Yuba City City Council
January 21, 2025

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE YUBA CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040

CITY OF YUBA

1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
November 2024 Page 9
foreseeable incremental contribution” to the effects of climate change need be evaluated, and that lead agencies need not and should not speculate.
- The second sentence clarifies that a project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions.
- The third sentence requires lead agencies to consider a timeframe for the analysis that is appropriate for the project, perhaps driven by a project’s intended life or by the length of time over which it will be implemented.
- The fourth sentence clarifies that a lead agency’s analysis must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes so as to “stay in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.”
Subsection (b)(3) was amended to clarify that in determining the significance of a project’s impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is consistent with those plans, goals, or strategies. As the Court stated in Center for Biological Diversity v.

Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 227, lead agencies must establish through substantial evidence “a quantitative equivalence” between a given statewide plan’s comparison and the EIR’s project-level comparison.

Subsection (c) mainly reflects language previously located in subsection (a)(1) regarding a lead agency’s discretion to select a model or methodology to quantify emissions. The Agency meant to clarify that models play a role not only in estimating a project’s greenhouse gas emissions, but also in determining baseline emissions and applying thresholds. As noted by the Agency when a single quantitative method is used, the lead agency must research and document the quantitative parameters essential to that method. (Center for Biological Diversity v.

Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 228
SB 32 SB 32 requires that California Air Resources Board (CARB) in its next update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan “ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030” (new Health and Safety Code Section 38566).

SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state
As mentioned, this regulation does not directly affect GHG impacts but rather directs CARB to set GHG thresholds of significance with SB 32. It is up to the lead

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE YUBA CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040

CITY OF YUBA

1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR

While not a CEQA bill, SB 32 relates to CEQA in that the 2030 target will also carry over to CEQA analyses and the CARB’s emissions reduction target will figure into GHG thresholds of significance for CEQA documents at the lead agency level.
agency to establish thresholds for GHG impacts. Additionally, the General Plan EIR has already assessed GHG impacts as noted above.

Wildfire
Amendments
to the CEQA
Guidelines
2019 A new Section XX has been added to Appendix G to address the need to evaluate wildfire impacts. This section focuses on whether projects located in or near state responsibility areas (where the state has financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires), or lands classified as very high fire severity zones by local agencies, would:
- “Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;”
- “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;”
- “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;” or
- “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.” CalFire publishes Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for all regions.

Lead agencies and project proponents can review the CalFire maps to determine whether a given project site will be subject to the new CEQA wildfire impacts analysis.

According to CALFIRE mapping, portions of Yuba City are within a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) (CALFIRE 2007).

Although the 2004 EIR does not analyze impacts in regard to wildfire, the City’s existing Safety Element and 2007 Sutter County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) addressed wildfire impacts for the City of Yuba.

The Sutter County MHMP states that wildfire was of limited concern to Yuba City since the city had no history of large damaging fires and considered moderately vulnerable to wildfires. No further analysis was conducted (Sutter 2007, pg. 221). Since the city is mapped as Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone, then the analysis in the Sutter County MHP would still apply.

The existing Safety Element provides information for the protection of the community from unreasonable risk associated with the effects of wildland and urban fires. The Safey Element included policies that would address wildfire impacts such as Policy 9.4-I-1 which states to maintain the fire department performance objectives and response standards for structure and wildland fires; Policy 9.4-I-6 which reviewed proposed development for compliance with adopted fire safety standards and staffing ratios; Policy 9.4-I-7 which states to conduct building and fire code enforcement to ensure safe structures; and Policy 9.4-I-8 which requires to extend water distribution pipes to maintain and improve fire water flows.

The proposed Safety Element acknowledges low wildfire risk in Yuba City, but drier weather and climate change are expected to increase wildfires in Sutter County and surrounding areas. The proposed Safety Element would include similar and additional policies aimed at reducing wildfire impacts. Impact 3.10b in the General Plan EIR analyzes if new development would interference with an existing emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Impact 3.11a and 3.11b in the General Plan EIR analyzes if new development in Yuba City could be subject to the effects of geologic hazards.

As a result, there is no new information of substantial importance that the General Plan update would result in any of the conditions of CEQA Guidelines section 15162(3) being triggered with regarding to wildfire impacts.

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE YUBA CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040

CITY OF YUBA

1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
November 2024 Page 11
SB 1260 2018 SB 1260 establishes additional requirements for local general plans and subdivisions relative to regulating new development in very high hazardous fire areas and the review of safety elements, regulatory standards, and subdivision maps by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. This bill provides that the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Vegetation Treatment Program Programmatic EIR, when certified, will serve as the programmatic environmental document for prescribed fires initiated by a third party authorized by CalFire.

This would not affect Yuba City as the city is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designated by CalFire. (See discussion, above.) SB 1241 2013 SB 1241 amends the general plan safety element requirements for state responsibility areas (SRAs) and very high fire hazard severity zones and require the safety element, at the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, and thereafter upon each revision of the housing element, to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire in SRAs and very high fire hazard severity zones, considering specified considerations. SB 1241 requires OPR, on or after January 1, 2013, in cooperation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency recommended proposed amendments to the Initial Study checklist for the inclusion of questions related to fire hazard impacts for projects in SRAs and very high fire hazard severity zones. The Secretary will be required to adopt revisions to the Initial Study checklist in this regard.

This would not affect Yuba City as the city is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designated by CalFire. (See discussion, above.) Housing/Land Use
AB 1739 This bill is part of the 2014 groundwater management legislation package (other bills are SB 1168 and SB 1319) and addresses the formation and responsibility of “groundwater sustainability agencies.” Water Code Section 10736.2 establishes a new statutory exemption for “any action or failure to act” by the State Water Resources Control Board under its authority to review proposed groundwater sustainability plans and to designate a basin as a probationary basin.

CEQA would still apply to the adoption or amendment of an interim plan pursuant to Section 10735.8.

Provides CEQA exemptions for the preparation and adoption of GSPs As the proposed project is a General Plan Update, this regulation does not apply, nor does it affect impacts.

The GP EIR analyzes groundwater under Impact 3-6a and 3-6b which both determined that the buildout from the existing General Plan would not result in significant impacts to groundwater resources.

Given the proposed project would not result in land use changes nor an increase in population for the planning horizon year of 2040, the impacts determined in the General Plan EIR would be adequate for the proposed project. As a result, any impacts of the proposed General Plan update would be qualitatively not more than, or less than, that previously assessed, the project will not have a more significant effect than previously assