surrounded by irrigated farmland. This type of environment is generally not subject to wildfires. In light of this, the exposure of a redeveloped property that could result from this GPA/RZ to wildfire is less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
As discussed above, the site is not near any wildland areas and the Project itself does not propose any development. As such the Project will not be constructing or maintaining wildfire related infrastructure such as fire breaks, emergency water sources, etc. Thus, the Project will not generate any impacts from attempts to reduce local wildfire potential for this property. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The Project site is in a topographically flat area. There are no streams or other channels that cross the site. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides.

Impacts of redevelopment of the site that may result from this action related to these issues would be less than significant.

80 3.21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Table 3.21: Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the Project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number, or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important example of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
X
c) Have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X

3.21.1 Impact Assessment/Environmental Consequences:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The Project site was stripped many years ago of native vegetation, likely for agricultural uses and then fully improved for urban use. There are no on-site or nearby waterways or wetland areas. Therefore any redevelopment that could occur as a result of this Project will not significantly degrade the quality of the natural environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the proposed Project, with its mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the local environment.

81 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)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

This amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan was compared to policies in other elements of the General Plan. As such the potential traffic generated by development that may result from this GPA/RZ is within what was anticipated in the General Plan which considered anticipated future growth of the area. The site is already served by City Water and wastewater system and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity. The potential redevelopment of the site will continue utilizing those services.

Stormwater drainage will also meet all City standards. There will be no loss of agricultural land. The Yuba City Unified School District is not adversely impacted as no residential development is proposed. As there is no new development proposed and the site is very small if the site is redeveloped, the Project is unlikely to create any significant cumulative impacts on air quality. Therefore, there are no impacts that will be individually limited but that will create significant cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The development that may result from this proposed Project in and of itself would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction-related impacts from air quality, noise, and hazardous materials would occur for a very short period and only be a minor impact during that time period. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have any direct or indirect significant adverse impacts on humans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sutter County General Plan.

Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) Indirect Source Review Guidelines, June 2010.

Yuba Sutter Transit Route Map.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Yuba City Wastewater Master Plan.

Sutter County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, April 1994.

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

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

1 City of Yuba City

MITIGATION MEASURE AND MONITORING PLAN
Gary Smith GPA/RZ: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EA 24-09 For General Plan Amendment 24-02 and Rezoning 24-04
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Monitoring
Party Timing

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

Mitigation shall be conducted as follows:

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

2. Assess effects on identified sites;

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

4. Obtain comments from the researchers;

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

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

Developer Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services Dept.

During
grading
phase

2 3.8. Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gas Mitigation 1: The site grading and construction for future projects on this site shall comply with the GHG Reduction Measures provided in the adopted Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan.

Developer Development
Services Dept.

Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.

3.18. Tribal Cultural
Resources
TCR 1 For a future project, if potential tribal cultural resources (TCRs) are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find (or an appropriate distance based on the apparent distribution of the TCR).

A qualified cultural resources specialist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, as well as Native American Representatives from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that have engaged in consultation for the project will be invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary. Culturally appropriate treatment may include, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, or returning objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. The United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria (Tribe) does not consider curation of TCR’s to be appropriate or respectful and request that materials not be permanently curated, unless requested by the Tribe.

The types of treatment preferred by UAIC that protects, preserves, or restores the integrity of a TCR may include Tribal Monitoring, or recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil that is done in a culturally appropriate manner.

Recommendations of the treatment of a TCR will be documented in the project record. For any recommendations made by traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that are not implemented, a justification for why the recommendation was not followed will be provided in the project record.

If articulated or disarticulated human remains are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities or ground disturbing Developer Developer,
Public Works
Dept.,
Development
Services Dept.

During
construction
phase

3 activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find, and the provisions provided in the Health and Safety Code Section 7054 shall apply. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be human and that of a Native American, then Public Resources Code 5097.98, 5097.99. 5097.991, and compliance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) and (2) shall be
implemented.

ATTACHMENT 2

1 ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY TO ADOPT REZONE 24-04 FOR THE GARY SMITH PROJECT LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 0.43 ACRES AT 2192 LIVE OAK BLVD. (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 51-490-028).

WHEREAS, the City received an application for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Manufacturing, Processing, and Warehousing, (O) land use designation to a Community Commercial designation, and a Rezone for this same property, revising the zoning from a M-1 Zone District to an C-2 Zone District; and WHEREAS, this property is within Yuba City’s city limits and the property owner wished to develop their property to urban levels; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed Project and has prepared an Initial Study proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 24-09) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2024, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applications, as well as Environmental Assessment, at which time it received input from City Staff, the applicant; public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed all associated documents prepared for the Project, including that related to the applications, and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopt a resolution approving EA 24-09 and GPA 24-02, and adopt an ordinance approving RZ 24-04; WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider the GPA 24-02, RZ 24-04, and EA 24-09, and received both oral testimony and written information presented at the hearing regarding the same; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Yuba City considered said recommendations of the Planning Commission on the matter and after review and consideration of the Environmental Assessment, the City Council now desires to approve the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve RZ 24-04;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Yuba City does ordain as follows:

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

2. CEQA Findings: The City Council of the City of Yuba City has concurrently approved EA 24- 09 by adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation

2 Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment. No further CEQA is required, as CEQA has been completed for this project.

3. Rezone Findings. The City Council finds that Rezone 24-04 is consistent with the General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment 24-02. The City Council finds that Rezone 24-04 i) is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as amended and as further described in the City Council’s Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 24-02; ii) is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance to promote and protect the public’s health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare; iii) the project would provide open space, light, air, privacy, convenience, access, aesthetic values, protection of environmental values, and protection of public and private improvements; and iv) the project will allow for the creation of quality economic growth and development for the City.

4. Approval of RZ 24-04. Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City adopts an Ordinance approving RZ 24-04 and reclassify the zone districts for those districts as depicted in Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference.

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

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

7. Effective Date of Resolution. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption and the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopts a final resolution authorizing amendment of the General Plan and identifying General Plan Amendment 24-02 as a component of the same.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced by the City Council after waiving reading, except by Title, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of December 2024, and adopted the Ordinance after the second reading at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of January 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recused:

CITY OF YUBA CITY

3 _____________________________
Dave Shaw, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
_________________________________
Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit A: Rezone Map, RZ 24-04
I, ______________________________, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Yuba City, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Ordinance passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City on the date and by the vote indicated herein.

EXHIBIT B

C-2
M-1
A-H
R-1
R-1
R-3
C-2
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-1
LIVE
OAK
BLVD

CASSIDY AVE

NORTHGATE DR

EXISTING PROPOSED
City of Yuba City
Parcels
Zoning
Project Site ±
REZONE 24-04
M-1
M-1
A-H
R-1
R-1
R-3
C-2
R-2
R-1
R-2
R-1
LIVE
OAK
BLVD

CASSIDY AVE

NORTHGATE DR

PROJECT

LOCATION PROJECT

LOCATION

SMITH REZONE, ZONING MAP

Agenda Item 27

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 17, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Jaspreet Kaur, Assistant Planner
Summary
Subject: General Plan Amendment 24-03, Tentative Subdivision Map 24-04 and Planned Development 19: Brownstone Estates, located on the north side of North Colusa Frontage Road between Hooper Road and El Margarita Road Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing; then
B. Adopt a Resolution approving Environmental Assessment (EA) 24-10, by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, and approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) 24-03, and Tentative Subdivision Map 24-04, Brownstone Estates, for 54-single family residential lots
C. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Planned Development 19, on 7.84 acres located on the north side of North Colusa Frontage Road between Hooper Road and El Margarita Road (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 62-082-019, -020, -021) and waive the first reading Fiscal Impact: The cost for processing land use entitlements is partially funded by the project applicant through the payment of application fees.

Purpose:

Consideration of Environmental Assessment 24-10, GPA 24-03, TPM 24-04 and PD 19, for the Brownstone Estates project.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

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

Background:

The applicant, YC Hooper Adventure, filed applications for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) 24-03, Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) 24-04 and Planned Development (PD) 19, Brownstone Estates.

On November 13, 2024, the Yuba City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and unanimously adopted a resolution recommending approval to City Council the following entitlements:

GPA 24-03: redesignate 7.84 acres from an Office/Office Park (O) land use designation to a low density residential (LDR) designation. The LDR land use designation provides for single-family residential development at a density range of 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre, and related uses.

TSM 24-04: subdivide the subject parcels into 54 new single-family residential lots, resulting in 6.89 DU/AC, which is consistent with the proposed general plan designation.

PD 19 identifies the development standards that will apply to this subdivision. The applicant proposes to amend certain development standards from what is found in the Yuba City Municipal Code.

Analysis
The 7.84-acre property is level. The site is zoned for single-family residential homes, however, the General Plan designation is Office and Office Park. The General Plan Amendment will align the zoning and general plan to coincide. Additionally, there is residential development to the north of the property that was approved by Planning Commission on November 10, 2021, Henson Ranch (TSM 21-01).

General Plan Consistency
An analysis of this project’s consistency with the General Plan by various portions of the Environmental Assessment prepared for this project concludes that the project is consistent with the General Plan. This is reflected in the Resolution prepared for the project.

Compatibility with neighboring uses:

TABLE 1: BORDERING LAND USES
North: Previously approved Tentative Subdivision Map 21-01, Henson Ranch, are 96 single-family residences currently under construction by the same owner (originally the same property).

South: North Colusa Frontage Road and State Route 20, a four-lane highway.

East: Across El Margarita Road there is a single-story apartment complex and two single-family residences (one of them faces the project site).

West: Hooper Road with two single-family residences, with one facing the project site.

The project is within a residential area that includes new homes being developed and the density is consistent with the City’s 2004 General Plan (2-8 dwelling units/acre). Accordingly, this project is compatible and consistent with existing and future planned uses in this area.

Traffic
The homes will primarily access Hooper Road and El Margarita Road. The development will improve adjacent street sections to City standards for the length of the property, consistent with Yuba City roadway design standards.

Flecker Associates completed a trip generation comparative analysis and concluded that the proposed project will generate fewer trips than the original project, Henson Farms Apartments (138-unit apartment complex). The proposed single family residential project is expected to generate 509 daily trips, with 38 trips in the a.m. peak hour, and 51 trips in the evening p.m. peak hour. The previous project estimated about 930 daily trips, 55 a.m. peak hour trips and about 70 p.m. peak hour trips. Previous mitigation

measures for the Henson Farms Apartment project are proposed to be carried forward with the current proposed applicant (flashing beacon light).

Planned Development 19
All development standards in the R-1 Zone District apply to these properties, except as amended below:

PD 19 Development & Design Standards
Category For Lots Less Than 5,500
sq. ft.

For Lots 5,500 sq. ft. or
Greater
Minimum Lot Size 4,400 sq. ft. (corner) /
3,400 sq. ft. (interior, culde-sac, knuckle)
5,500 sq. ft. (corner) / 5,000 sq.
ft. (interior, cul-de-sac, knuckle)
Minimum Lot Width 40 ft. (interior) / 44 ft.
(corner)
50 ft. (interior) / 55 ft. (corner)
Minimum Lot Depth 75 ft. 85 ft.

Maximum Percentage of Lot
Coverage
50% (2-story) / 60% (1-
story)
45% (2-story) / 55% (1-story)
Minimum Front Yard Setback 12 ft. to back of sidewalk 15 ft. to back of sidewalk Minimum Garage Yard Setback 18 ft. (or 10 ft. for side
loading with 18 ft.
driveway)
20 ft. (or 10 ft. for side loading
with 20 ft. driveway)
Minimum Porch/Courtyard
Setback
10 ft. 12 ft.

Minimum Street Side Yard
Setback
10 ft. to back of sidewalk 10 ft. to back of sidewalk
Minimum Interior Side Yard
Setback
5 ft. (3 ft. for
fireplace/media
protrusions)
5 ft. (3 ft. for fireplace/media
protrusions)
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 ft. 15 ft.

Distance Between Buildings on
Same Lot

3.5 ft. (single-story) / 5.0 ft.
(two-story)

5.0 ft. (single-story) / 10.0 ft.
(two-story)
Maximum Building Height 2 stories, not to exceed 38
ft.
2 stories, not to exceed 38 ft.

Noise
To address the potential noise impacts of the development an Environmental Noise Assessment was prepared by Saxelby Acoustics (attached to the Environmental Assessment as Appendix C). The study addressed both the impacts the project would have on existing neighboring residences and the impacts the noise from State Route 20 would have on the new residences, with a six-foot masonry wall adjacent to North Colusa Frontage Road.

Exterior Noise: Per the noise study that was completed, the proposed outdoor activity areas are predicted to be exposed to noise levels up to approximately 67 dBA Ldn. This would be considered “Conditionally Acceptable” (60 dBA Ldn to 70 dBA Ldn) under the Yuba City General Plan Land Use Compatibility Table.

Therefore, no additional exterior noise control measures would be required.

Interior Noise: The exterior noise levels are predicted to be 70 dBA Ldn, or less, no additional interior noise control measures are typically required at the second floor of the buildings closest to SR-20. This

would result in interior noise levels of up to 45 dBA Ldn at the second story receivers based on typical building construction. Per the General Plan, this is considered “Conditionally Acceptable” and no additional noise control measures are required to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels.

Additionally, Condition of Approval #6 has been applied to this project stating:

To comply with General Plan Noise Element, lots 28-54 in the subdivision shall be: constructed with improvements over standard Constructed with improvements over standard construction to ensure compliance with the 45 dB Ldn interior noise level criterion. Specifically, second floor facades should be constructed of stucco (or wood siding with an under-layer of ¾ inch wood sheathing), and all second-floor bedroom windows adjacent to Colusa Frontage/State Route 20 should have a minimum STC rating of 30, or as otherwise approved by the Development Services Director.

Availability of City services:

City water and wastewater collection are available to the property. A stormwater drainage system is nearby that will be operated and maintained by the City and which connects with the greater system that is operated by the Sutter County Water Agency that drains into the Live Oak Canal.

Environmental Determination:

An environmental assessment was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This process included the distribution of requests for comment from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations.

Based upon the attached environmental assessment and the list of identified mitigation measures, staff has determined that with the recommended mitigation measures, there is no evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for this project. The findings of the mitigated negative declaration are that, with the proposed mitigations for Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed 54-single family residential lots will not create any significant impacts to the neighborhood or vicinity. As a result, the filing of a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of CEQA.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Alternatives:

1. Deny the entitlement application(s).

2. Provide staff with alternate directions.

Recommendation:

A. Conduct a Public Hearing; then
B. Adopt a Resolution approving Environmental Assessment (EA) 24-10, by adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, and approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) 24-03, and Tentative Subdivision Map 24-04, Brownstone Estates, for 54-single family residential lots;

C. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Planned Development 19, on 7.84 acres located on the north side of North Colusa Frontage Road between Hooper Road and El Margarita Road (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 62-082-019, -020, -021) and waive the first reading.

Attachments:

1. Resolution GPA 24-03

2. Exhibit A -GP 24-03 Land-Use Map

3. Exhibit B - TSM 24-04 Brownstone Estates

4. Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures

5. Exhibit D - Environmental Assessment 24-10

6. Ordinance - GPA 24-03

7. Exhibit A - PD Criteria of Development

8. Exhibit B -GP 24-03 Land-Use Map
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Jaspreet Kaur
Associate Planner
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) 24-10, BY ADOPTING A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES, AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 24-03, AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 24-04, BROWNSTONE ESTATES, FOR 54 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS,

LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTH COLUSA FRONTAGE ROAD BETWEEN HOOPER ROAD AND EL MARGARITA ROAD (ASSESSOR’S
PARCEL NUMBERS 62-082-019, -020, -021).

WHEREAS, the City received an application in June 2024 for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 24-03, Planned Development (PD) 19, Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) 24-04, to subdivide 7.84 acres into 54 single-family residential lots, located on the north side of Colusa Frontage Road between Hooper Road and El Margarita Road; and WHEREAS, this property is within Yuba City’s city limits and the property owner wished to develop their property to urban levels; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed project and has prepared an Initial Study proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 24-10) for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed related Environmental Assessment 24- 10 considering a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project, which provided mitigations that reduce significant impacts to less than significant; and WHEREAS, a review of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations determined that the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations with the approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2024, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Environmental Assessment 24-10, General Plan Amendment 24- 03, Planned Development 19, and Tentative Subdivision Map 24-04, at which time it received input from City Staff, public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all associated documents prepared for the project, including those related to the application and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopt a Resolution approving Environmental Assessment 24-10, General Plan Amendment 24-03, Planned Development 19, and Tentative Subdivision Map 24-04.

WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to consider the GPA 24-03, TSM 24-04, PD 19 and EA 24-10, and received both oral testimony and written information presented at the hearing regarding the same; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said recommendations of the Planning Commission on the matter and after review and consideration of the Environmental Assessment, the City Council now desires to approve the project; and WHEREAS, due to the limitations of State law that limit the number of General Plan amendments that can occur each year, and to comply with this requirement, individual projects proposing amendments to the General Plan may be contingently approved based on a final consolidated approval of all such project by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt EA 24-10 and contigently approve GPA 23-02, with PD 19 to be adopted by separate ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council resolves and orders as follows:

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

2. CEQA Findings: The City Council finds and determines that there is no substantial evidence in the record that General Plan Amendment 24-03 and Tentative Subdivision Map 24-04, may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the MND prepared in Environmental Assessment 24-10. Additionally, the City Council finds and determines as follows:
a. The Environmental Assessment / Initial Study was prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis. The process included the distribution of requests for comments from other responsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. Preparation of Environmental Assessment 24-10 necessitated a thorough review of the proposed project and relevant environmental issues and considered previously prepared environmental and technical studies. While the proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, based on its independent judgement and analysis the City Council find that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been incorporated into the project in order to avoid the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur, and there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are potentially significant or adverse. The proposed project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the “Mandatory Findings of Significance” contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project-specific mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects are set forth in the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment.

As such, the City Council also find and determine that in light of the entire administrative record and the substantial evidence before it, the project has been adequately environmentally assessed as required by CEQA per Environmental Assessment 24-10.

3. Adoption of MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Based on the foregoing, the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 24-10) prepared for the project, including the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, with the proposed mitigations the project will not result in any significant, adverse environmental impacts. The Yuba City Development Services Department is located at 1201 Civic Center Boulevard, Yuba City, CA 95993, and is recommended to be designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decision is based. The City Council authorize the Director, or designee, to execute and file with the Sutter County Clerk, as appropriate, a Notice of Determination for approval of the project that complies with the CEQA Guidelines.

4. General Plan 24-03 Findings: The City Council find that the public necessity, general welfare, good planning practices, public interest, and convenience warrant approval of General Plan Amendment 24-03, including the following:
a. The proposed LDR land use designation, when used in conjunction with the zoning, will limit the residential density to be compatible with existing neighboring density residential uses.
b. The traffic generated by the project will not cause a decrease in levels of service for nearby General Plan streets, and any new residences that result from this Project will pay their fair share of traffic development impact fees, making the project consistent with the Transportation Element.
c. The environmental document prepared for the project (EA 24-10) found that the project will not create significant environmental impacts on water quality, air quality, biological resources, agricultural lands, open space, and archaeological resources, making the Project consistent with the Environmental Conservation Element of the General Plan. d. The project will connect to all City services including water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage, making it consistent with the Public Utilities Element, and the Police and Fire Departments determined that the project will not cause any safety or emergency response issues. As such the project will be consistent with the Safety Element. The Noise Study found that with the proposed mitigation measures, the project will be within the noise standards set by the General Plan Noise Element.
e. Any new residences that will be constructed as a result of this Project will pay all applicable park and school development impact fees, making it consistent with the Parks, Schools, and Community Facilities Element.

5. Approval of General Plan Amendment 24-03: For all of the reasons set forth above and, in the record, the City Council of Yuba City approves General Plan Amendment 24-03, per the attached Exhibit A made a part hereof by this reference, be designated to the General Plan land use designations, as depicted in Exhibit A.

6. Tentative Subdivision Map 24-04 Findings: None of the findings required by Yuba City Municipal Code Section 8-2.609, and the California Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 that require the City to deny approval of a tentative map apply to this Project:

a. The proposed tentative subdivision map is not consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plan:

Evidence. The site is of adequate size to accommodate the project. The proposed residential density of 6.89 residences per acre is well within the LDR permitted density range of 2-8 residences per acre. Adequate public access is provided from public streets with access from El Margarita Road and Hooper Road. All City services are available to the site. b. The design and improvement of the tentative subdivision map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans or adopted City standards:

Evidence. The traffic study prepared for the project and review by the City Public Works Department concluded that North Colusa Frontage Road, Hooper Road, and El Margarita Road have adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic. Combined with the on-site road improvements to North Colusa Frontage Road, Hooper Road and El Margarita Road, and the payment of the development impact fees for roads, the nearby streets will maintain adequate levels of service.
c. That the site is not physically suited for the density of development:

Evidence. This site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development, because conditions of approval will ensure adequate access and drainage on and off the site.

Moreover, compliance with the conditions applied to this division of the property will meet all City standards.
d. That the site is not physically suited for the type of development.

Evidence. The site is physically suited for the type of development proposed because the site is level and will connect with city services and future development must occur consistent with the One-Family Residence District the property is located. e. That the design of the subdivision maps or likely improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat:

Evidence. Based on the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project and the accompanying mitigation measures, the project will not create any significant environmental impacts, including adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. f. That the design of the subdivision maps or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

Evidence. Every new lot will be connected to City water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems, which will avoid public health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision maps or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision:

Evidence. The subdivision will be served by public streets that are dedicated to the City for public use. There is no use of private streets or other types of easements that the project would conflict with. There are no known existing easements that will be adversely affected by this subdivision.

7. Approval of Tentative Subdivision Map 24-04: Based on the information provided above, the City Council of Yuba City adoption of a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 24- 03, and approves Tentative Subdivision Map 24-04, as set forth in Exhibit B, subject to the conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit C.

8. Effective Date of Resolution: 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 17th day of December, 2024.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recused:
_____________________________
Dave Shaw, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

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

Attachments:

Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Land Use Map
Exhibit B: Tentative Subdivision Map
Exhibit C: Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures Exhibit D: Environmental Assessment

EXHIBIT A

PROJECT

LOCATION
HWY 20
HO
OPER
R
D
EL M
A
R
G
A
R
TI A
R
D

COLUSA FRONTAGE RD

SERENA DR
SERENA
C
T
EL M
A
R
G
A
R
TI A
R
D
HWY 20

COLUSA FRONTAGE RD

PROJECT

LOCATION
HWY 20
HO
OPER
R
D
EL M
A
R
G
A
R
TI A
R
D

COLUSA FRONTAGE RD

SERENA DR
SERENA
C
T
EL M
A
R
G
A
R
TI A
R
D
HWY 20

COLUSA FRONTAGE RD

EXISTING PROPOSED
City of Yuba City
General Plan
Low Density Residential
Medium/Low Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
Parks, Recreation & Open Space
Agricultural/Rural
HS-High School; EMS-Elementry/Middle School
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Office & Office Park
Business, Technology & Light Industry
Manufacturing, Processing & Warehousing
Parcels
Project Site
GPA 24-03
±

BROWNSTONE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LAND USE MAP

EXHIBIT B

W W W W W W W W W W W
X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X

X X X X
X X X
X X
X

X X X X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X X X
X X

X X X X X
< SD < SD
< SD < SD
< SD
< SS < SS
< SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS

ESPINOZA
062-061-015

IANNIELLO
062-061-016

IANNIELLO
062-061-017
CARR
062-091-009

HOBBS-KING
062-091-010

BAGRHIAY
062-081-008
CHECHI
062-081-009

HERNANDEZ
062-081-010

ETHEL DRIVE

ETHEL DRIVE

COLUSA FRONTAGE ROAD

EL MARGARITA ROAD
114.9'
W

W W W W W W W W W W W W
< SD < SD < SD < SD < SD < SD < SD < SD < SD < SD < SD < SD < SD W W

W W W W W W W
W
< SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS
W W
W
< SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG UG

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
< SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS < SS
W
W W < SS < SS
< SS
W W
W
22 82.5'

82.5'

82.5' 45.0' 45.0' 42.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0'

82.5'

82.5'

77.8'

45.2' 45.2' 50.3' 45.2' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 50.0' 63.3' 21 23 24 25 26 27 20 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28
19 18 16 17 14 15
39 38 37 36 43 42 41
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 40

45.0' 45.1' 45.2'

77.9'

82.5'

82.5' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0'

82.5'

82.5' 42.0' 45.0' 45.0'

75.7' 57.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0'

82.5'

82.5'

82.5'

82.5' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0'

82.5'

82.5' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 55.0' 55.0' 45.0' 45.0' 10.0' 45.1' 45.0'

82.5'

81.8'

79.0'

35.2'

45.3' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' KARAHI DRIVE KARAHI DRIVE SR 20 AKA COLUSA HIGHWAY - WESTBOUND
SR 20 AKA COLUSA HIGHWAY - EASTBOUND

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-055

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-054

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-053

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-052

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-051

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-050

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-049

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-048

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-047

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-046

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-045

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-044

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-043

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-042

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-041

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-040

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-039

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-038

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-037

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-036

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-035

YC HOOPER

VENTURES
062-440-034
1 2

HOOPER ROAD

45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 50.7'

94.5'

94.3'

93.9'

93.4'

93.0'

92.6'

92.2'

91.7' 45.0 45.0' 45.0' 50.0'
' 43.7'

71.1' 50.0 63.9' 45.0 ' 45.0 ' 45.0 ' 45.0 '
'

74.9' 40.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0'

84.0'

84.6'

85.2'

85.7'

86.3' 57.0 45.0'
' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 45.0' 50.0 50.0' 50.0 ' 45.0 ' 45.0 ' 45.0 ' ' 45.0 45.0' 45.0 ' 45.0 ' 50.0 '
' 45.1' 50.4' 45.0' 45.0'

94.5'

74.4' 45.0 50.0' 43.5' 45.0 45.0' 45.0' '
'

94.5'

90.5' 45.0'

85.9'

81.0' 50.3' 45.1'

78.4' 45.2' 94.5'

94.5'

94.5'

94.5'

82.5'

82.5'

82.5' 45.0' 50.0'

83.5'

82.9'

82.3'

81.8' 45.0' 45.0'

81.2' 50.0'

80.6'

79.9' 50.0' 50.0'

79.3' 50.0'

78.7'

78.8'

92.8'

45.2'

89.0'

85.0' 10112

52.26PM-C

BILLIE KEITH WAY

WAYNE WAY

MILLIE DRIVE

ETHEL DRIVE

ETHEL DRIVE

HOOPER ROAD

POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY BASINOR WATER QUALITY MANHOLE PRIORTO LEAVING SUBDIVISION(PREFERRED SYSTEM IS THEMANHOLE) 1 2
No. C52593
Exp. 12-31-24
0 20' 40' 80' 160'
LOT SUMMARY*
VILLAGE NO. 1 = 28 LOTS 3.36 AC 8.33 DU/ACVILLAGE NO. 2 = 26 LOTS 3.21 AC 8.10 DU/AC SUBTOTAL = 54 LOTS 6.57 AC 8.22 DU/AC
(RESIDENTIAL)
FRONTAGE ROAD = 1.27 AC
SUBTOTAL = 1.27 AC
(NON-RESIDENTIAL)
TOTAL = 7.84 AC 6.89 DU/AC
*ALL ACREAGE AND DENSITIES EXCLUDE THE COLUSA FRONTAGE
ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. HOOPER ROAD AND EL MARGARITA ROAD AREINCLUDED IN THE VILLAGE ACRES.

LAND USE SUMMARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SUTTER, CITY OF YUBA CITY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL ONE: (APN: 62-082-019)PARCEL “B” OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 22-02 RECORDED APRIL 28, 2022 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2022-6179 OF OFFICIALRECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN CITY OF YUBA CITY, COUNTY OF SUTTER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,BEING A PORTION OF LOT 23 OF "SUBDIVISION NO. 2 OF THE ELMER TRACT" FILED FEBRUARY 4, 1908 IN BOOK 1 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 61, SUTTER COUNTY RECORDS AND A PORTION OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, M.D.B. & M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 23; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 23, NORTH 00°01'49" EAST 257.40 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE NORTH 89°57'58" EAST 317.00 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 00°45'20" EAST 253.39 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 23; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 23, SOUTH 89°14'40" WEST 320.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS THE SAME AS SHOWN ON "SIENA ESTATES" FILED IN BOOK 19 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 42, SUTTER COUNTY RECORDS, SAID BEARING BEING NORTH 00°01'49" WEST ASSIGNED TO THE LINE BETWEEN THE FOUND MONUMENTS IN HOOPER ROAD.

PARCEL TWO: (APN: 62-082-020)PARCEL “C” OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 22-02 RECORDED APRIL 28, 2022 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2022-6180 OF OFFICIALRECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN CITY OF YUBA CITY, COUNTY OF SUTTER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,BEING A PORTION OF LOT 23 OF "SUBDIVISION NO. 2 OF THE ELMER TRACT" FILED FEBRUARY 4, 1908 IN BOOK 1 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 61, SUTTER COUNTY RECORDS AND A PORTION OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, M.D.B, & M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 23; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 23, NORTH 89°14'40" EAST 320.33 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°45'20" EAST 253.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°57'58" EAST 190.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°45'20" EAST 250.99 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 23; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 23, SOUTH 89°14'40" WEST 189.99 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS THE SAME AS SHOWN ON "SIENA ESTATES" FILED IN BOOK 19 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 42, SUTTER COUNTY RECORDS, SAID BEARING BEING NORTH 00°01'49" WEST ASSIGNED TO THE LINE BETWEEN THE FOUND MONUMENTS IN HOOPER ROAD.

PARCEL THREE: (APN: 62-082-021)PARCEL “D” OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 22-02 RECORDED APRIL 28, 2022 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2022-6181 OF OFFICIALRECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN CITY OF YUBA CITY, COUNTY OF SUTTER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,BEING A PORTION OF LOTS 22, AND 23 OF "SUBDIVISION NO. 2 OF THE ELMER TRACT" FILED FEBRUARY 4, 1908 INBOOK 1 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 61, SUTTER COUNTY RECORDS AND A PORTION OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH,RANGE 3 EAST, M.D.B. & M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 23; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 23, NORTH 89°14'40" EAST 510.22 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°45'20" EAST 250.99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°57’58" EAST 285.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83°56'35" EAST 221.22 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°47'13" EAST 318.29 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 22; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 00°22'33" EAST 264.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 22; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 22, AND 23, SOUTH 89°14'40" WEST 821.78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS THE SAME AS SHOWN ON "SIENA ESTATES" FILED IN BOOK 19 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 42, SUTTER COUNTY RECORDS, SAID BEARING BEING NORTH 00°01'49" WEST ASSIGNED TO THE LINE BETWEEN THE FOUND MONUMENTS IN HOOPER ROAD.

SCALE 1' = 40'

LOCATION MAP

FIRE PROTECTION

CITY OF YUBA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT

LAW ENFORCEMENT

CITY OF YUBA CITY POLICE

SANITARY SEWER

CITY OF YUBA CITY PUBLIC WORKS

DOMESTIC WATER

CITY OF YUBA CITY PUBLIC WORKS

STORM DRAINAGE

CITY OF YUBA CITY PUBLIC WORKS

AND SUTTER WATER AGENCY

ELECTRICITY

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRICNATURAL GAS (OPTIONAL)PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMMUNICATION

AT&T AND COMCAST

CABLE (OPTIONAL)COMCAST

PROJECT NOTES
GENERAL NOTES:

1. SUBDIVIDER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PHASE DEVELOPMENT AND FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 (A) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. TWO (2) PHASES ARE SHOWN ON MAP BUT COULD BE ONE (1) OR MORE.

2. A 12.0 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT SHALL BE LOCATED PROVIDED ON ALL STREETS WITH 10 FEET BEHIND SIDEWALK AND

2.0 FEET LOCATED UNDER SIDEWALK. ADJACENT TO CUL-DE-SAC BULBS THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT SHALL BE 10 FEETBEHIND SIDEWALK UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

3. THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR TENTATIVE MAP PURPOSES ONLY, ACTUAL DIMENSIONS, ROAD ALIGNMENTS, ACREAGE, AND YIELDS ARE TO BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP.

4. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.

5. VILLAGE NUMBERING IS FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT INDICATE PHASING ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT.

ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT PHASING WILL BE ORDERLY AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT FINAL MAP AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLAN STAGE.

6. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, SEPTIC TANKS, AND WELLS TO BE REMOVED, ABANDONED, OR DESTROYED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PER SUTTER COUNTY AND YUBA CITY STANDARDS.

7. STREET TREES SHALL BE PLANTED PURSUANT TO CITY OF YUBA CITY STANDARDS. ADDITIONAL DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

8. OWNERS, APPLICANT, ATTORNEY, ENGINEER, AND SURVEYOR SHALL RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR NOTICES RELATED TO THIS PROJECT.

EXISTING USE
VACANT

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION

OFFICE AND OFFICE PARK

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONLOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALEXISTING ZONING R-1

PROPOSED ZONING
R-1 PD
LEVEE PROTECTIONLEVEE DISTRICT NO. 9 OF SUTTER COUNTYELEMENTARTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

IRRIGATION DISTRICT

NONE - INDIVIDUAL WATER WELLS
OWNER
YC HOOPER VENTURES LLC4624 DUCKHORN DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95834
CONTACT: MANDEEP PABLA
PHONE: (530) 329-4356
APPLICANTYC HOOPER VENTURES LLC4624 DUCKHORN DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95834
CONTACT: MANDEEP PABLA
PHONE: (530) 329-4356ENGINEER/SURVEYORMHM INCORPORATED
1204 E STREET, P.O. BOX B
MARYSVILLE, CA 95901
CONTACT: SEAN MINARD, P.E., P.L.S.

PHONE: (530) 742-6485
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.APN 062-082-019, 020, AND 021AREA OF TENTATIVE MAP

7.84 GROSS ACRE
SURVEYORS STATEMENT:

I HEREBY STATE THAT ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD ARE SHOWN AND

LABELED PER PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT BY PLACER TITLE
COMPANY ORDER NUMBER P-631519 DATED APRIL 5, 2024.

SEAN MINARD, P.E. 52593, P.L.S. 8397
TEL: 530.742.6485
FAX: 530.742.5639
1204 E STREET, P.O. BOX B
MARYSVILLE, CA 95901
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS SINCE 1892

YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 11, 2024 REVISED SEPTEMBER 25, 2024

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TSM)
SM 24-004 (BROWNSTONE ESTATES)
2INDICATES PROPOSED PHASE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVAL: THE CITY OF YUBA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED AND APPROVED RESOLUTION 24-0XX APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP NO. 2024-0XX DURING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ON ______________, 2024. ______________________________________________ CITY OF YUBA CITY DATE:

SCALE 1' = 1000'

HOOPER ROAD

RUTH AVENUE

HOOPER ROAD

BUTTE HOUSE ROAD
NO GEO WASH BLVD.

ROYO RANCHERO

EL MARGARITA ROAD

HARTER PARKWAY
PUE SHALL BE A TOTAL OF 12 FEET
WITH 10 FEET BEHIND SIDEWALK
AND 2 FEET UNDERSIDEWALK.

MINOR RESIDENTIAL - 46.0' R/W (ATTACHED)
A NOT TO SCALE ALL INTERIOR ROADS SERVICING 100 OR FEWER LOTS PL
CL

8.0'

PARKING

10.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

0.5' 2.5'

23.0' ROADWAY

ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER

SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

16.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.

4.0'

12.0'
PUE
PL

8.0'

PARKING

10.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

0.5' 2.5'

23.0' ROADWAY

ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER

SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

16.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.

4.0'

12.0'
PUE
Exp. 3-31-26

L I CEN S ED
L
A
N
D

SURVEYOR
STATE
OF

CAL I FORN IA

S E A N
M
M
I

N A R D
L S 8 3 9 7
STATE
OF

CAL I FORN IA
SEAN
M

MI NARD

C I V I L

REGISTERED

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
STATE ROUTE 20 AKA COLUSA HIGHWAY

NORTH COLUSA FRONTAGE ROAD

SOUTH COLUSA FRONTAGE ROAD

EL MARGARITA ROAD

HARTER PARKWAY

JEFFERSON AVENUE

6.0'
CLASS 2 A.B.

16.0' @ 2%
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

SIDEWALK

ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER

19.0' ROADWAY

4.0' 2.5'

12.0'
PUE

0.5'

10.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

8.0'

PARKING
PL
CL

NOT TO SCALE
ALL INTERIOR ROADS SERVICING 100 OR FEWER LOTS

OPTIONAL LAYOUT - NOT PROPOSED AT THIS TIME
B MINOR RESIDENTIAL - 38.0' R/W (DEATTACHED)

19.5'
PSE
DEATTACHED SIDEWALK OPTION. THEPLANTER STRIP SHALL ALSO BE USEDFOR STORM WATER MITIGATION. LOTDIMENSIONS BASED ON ATTACHED SIDEWALK.

6.0'
CLASS 2 A.B.

16.0' @ 2%
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

SIDEWALK

ROLLED CURB& GUTTER

19.0' ROADWAY

2.5' 4.0'

12.0'
PUE

0.5'

10.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

8.0'

PARKING

19.5'
PSE
PL
PUE SHALL BE A TOTAL OF 12 FEET
WITH 10 FEET BEHIND SIDEWALK
AND 2 FEET UNDERSIDEWALK.

CL

NOT TO SCALE

HOOPER ROAD (FRONTAGE ONLY) - COMPLETED

EL MARGARITA ROAD (FRONTAGE ONLY) - COMPLETED
C COLLECTOR - 50.0' R/W

20.5'
PSE
PL

0.5' 10.0'
PUE 5.0' 2.5'

25.0' ROADWAY

SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

22.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.

6.0'

12.0'
PUE

20.5'
PSE 0.5'
PL

2.5' 5.0'

25.0' ROADWAY

BARRIER CURB
& GUTTER

SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT

22.0' @ 2%
CLASS 2 A.B.

6.0'

ROLLED CURB
& GUTTER

5.0'
BIKE
LANE

11.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

8.0'

PARKING

5.0'
BIKE
LANE

11.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

8.0'

PARKING
PUE SHALL BE A TOTAL OF 12 FEET
WITH 10 FEET BEHIND SIDEWALKAND 2 FEET UNDERSIDEWALK.

10.0' TO 12.0' @ 2%
MINOR - COLLECTOR - 64.5' TO 66.5' R/W

D NOT TO SCALE COLUSA FRONTAGE ROAD (FRONTAGE ONLY)
CL

12.0'
TRAVEL
LANE
PL

2.5'

23.0' TO 25.0' ROADWAY
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
CLASS 2 A.B. FUTURE BARRIER

CURB & GUTTER

6.0'
BIKE
LANE

6.0'
BIKE
LANE

12.0'
TRAVEL
LANE

5.0' 2.5'

SIDEWALK
TYPE "A" ASPHALT
CLASS 2 A.B.

6.0'

BARRIER CURB
& GUTTER
PL 10.0' SOLID WALL OR 8.0' SOLID
WALL ON 2.0' BERM OR PER

SOUND STUDY WHICHEVER IS

GREATER (SOLID WALL)

THE PLANTER BETWEEN SIDEWALK

AND CURB SHALL BE USED FOR STORM
WATER MITIGATION.

12.0'
PUE

4.0' CALTRANS

CHAINLINK FENCE (E)

2.5' TO 4.5''

CALTRANS ROW (EXISTING

FENCE AT ROW)

18.0' @ 2% 18.0' @ 2%

41.5' ROADWAY

EXHIBIT C

1 CITY OF YUBA CITY

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 24-04
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 19
NOVEMBER 13, 2024

BROWNSTONE ESTATES
APNS: 062-082-019-000, 062-082-020-000, and 062-082-021-000

NOTICE TO PROJECT APPLICANT
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 ninety (90) calendar 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.

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
Please note that this project is subject to a variety of discretionary conditions of approval. These include conditions based on adopted City plans and policies, those determined through tentative subdivision map review and environmental assessment essential to mitigate adverse effects on the environment including the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and recommended conditions for development that are not essential to health, safety, and welfare, but would on the whole enhance the project and its relationship to the neighborhood and environment.

Discretionary conditions of approval may be appealed. All code requirements, however, are mandatory and may only be modified by variance, provided the findings can be made.

All discretionary conditions of approval will ultimately be deemed mandatory unless appealed by the applicant to the City Council within ten (10) days after the decision by the Planning Commission. In the event you wish to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision or discretionary conditions of approval, you may do so by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. The appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal and wherein the Commission failed to conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. This should include identification of the decision or action appealed and specific reasons why you believe the decision or action appealed should not be upheld.

These conditions are applicable to any person or entity making use of this tentative subdivision map, and references to “developer” or “applicant” herein also include any applicant, property owner, owner, leasee, operator, or any other person or entity making use of this tentative subdivision map.

2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. To the furthest extent allowed by law, applicant/property owner shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and each of its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, damages and costs (including attorney's fees, litigation expenses and administrative record preparation costs) arising from, resulting from, or in connection with any Third-Party Action (as hereinafter defined). The term “Third Party Action” collectively means any legal action or other proceeding instituted by (i) a third party or parties, or (ii) a governmental body, agency or official other than the City, that: (a) challenges or contests any or all of these Conditions of Approval or any approval associated with entitlements associated with the project (collectively “Approvals”); or (b) claims or alleges a violation of CEQA or another law in connection with the Approvals by the City, or the grant, issuance or approval by the City of any or all Approvals. Applicant’s/property owner’s obligations under this paragraph shall apply regardless of whether City or any of its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents or volunteers are actively or passively negligent, but shall not apply to any loss, liability, fines, penalties forfeitures, costs or damages caused solely by the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City or any of its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. The provisions of this section shall survive any termination, revocation, overturn, or expiration of an approval.

Nothing in this section shall obligate the City to defend any claim and the City shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement arising from any such claim not defended by the City, unless the City approves the settlement in writing. Nor shall the City be prohibited from independently defending any claim, and if the City does decide to independently defend a claim, the applicant/property owner shall be responsible for City’s attorneys’ fees, expenses of litigation, and costs for that independent defense, including the costs of preparing any required administrative record. Applicant/property owner shall submit all documents filed in the Third-Party Action for review and approval of the City Attorney prior to filing of said documents on behalf of the City.

The City may, at any time, require the applicant to reimburse the City for costs that have been, or which the City reasonably anticipates will be, incurred by the City during the course of processing or defending any Third-Party Actions. The City shall provide applicant/property owner with an invoice detailing all reasonable costs incurred. Applicant/property owner shall tender to the City payment-in-full of all reasonable and necessary costs within thirty (30) days from the date upon the invoice. Applicant/property owner shall contact the City within a reasonable time to arrange any extension of the thirty (30) day time period for payment-in-full of the invoiced amount. Applicant/property owner further acknowledges and agrees, failure to timely tender payment-in-full to the City shall be considered a breach and non-compliance with the conditions of approval for the project. Applicant/property owner shall also be required, upon request of the City, to deposit two month’s estimated costs anticipated by the City to be incurred, which may be used by the City as a draw down account to maintain a positive balance pending tender of payment by Applicant/property owner as noted herein.

2. The lot design on the subdivision maps shall be designed in conformance with the TSM 24-04, as appropriate with the attached Brownstone Estates Development Standards, and as approved by the Planning Commission.

3 3. The development and operation of the project shall comply with all CEQA mitigation measures identified in Environmental Assessment 24-10 dated October 2024.

4. The development and operation of the project shall comply with all local, state, and federal codes (including Building and Fire codes) and local development standards. a. The Developer or Representative shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City prior to performing any work within public rights of way.

5. The Developer shall coordinate with United States Postal Service in regard to relocating the existing mailbox(es), adjacent to the subdivision, located along the west side of El Margarita Road, to either a centralized mail delivery unit or to the east side of the road in coordination with applicable property owners. On site mail delivery is to be maintained throughout construction.

6. To comply with General Plan Noise Element, lots 28-54 in the subdivision shall be:
i. Constructed with either a 6.0-foot-high solid wall with 2-foot berm, or an

8.0-foot-high solid wall, conforming aesthetically to the existing wall on the north side of Colusa Frontage Road adjacent to Walnut Park Estates, Unit 1 Subdivision, and
ii. Constructed with improvements over standard construction to ensure compliance with the 45 dB Ldn interior noise level criterion. Specifically, second floor facades should be constructed of stucco (or wood siding with an under-layer of ¾ inch wood sheathing), and all second-floor bedroom windows adjacent to Colusa Frontage/State Route 20 should have a minimum STC rating of 30, or as otherwise approved by the Development Services Director.

7. The Developer shall, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy of the first residence, construct a solid six (6) foot-high chain link fence across the rightof-way of any future phase connecting with the adjoining six (6) foot high private fences. This fencing shall be constructed in addition to the standard dead-end barricade. The fence and barricade shall be maintained by the City via the lighting and landscape maintenance district, or as approved by the Public Works Director.

8. 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.

9. Paved streets shall be swept frequently (water sweeper with reclaimed water recommended; wet broom) if soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved, public thoroughfares from the project site.

10. The Developer, 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.

11. Storage of construction material is not allowed in the travel way.

4 12. A Subdivision Agreement outlining any costs (hot tap, connection fee, fair share contribution, etc.) associated with the development shall be accepted by the City prior to recordation of map, or prior to approval of the Improvement Plans, whichever comes first.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT

13. 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 lands. At first submittal of the improvement plans, provide existing / proposed grades at the perimeter of the proposed development, and existing grades at the adjacent lands. If retaining walls are required, they shall be constructed of concrete or masonry block.

PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS

14. Obtain all necessary approvals from City, State, and Federal agencies, utilities and other effected parties that are required for the project including, but not limited to, the preparation of drawings, studies, reports and permit applications, and payment of fees. Prior to City approval of the Improvement Plans, the Developer shall provide evidence, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, that all such obligations have been met.

15. The plans shall indicate the locations of all prior hull deposit pits, detention pond(s), and all roadway culvert(s). All unsuitable material is to be removed and replaced as recommended by a Geotechnical Engineer licensed in the State of California, and/or in accordance with Yuba City Public Works.

16. The plans shall indicate the locations of all septic and leach field areas, and all wells. Any septic areas and wells that are to be destroyed shall be demolished in accordance with Sutter County Environmental Health Department requirements.

17. All onsite overhead utilities, including but not limited to, utility poles and all appurtenances are to be removed in accordance with utility requirements/guidelines. The development shall be serviced with underground utilities. No new overhead utilities, including but not limited to electrical and telecommunications are allowed, except as otherwise determined by the Development Services Director.

18. The Developer shall dedicate right-of-way to the City as follows, or as approved by the Public Works Director [Note: all necessary right of way and easements are to be dedicated with the recordation of the Final Map]:
a. North Colusa Frontage Road: on the north side, shall have right-of-way dedicated to a width of 41.5 feet (centerline to back of 6.0-foot-high solid wall with 2-foot berm, or 8.0-foot-high solid wall). A 12.0-foot-wide PUE shall be dedicated along the sidewalk with 2.0-foot located across the sidewalk.
b. Interior residential street (Karahi Drive):

5 i. Detached sidewalk option -- Right-of-way shall be dedicated to a width of 38.0 feet together with a 19.5-foot PSE behind the rightof-way. A 12.0-foot-wide PUE shall be dedicated along the sidewalk with 2.0-foot located across the sidewalk along each side of the roadway.
ii. Attached sidewalk option -- Right-of-way shall be dedicated to a width of 46.0 feet. A 12.0-foot-wide PUE shall be dedicated adjacent to the right-of-way with 2.0-foot located across the sidewalk along each side of the roadway. Where attached sidewalk option is utilized, street design is to implement parkway bulb outs to provide street trees, and/or enhanced entry ways, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
iii. A combination of the attached and detached sidewalk options to provide street trees and meeting City design standards.

19. The Developer shall construct frontage improvements to City standards as follows, or as approved by the Public Works Director:
a. North Colusa Frontage Road:
i. From the centerline of North Colusa Frontage Road to the lip of gutter, asphalt section is to be 18.0 feet wide (includes approved bike lane striping, marking, and signage installed along the road frontage).
ii. 2.5-foot-wide barrier curb and gutter
iii. 6.0-foot landscaped parkway strip
iv. 5.0-foot detached sidewalk, meandering to avoid power poles or as approved by the Public Works Director
v. 8.0-foot-high solid wall (i.e. concrete, masonry, proto II, brick), 6.0- foot-high solid wall with 2.0-foot berm, or combination thereof vi. Streetlights
vii. Fire hydrants
viii. Storm drainage facilities
ix. Roadway striping
x. Roadway signage
b. Hooper Road and El Margarita Road:
i. From the centerline of the roadway to lip of gutter, asphalt section is to be 22.0-feet wide
ii. 2.5-foot wide barrier curb and gutter
iii. 6.0-foot landscaped parkway strip
iv. 5.0-foot detached sidewalk
v. Streetlights
vi. Fire hydrants
vii. Storm drainage facilities
viii. Roadway striping
ix. Roadway signage

20. The sewer main shall connect to the existing sewer main in Hooper Road at a depth no greater than 0.2 feet above the existing sewer main, then constructed easterly on Karahi Drive to 6 feet east of El Margarita Road centerline and there terminating

6 at a manhole with an 8-inch diameter stub to the south, or as otherwise determined by the Public Works Director. In lieu of constructing the sewer main in El Margarita Road from Karahi Drive to North Colusa Frontage Road, in accordance with the Yuba City Municipal Code Section 6-5.302(c) Public Sewer Construction, the Developer shall pay applicable extension fees, or as otherwise determined by the Public Works Director.

21. The Developer shall comply with all City requirements related to drainage, including submittal of a drainage plan for any drainage improvements for the proposed development. A drainage analysis, along with calculations, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to:
a. Grading and drainage plan showing the proposed drainage conveyance and storage system.
b. Supporting calculations demonstrating adequacy of conveyance capacity and storage volume. The calculation analysis shall meet the requirements of the Yuba City Basin Drainage Study.
c. Storm Drain Collection Systems- For the design of all pipeline conveyance facilities, the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) shall be maintained a minimum of one foot below the gutter flow line of all drain inlets and at least one foot below all maintenance hole rims during a 10- year, 24-hour storm event. The storm drain minimum pipe size shall be 12 inches. The minimum velocity shall be 2 fps.
d. Street Flow-The street system shall be designed to convey the 100-year, 24-hour runoff while maintaining a water surface at least 1 foot below the adjacent building pad elevations (or alternatively, the building pad elevations shall be at least 1 foot above the 100-year water level). The grading plan shall ensure that the 100-year, 24-hour runoff can be conveyed through the development and to the receiving drainage facility.
e. Drainage systems (pipes and street systems) shall be designed to accommodate the runoff from the ultimate development of the entire upstream watershed.
f. Water Quality – Water quality basin(s) shall meet State Water Resource Board requirements for water quality. The water quality basin can be incorporated into a detention pond, designed as an individual pond, included in a water quality manhole system, or as approved by the Public Works Director.
g. Detention Basins - A 100-year, 4-day storm shall be used for sizing detention storage facilities. The detention basin release rate from a 100- year, 24-hour storm after development must be equal to or lower than the runoff rate from the detention basin's tributary area before development. h. The drainage analysis shall be completed and stamped by a Professional Engineer and determined by the City Engineer, and the Sutter County Water Agency Engineer if necessary, to be comprehensive, accurate, and adequate.

22. The development shall comply with Yuba City’s stormwater requirements and PostConstruction Standards Plan. The Post Construction information can be found here:
https://www.yubacity.net/city_hall/departments/public_works/engineering/stormwa ter_management

7 23. The Developer shall comply with all Sutter County requirements related to drainage, including submittal of a drainage plan for any drainage improvements that utilize County facilities for approval by the Sutter County Public Works Director.

The Developer shall coordinate with the County if the storm drain under Hooper Road, and the ditches to the west, are to be utilized as part of the drainage improvements.

24. All development shall be designed to local, state, and federal flood standards.

25. The structural section of all road improvements shall be either per the City standard details or shall be designed using the Caltrans empirical R-value method. If designing using the Caltrans empirical R-value method, a geotechnical investigation shall determine the R-value of the existing soil in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the structural section shall be designed to the following standards:
a. Use 3” minimum for residential, 4” minimum for collectors and 6” minimum for arterials, of ‘Type A’ asphaltic concrete over Class 2 aggregate base (the thickness of the base shall be designed to the R-value of the soil) b. Use a traffic index of 6 for residential streets
c. Use a traffic index of 7 for collector streets
d. Use a traffic index of 10 for arterial streets
A copy of the geotechnical investigation, including R-value determination, test locations and structural section calculations, shall be submitted with the first improvement plan check.

26. Striping, pavement markings and traffic signage shall be provided on all streets as necessary and as required by the Public Works Department. Signage restricting parking and red painted curbing shall be installed where appropriate. Speed limit signs shall be installed at locations determined by the Public Works Department.

All required speed limit signs shall be shown on the Improvement Plans.

27. Any street lighting is a public improvement which shall meet the City Standard Details and be included in the Improvement Plans and Specifications for the development when the improvement plans are submitted for the first improvement plan check.

28. The Improvement Plans shall show provisions for the placement of centralized mail delivery units in the PUE. Developer shall provide a concrete base for placement of the centralized mail delivery unit. Specifications and location of such base shall be determined pursuant to the applicable requirements of the Postal Service and the City Public Works Department, with due consideration for street light location, traffic safety, security and consumer convenience.

29. 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

8 and roadways. The Contractor shall be responsible for all construction equipment to be equipped with manufacturers approved muffler baffles.

Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an order to stop work.” c. “If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Sutter County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.” d. "The Contractor(s) shall be required to maintain traffic flow on affected roadways during non-working hours, and to minimize traffic restriction during construction. The Contractor shall be required to follow traffic safety measures in accordance with the CalTrans “Manual of Traffic Safety Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones.” The City of Yuba City emergency service providers shall be notified, at least two working days in advance, of proposed construction scheduled by the contractor(s).” e. “Soil shall not be treated with lime or other cementitious material without prior express permission by the Public Works Department.” f. “Where an excavation for a trench and/or structure is five (5) feet deep or more, the contractor shall conform to O.S.H.A. requirements. The contractor shall provide a copy of the approved O.S.H.A. permit, and shoring details and calculations prepared by California licensed structural engineer to the Public Works Department.”
g. “Should any field conditions, conflicts, errors, and/or omissions be overlooked during the design review process, or during construction of the development, then any additional work identified during construction shall be implemented by the Developer at the Developer’s expense.”

PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

30. All existing well(s), septic tank(s), and service lines shall be destroyed in accordance with the requirements of the Sutter County Environmental Health and Yuba City Building Departments, respectively. Connections shall be made to public sewer and water. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees.

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

32. Prior to final paving, and/or as directed by the Public Works Director, the Developer shall hydroflush, and televise, all storm drain mains and all sewer mains. In addition, prior to the City’s acceptance of the subdivision improvements, and at the Public Works Department’s discretion, the storm sewer and sewer mains shall be re-hydroflushed.

33. The contractor shall maintain record drawings of the improvements and keep them on site at all times. When the project is complete, the contractor shall deliver a marked set of plans to the Engineer of Record. The Engineer of Record shall update the improvement plans with the record information. Once the changes have been added to the plans, the Engineer of Record shall submit both an electronic copy (Civil 3D version 2020 or newer) and a hard copy to the City. The City will not

9 accept the completion of the improvements until the electronic copy and hard copy have been submitted.

34. The existing utility poles along North Colusa Frontage Road shall be placed underground, or addressed in accordance with the City’s Overhead Utility Policy, adopted March 17, 2020. The total lineal foot length of overhead lines along North Colusa Frontage Road is determined to be 1,265 lineal feet, or as otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. The Public Works Director reserves the right to make the final determination of the total lineal foot length of overhead lines.

35. The Developer shall build an advanced flashing beacon on westbound N. Colusa Frontage Road, or as otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.

PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION

36. The development shall pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs. This condition may be satisfied through participation in a Mello-Roos CFD, by payment of cash in an amount agreed to by the City, by another secure funding mechanism acceptable to the City, or by some combination of those mechanisms. The City shall be reimbursed actual costs associated with the formation of, or annexation to, the district. The property shall annex into an existing CFD.

37. The property shall petition for formation of a Zone of Benefit of the Yuba City Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District for the purpose of maintaining:
a. street trees planted in the landscape planters,
b. the irrigation and landscaping in the parkway strip, c. street lights,
d. sidewalks, fencing and/or barricades,
e. block walls
f. affected stormwater facilities
The Engineering Division shall be reimbursed actual costs associated with the formation of the district.

38. The Post Construction Statement of Responsibility shall be recorded at the Sutter County Recorder’s Office.

39. The Developer shall pay all applicable Sutter County Water Agency connection fees and maintenance and operation fees, and entering into an agreement with Sutter County providing participation in a zone of benefit, drainage district, agency, service area or any other public entity for the financing of construction and maintenance of a drainage system, as determined applicable by Sutter County.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT

40. The Developer’s Superintendent/Representative shall submit three (3) sets of Pacific Gas and Electric approved utility plans showing joint trench locations and distribution lines prior to issuance of first building permit for each phase of construction.

10 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

41. 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.

42. All street lighting shall be constructed in accordance with the Improvement Plans, dedicated to the City of Yuba City, and energized prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.

43. All underground utilities, public improvements, and site improvements, including rough grading, shall be completed in accordance with City requirements.

44. Development of this property will require payment of the Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement Program Development Impact Fee (DIF) pursuant to Yuba City Ordinance No. 002-24. The DIF fees are to be paid (or an agreement entered into with Yuba City and SBFCA that constitutes satisfaction of the DIF obligation) prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. For questions pertaining to the DIF, please contact Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency at (530) 755-9859 or go to https://sutterbutteflood.org/finance/regional-levee-dif.

EXHIBIT D

Environmental Assessment 24-10
is available online at
www.yubacity.net/environmental

ATTACHMENT 2

ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR 54 SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTH COLUSA

FRONTAGE ROAD BETWEEN HOOPER ROAD AND EL MARGARITA ROAD (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 62-082-019, -020, -021).

WHEREAS, the City received an application in June 2024 for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 24-03, Planned Development (PD) 19, Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) 24-04, to subdivide 7.84 acres into 54 single-family residential lots, located on the north side of Colusa Frontage Road between Hooper Road and El Margarita Road; and WHEREAS, P9 18 will modify certain development standards in the R-1 District in an effort to reduce minimum parcel sizes and other standards. Proposed development standard modifications include allowing for reduced minimum lot sizes of 3,000 square feet and 3,500 square feet for corner lots, reducing minimum required lot widths, yard setbacks, garage setbacks and minimum required distances between buildings on the same lot. The purpose of these modifications is to accommodate a more compact project design as further shown in the PD 19 Zone District (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the proposed project and has prepared an Initial Study proposing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 24-10) for the project; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2024, the Planning Commission concurrently conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Planned Development 19, at which time it received input from City Staff, public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the Planning Commission, after which public testimony was closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all associated documents prepared for the project, including those related to the application and all of the evidence received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation and consideration of all relevant items, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council of the City of Yuba City approve Planned Development 19, with a map included and development standards reflected; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the Yuba City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the project, at which time it received input from City Staff; public comment portion was opened, and public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the City Council, after which public testimony was closed and this ordinance introduced; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Yuba City considered said recommendations of the Planning Commission on the matter and after review and consideration, the City Council desires to approve PD 19 as refined.

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

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

2. CEQA Findings: The City Council of the City of Yuba City has concurrently approved EA 24- 10 by adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. With the project specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environment. No further CEQA is required, as CEQA has been completed for this project.

3. Planned Development Findings: Yuba City Municipal Code Section 8-5.2706 requires that the City make the following findings in order to approve a Planned Development (the required findings are in italics).
a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan.

Evidence. The proposed subdivision creating 54 single-family residential lots is consistent with General Plan Policy 3.5-I-1, the lot sizes are consistent with the land use designation and provides for a density range of 2-8 units per acre. The proposed projects overall density of approximately 6.89 DU/AC is within the established density range. The proposed lot configuration and layout will integrate into the existing street network and surrounding land uses. The proposed subdivision will construct pedestrian facilities that will serve the neighborhood and facilitate a walkabout community.
b. The proposal is consistent with the planned surrounding land uses.

Evidence. The proposed lot configurations and layout will integrate into the existing street network and surrounding land uses. The proposed map will construct pedestrian facilities that will serve the neighborhood and facilitate a walkable community. c. There are or will be adequate public facilities available to properly serve the development, including streets to adequately handle the anticipated traffic.

Evidence. The site is level and will be served by the full range of City services. City water and wastewater collection are available to the property. A stormwater drainage system is nearby that will be operated and maintained by the City and which connects with the greater system that is operated by the Sutter County Water Agency that drains into the Live Oak Canal.
d. The quality of the development is as good or better than would be accomplished through traditional zoning and design standards.

Evidence. As discussed in item a) above, this project is consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies including the established density range for LDR designated land. The project is conditioned to meet all City development and improvement standards including water, wastewater, stormwater drainage systems, street cross-sections, streetscape landscaping, and park facilities or applicable in-lieu fees. The proposed project will be subject to compliance with the R-1 development standards as amended by the proposed PD 19 Zone District.

4. Approval of Planned Development 19: The City Council hereby approves Planned Development 19 for Brownstone Estates, rezoning approximately 7.84 acres located on the north side of North Colusa Frontage Road between Hooper Road and El Margarita Road, to add the “PD 19” designation as set forth in in Exhibit B, and subject to the Development Standards as set forth in Exhibit A.

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

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

7. Effective Date of Resolution. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced by the City Council after waiving reading, except by Title, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of December 2024, and adopted the Ordinance after the second reading at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of January 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recused:

CITY OF YUBA CITY
_____________________________
Dave Shaw, Mayor
ATTEST:

______________________________
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

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

Exhibit A: Planned Development 19 Criteria of Development Exhibit B: Land Use Map

EXHIBIT A

The following criterion of development is proposed for Brownstone Estates located on Colusa Frontage Road between Hooper Road and El Margarita Road. We used the development criteria in the BSMP Low Density Residential Standard as shown on Table A-1 except for a few minor items. We understand this project is not located in BSMP but that was our starting point. We understand any item not changed would default to Yuba City Standards not the BSMP standards.

The Development Standards for Brownstone Estates are proposed as follows.:

Development Standards.

Maximum Density (R-1): General Plan Designation (8 units per acre) Minimum Density (R-1): General Plan Designation (2 dwelling per acre) Minimum Lot Size: For lots less than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 4,400 square feet for corner; 3,400 square feet for interior lots, cul-de-sac, and knuckle lots. For lots equal to or greater than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 5,500 square feet for corner; 5,000 square feet for interior lots, culde-sac, and knuckle lots.

Minimum Lot Width: For lots less than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 40 feet for interior lots and 44 feet for corner lots. For lots equal to or greater than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 50 feet for interior lots and 55 feet for corner lots. (*Lot width measured at the front property line except for lots on cul-de-sacs and knuckles where lot width is measured at the front setback)
Minimum Lot Depth: For lots less than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 75 feet. For lots equal to or greater than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 85 feet. (*Lot width measured at the front property line except for lots on cul-desacs and knuckles where lot width is measured at the front setback).

These refer to average minimum depth.

Maximum Percentage of
Lot Coverage:

For lots less than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 50% for 2-story and 60% for 1-story. For lots equal to or greater than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 45% for 2-story and 55% for 1-story. (*Lot width measured at the front property line except for lots on cul-de-sacs and knuckles where lot width is measured at the front setback).

Minimum Yards: Front - For lots less than 5,000 square feet lots shall be 12 feet to back of sidewalk. For lots equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet lots shall be 15 feet to back of sidewalk.

Garages - For lots less than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 18.0 feet and side loading garages shall be 10 feet as long as the length of the driveway exceeds 18.0 from the back of sidewalk. For lots equal to or greater than 5,500 square feet lots shall be shall be 20.0 feet and side loading garages shall be 10 feet as long as the length of the driveway exceeds 20.0 from the back of sidewalk.

Porch/Courtyard - For lots less than 5,000 square feet lots shall be 10 feet. For lots equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet lots shall be 12 feet.

Street Side – 10 feet to back of sidewalk.

Interior Side – 5 feet, except fire place and media protrusions shall not less than 3 feet.

Rear – For lots less than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 10 feet. For lots equal to or greater than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 15 feet.

Distance Between
Buildings on Same Lot:

For lots less than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 3.5 feet for single story and 5.0 feet for two-story. For lots equal to or greater than 5,500 square feet lots shall be 5.0 feet for single story and 10.0 feet for two-story.

Maximum Building
Height:
2 stories not to exceed 38 feet, except as provided in Article 56 of the Yuba City Zoning Regulations.

Exterior Lighting As provided in Article 58.

Fences, Walls, Hedges, and
Intersection Visibility
As provided in Article 59.

Off-street Parking and
Loading
As provided in Article 61.

Public Improvements As provided in Article 62.

Signs: As provided in Article 63.

Trash Enclosures As provided in Article 64.

If item is not listed or modified, the criteria shall meet or exceed the Yuba City Development Standards and Guidelines for Low Density Residential Development Standards.

EXHIBIT B

PROJECT

LOCATION
HWY 20
HO
OPER
R
D
EL M
A
R
G
A
R
TI A
R
D

COLUSA FRONTAGE RD

SERENA DR
SERENA
C
T
EL M
A
R
G
A
R
TI A
R
D
HWY 20

COLUSA FRONTAGE RD

PROJECT

LOCATION
HWY 20
HO
OPER
R
D
EL M
A
R
G
A
R
TI A
R
D

COLUSA FRONTAGE RD

SERENA DR
SERENA
C
T
EL M
A
R
G
A
R
TI A
R
D
HWY 20

COLUSA FRONTAGE RD

EXISTING PROPOSED
City of Yuba City
General Plan
Low Density Residential
Medium/Low Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
Parks, Recreation & Open Space
Agricultural/Rural
HS-High School; EMS-Elementry/Middle School
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Office & Office Park
Business, Technology & Light Industry
Manufacturing, Processing & Warehousing
Parcels
Project Site
GPA 24-03
±

BROWNSTONE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LAND USE MAP

Agenda Item 28

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 17, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Deputy Director of Development Services Summary
Subject: Update X19 Combining (Zoning) District
Recommendation: Initiate a Municipal Code amendment to revise the X19 Combining District to provide for future intersection improvements at the State Highway 20 / El Margarita Road intersection
Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal impact will result from amending the Municipal Code to revise the standards discussed
Purpose:

Consideration to initiate a Municipal Code amendment to revise the X19 Combining District to provide for future intersection improvements at the State Highway 20 / El Margarita Road intersection.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

This item is consistent with the Council’s Public Safety Strategic Goal because revising the X19 Combining District to provide for future intersection improvements at the State Highway 20 / El Margarita Road intersection will ultimately improve public safety at this location.

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

Establishing a mechanism providing for future development in this area to contribute to needed intersection improvements at the State Highway 20 / El Margarita Road intersection assists in operating the City in a fiscally responsible manner.

Background:

Title 8, Chapter 5, Article 38 of the Municipal Code provides for Special Standards Combining Zone Districts, X-Districts. These "overlay" districts are combined with the existing base zone districts and allow the City to apply additional requirements in a specific area. These districts can provide additional development criteria for specific project sites or can cover larger areas.

Over time, the City has adopted 24 of these X-Combining Districts.

Analysis:

The existing X19 Combining District covers the area at the Southeast corner of Colusa Avenue (State Highway 20) and El Margarita Road and provides for the following:
“To ensure the future provision for transportation needs: 1) a fair share of fees will be paid for traffic signal improvements at Walton Avenue/Lassen Blvd./Tharp Road intersection are made, 2) a fair share will be paid for the improvements cost of highway road improvements based on an AB 1600 study in effect at the time of issuance of building permits and 3) that Harter Road and Lassen Blvd. are improved to City standards and extended across this property along with El Margarita Road.” The purpose of this Combining District was to ensure that when property is developed it will be responsible for paying its fair share of local transportation needs and the District identified several intersections. At that time the improvements needed for these intersections to support local growth were not in place. The X19 District was added to provide an interim solution to that concern.

Since that time, other programs have been established, making the X19 District unnecessary. This includes the 2007 Yuba City Update of the AB 1600 Fee Justification Study, 2020 Traffic Model Update, 2021 Road Development Impact Fee Program, 2021 City of Yuba City Cumulative Traffic Forecasts and Operations Analysis, studies completed for the unadopted El Margarita Master Plan and various site-specific traffic studies performed in the area. Since there are now criteria and programs in place requiring subject intersection improvements to be made as part of developing these properties, the X19 District has become unnecessary.

The City has already taken action to remove certain properties from the X19 District as development has been proposed and this includes the Spirit Drive Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 22-04) and the recent approval of the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools Career Training and Conference Center (DP 24-01). A map showing the properties remaining in the X19 District is included as staff report Attachment 2.

In recent years, the City has received several Planning entitlement applications proximate to the intersection of State Highway 20 and El Margarita Road that are listed below and shown on staff report Attachment 3.
• Calvary Christian Use Permit Amendment (UP 07-13)
• Milner General Plan Amendment/Rezoning (GPA 23-04/RZ 23-04) to General Commercial (C-3) District
• Dean Ranch (GPA 24-01, SM 24-03, DP 24-02), 158 unit assisted living/skilled nursing with support facilities.

Each of these projects impacts the intersection of State Highway 20 and El Margarita Road; however, as development occurs, additional impacts will result, and these future projects should contribute a fairshare toward necessary improvements and criteria be established regarding the timing for implementation of the improvements.

Due to the existing X19 District in its present form no longer being necessary, staff proposes amending it to focus on future improvements at the intersection of State Highway 20 / El Margarita Road. Staff will study this area and future traffic impacts resulting from build-out in this area and propose a new X19 boundary and policies. Outreach to affected property owners will occur prior to bringing forward any proposal.

Fiscal Impact:

No direct fiscal impact will result from amending the X19 Combining District. Existing budgeted monies are paying for staff’s time to address this item. However, a key point of amending the zoning district is to have development pay their determined fair share towards the future signal, where the City may act as the lead for the improvements collecting those funds.

Alternatives:

The City Council may decide not to revise the X19 Combining District or may provide direction to eliminate the District entirely.

Recommendations:

Initiate a Municipal Code amendment to revise the X19 Combining District to provide for future intersection improvements at the State Highway 20 / El Margarita Road intersection.

Attachments:

1. Text of Existing X19 Combining District

2. Map of Existing X19 Area

3. Map of Proposed Development Proximate to Hwy 20 / El Margarita Road Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

Attachment 1

Existing X19 Combining District
X19 Area: Southeast corner of Colusa Ave. & El Margarita Rd.

Reason: To ensure the future provision for transportation needs: 1) a fair share of fees will be paid for traffic signal improvement at Walton Avenue/Lassen Blvd./Tharp Road intersection are mad, 2) a fair share will be paid for the improvements cost of highway road improvements based on an AB1600 study in effect at the time of issuance of building permits and 3) that Harter Road and Lassen Blvd. are improved to city standards and extended across this property along with El Margarita Road.

Attachment 2

20 SPIRIT
H
A
R
TER
LASSEN
EL M
A
R
G
A
RITA

REDHAVEN
KLA
M
ATH
C
A
R
S
ON

COLUSA FRONTAGE
S
ANTI
SIERRA
RUTH
RYAN
DAVIS
20 PF
C-M
R-1
PF X24
C-O X19
R-1
R-1
C-3 X24
C-O X19
C-3 X24/25
C-3 C-3
R-1 X24
C-O
C-M X17
R-1 X19
C-2 SP
R-3 X24
R-1
C-M
R-1
R-1
C-3 SP C-2
C-M
C-O X24
R-1
C-O
R-1 X24
® EXISTING COMBINING X19 DISTRICT

Attachment 3

Agenda Item 29

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 17, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Planning Division Fee Schedule Update
Recommendation: Conduct a Public Hearing to receive comments on a proposed Planning Fee Schedule Update and provide staff direction on bringing the item forward Fiscal Impact: A potential increase in cost recovery of approximately $118,000 annually.

Purpose:

To consider adjusting planning service fees recover City costs of providing services and to align with comparable services in the region.

Council’s Strategic Goals:

This item addresses Council’s Strategic Goal of Fiscal Responsibility.

Background:

The City’s Development Services Department provides necessary planning entitlement services to residents and developers within the City, through the Planning Division.

The Planning Fee Schedule is adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers on an annual basis along with the City’s Master Fee schedule. However, the last time that the planning fees were analyzed and adjusted to reflect cost recovery was in September 2001. In the time since, there have been significant changes in the development processes within the City and State, the cost of services, and the complexity of planning processes, which have contributed to a growing gap between the fees collected and the actual costs of providing planning services.

Analysis:

Staff reviewed the planning fees of ten (10) comparable cities. This review incorporated the City’s planning fees and compared them to both the mean and median planning fees in multiple entitlement categories. Yuba City’s current planning fees fall significantly below both the mean and median amounts in all categories analyzed.

Staff additionally analyzed the actual costs of staff time to identify the recommended proposed fee update amounts. The proposed fees will not fully recoup actual costs at application, however, with the

implementation of development, the City will receive long-term financial benefit through property taxes and potential sales tax dollars to offset original costs.

In addition to the proposed fee updates, Staff recommends deleting some categorical specifications under the planning entitlements, as well as adding in fees for Development Agreements, Administrative Permits, and an Undefined category. These changes are shown in the Proposed section of the Planning Fee Schedule attachment.

Staff requests input from Council regarding updating the Planning Fee Schedule, specifically related to cost recovery and implementation timelines. If Council desires to implement a fee update, Staff will bring back a Resolution and fee study with determined amounts and effective dates.

The Proposed Planning Fee Update Public Hearing was noticed in the newspaper on November 29 and December 6, 2024 and data made available to any interested parties at the City Clerk’s office.

Fiscal Impact:

In FY 2023-2024, the City collected approximately $117,000 in planning fees. If services provided stay consistent, the proposed Planning Fee Schedule will increase those fees by approximately $118,000, to total $235,000 per year.

Alternatives:

Provide Staff alternative direction related to updating Planning service fees.

Recommendation:

Conduct a Public Hearing to receive comments on a proposed Planning Fee Schedule Update and provide staff direction on bringing the item forward.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Proposed Planning Fee Schedule Update

2. Attachment 2 - Comparable Cities - Planning Fee Data

3. Attachment 3 - Proof of Publication - Public Hearing on Planning Fee Update Prepared By: Submitted By:

Shannon Sardo
Administrative Analyst
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

Effective (unless otherwise noted)
July 1, 2024
Feb 2023 CPI 3.2%
Fee Actual Costs Proposed Fee
General Plan Amendments Text and Map Changes 3,407.13 $ 12,459 $ 9,000 Master Plans New Plans Actual Costs + Advanced Funding Agreement Required $500 deposit and Actual Costs + Advanced Funding Agreement Specific Plans New Plans Actual Costs + Advanced Funding Agreement Required $500 deposit and Actual Costs + Advanced Funding Agreement Master/Specific Plan 3,407.13 Actual Costs + Advanced Funding Agreement Required (Text & Map)
Rezoning Map Change 3,407.13 $ 11,663 $ 8,000
Text Change 3,407.13 (delete)
Planned Developments 2,491.96 $ 12,663 $ 8,000
Land Divisions Subdivision Map 5,117.99 $ 14,394 $ 6,500 plus $29 per lot over 4
Parcel Map 1,831.80 $ 5,000
Parcel Map Revision 480.91 $ 1,800
Subdivision Map Revision 945.76 $ 1,800
Subdivision Map Time Extension 450.30 $ 1,000
Parcel Map Time Extension 450.30 $ 1,000
Lot Line Adjustment 1,036.13 $ 2,077 $ 1,500
plus $72 per lot over 2 (delete)
Urban Lot Split Fee 1,036.13 $ 2,677 $ 2,500
Certificate of Compliance 255.03 $ 750
Use Permits Major (all projects other than minor use permits) 2,027.09 $ 11,655 $ 6,000 Minor (related to single-family residence or duplex parking wavier, signs, temporary coaches) 826.27 $ 3,500 5,923 $ Minor Amendments 826.27 $ 1,200
Major Amendments 2,027.09 $ 1,500
Time Extensions Minor 614.97 $ 1,000
Major 614.97 $ 1,000
Development Plans City Council Review 4,217.39 $ 12,363 $ 6,000 Planning Commission Review 3,616.97 $ 3,500
Staff Review
Single Family, Duplex, Four-plex 59.75 (delete)
Multi-family Residence 135.52 (delete)
plus $6/unit over 4 (delete)
Commercial, Office 10,000 sq. ft. or less 285.63 (delete) Commercial, Office 10,000 sq. ft. or more 569.80 (delete) Industrial 10,000 sq. ft. or less 135.52 (delete)
Industrial 10,000 sq. ft. or more 285.63 (delete)
Time Extension 614.97 $ 1,000
City of Yuba City Fee Schedule
I. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING

Effective (unless otherwise noted)
July 1, 2024 City of Yuba City Fee Schedule
Feb 2023 CPI 3.2%
Fee Actual Costs Proposed Fee
Variances Single Family Residential 412.40 $ 2,000
Other 826.27 $ 8,595 $ 4,000
Zoning Clearance Zoning Clearances for Signs, Homes, Model Homes, and Telecommunications 59.75 $ 100
Special Event Signage 59.75 (delete)
plus $150 Deposit (delete)
Minor (parcel maps, variances, minor & major use permits 676.20 $ 700 Major (subdivisions, general plan amendments, rezoning, 1,336.33 $ 7,836 $ 4,500 Environmental Impact Reports Actual Costs Actual costs
Development Agreement
(New Fee) New $ 5,000
Amendment $ 3,500
Assignment (one developer to one developer) $ 1,000
Assignment (each developer) $ 1,250
Administrative Permits $ 1,000
Undefined $ 500 deposit +actual costs
(New Fee)
California Environmental Quality Act
I. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING

ATTACHMENT 2

General Plan Am Use Permits Environmental Review - N Appeals Planning Division Fees
-Comparable Cities
Yuba City $ 3,407.13 $ 2,027.09 $ 1,336.33 $ 931.24
Lincoln $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
Woodland $ 5,381.00 $ 3,776.00 $ 2,532.00 $ 326.00
Tulare $ 5,410.00 $ 5,133.00 $ 1,618.00 $ 1,118.00
Manteca $ 13,454.00 $ 9,291.00 $ 3,148.00
West Sacramento $ 8,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 100.00 (most are deposits with reimbursement agreement)Rocklin $ 15,269.00 $ 13,107.00 $ 7,298.00 $ 5,392.00 Lodi $ 5,802.00 $ 5,001.93 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,502.34Turlock $ 13,836.00 $ 10,821.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 550.00 Madera $ 6,225.00 $ 3,694.00 $ 488.00 $ 1,325.00
Davis $ 11,898.00 $ 6,141.00 $ 4,623.00 $ 256.00
MEAN $ 9,527.50 $ 7,196.49 $ 2,812.11 $ 1,671.73
MEDIAN $ 9,000.00 $ 5,637.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,221.50
1 STDEV below $ 5,668.11 $ 3,874.88 $ 749.32 $ (20.85)1 STDEV above $ 13,386.89 $ 10,518.10 $ 4,874.90 $ 3,364.32 =Outlier =Unsure Category

Planning Division Fees
CitiesYuba CityLincolnWoodlandTulareMantecaWest Sacramento(most are deposits with reimbuRocklinLodiTurlockMaderaDavisMEANMEDIAN1 STDEV below1 STDEV above Rezoning / Planned Development Variances Parcel Map Subdivision Map Lot Line Adjustment $ 412.40 3,407.13 $ 1,831.80 $ 5,117.99 $ 1,036.13 $ $ 5,000.00 10,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ $ 2,481.00 5,235.00 $ 2,897.00 $ 6,150.00 $ 471.00 $ $ 3,360.00 3,221.00 $ 2,639.00 $ 3,739.00 $ 1,227.00 $ $ 5,733.00 9,301.00 $ 12,299.00 $ 2,350.00 $ $ 4,000.00 8,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ $ 7,642.00 14,930.00 $ 18,087.00 $ 2,625.00 $ $ 1,502.33 7,120.80 $ 5,940.47 $ 5,802.00 $ 1,245.55 $ $ 3,104.00 8,300.00 $ 7,283.00 $ 7,283.00 $ 182.00 $ $ 2,963.00 6,225.00 $ 1,069.00 $ 4,538.00 $ 405.00 $ $ 7,933.00 5,116.00 $ 3,070.00 $ 3,070.00 $
$ 3,558.07 8,036.98 $ 4,832.72 $ 8,396.80 $ 1,510.15 $
$ 2,000.00 8,000.00 $ 5,733.00 $ 6,716.50 $ 1,622.78 $ $ 1,746.09 4,716.53 $ 2,529.62 $ 3,332.01 $ 507.15 $ $ 5,370.06 11,357.42 $ 7,135.82 $ 13,461.59 $ 2,513.16 $ $ 1,756.13 5,407.99 $

Planning Division Fees
CitiesYuba CityLincolnWoodlandTulareMantecaWest Sacramento(most are deposits with reimbuRocklinLodiTurlockMaderaDavisMEANMEDIAN1 STDEV below1 STDEV above Zoning Clearance Map Revision Time Extension (UP, DP, TPM, TSM) Admin Permits Certificate of Com $ 59.75 $ 480.91 $ 450.30 $ 255.03$ 300.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00$ 892.00 $ 3,932.00 $ 2,481.00 $ 369.00 $ 1,227.00 $ 576.00 $ 1,462.00 $ 1,036.00
$ 289.00 $ 2,668.00 $ 3,531.00 $ 1,169.00
$ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 600.00
$ 418.00 $ 5,913.00 $ 2,385.00 $ 2,273.00$ 375.86 $ 1,500.00 $ 375.86$ 90.00 $ 2,497.00 $ 963.00 $ 534.00 $ 1,594.00 $ 630.00
$ 729.00 $ 3,070.00 $ 2,016.00
$ 461.51 $ 1,988.99 $ 2,320.16 $ 1,479.21 $ 1,100.29
$ 375.86 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,045.50 $ 1,462.00 $ 1,036.00$ 138.63 $ 814.40 $ 509.05 $ 703.13 $ 344.04$ 784.39 $ 3,163.57 $ 4,131.28 $ 2,255.28 $ 1,856.54

ATTACHMENT 3

Agenda Item 30

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: December 17, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Planning Commission Representation
Recommendation: A. Receive staff information and presentation, then provide feedback and direction to staff; and

B. Initiate a Municipal Code amendment, changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws, and other recommended changes to update the composition of the Planning Commission from seven to five members with appointments to be made by individual City Council members coinciding with Council members’ individual districts
Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal impact will result from amending the Municipal Code to revise the standards discussed
Purpose:

To discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the Planning Commission composition to consider alignment with City Council districts.

Council’s Strategic Goal:

Consideration of updating the composition of the Planning Commission representation from at-large positions to appointments made by individual City Council members, that will include recently annexed areas into the City, addresses the City Council’s overarching goal of quality of life.

Background:

The Planning Commission was established by Ordinance No. 192, and this commences at Municipal Code Section 8-1.01.

Traditionally, the Planning Commission has been comprised of six at-large members of the community serving 4-year terms. A seventh member has traditionally been appointed by Sutter County and, similarly, the City has traditionally appointed a member to the County Planning Commission.

Districting laws in California have been put in place in an effort for governments to be more responsive to the communities' needs. In 2024, the City Council completed the process of transitioning from atlarge City Council representation to five individual districts. Consistent with recent action by the City to

establish individual council districts, staff seeks direction regarding the consideration of updating the composition of the Planning Commission to align with Council districts.

Analysis:

Transitioning from at large representation to district representation would change the composition of the Planning Commission to a five-member Commission where each City Council district would have representation. Should the City Council decide to follow this approach, continuing to include Sutter County representation would result in a sixth member. This could potentially result in tie votes, and this is not recommended. As a result of this potential scenario, should the City Council decide to transition to a five-member Planning Commission, it is recommended Council consider how the Planning Commissioners be selected and discontinuing the representation from Sutter County due to state and local changes to provide representation from established community districts.

There are currently three Planning Commission seats that have terms ending on February 27, 2025.

One additional seat is currently vacant with a term ending in 2027.

Should the City Council determine to initiate a Municipal Code amendment to transition to a fivemember Planning Commission, staff will begin coordinating necessary code and bylaw amendments to bring before the City Council at a future date for implementation. Consideration of existing Planning Commissioners and timeliness to minimize impacts to the public will be included in the analysis.

Fiscal Impact:

No direct fiscal impact will result from amending the Municipal Code to potentially revise the composition of the Planning Commission.

Alternatives:

The City Council may decide not to initiate a change to amend the composition of the Planning Commission or may provide alternative guidance to staff concerning this issue.

Recommendations:

A. Receive staff information and presentation, then provide feedback and direction to staff; and

B. Initiate a Municipal Code amendment, changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws, and other recommended changes to update the composition of the Planning Commission from seven to five members with appointments to be made by individual City Council members coinciding with Council members’ individual districts.

Attachments:

1. City Council Districts Map
Prepared By: Submitted By:

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

Attachment 1
























!
"#

$
%
&
'("

$
"$

&
#$
$
 

'(

&
#$
$
&


$

#!
$
# #&"$
$
#
 '!
#
'$


#

'
$


$
"

"
&$ 
&
"
$

&
$
!
&
"$




#&'
$
 

#& 
"$
&


$
'
$
%
&
$

$#!

#&'
$
"

$


!

#

$
*+,-.

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

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

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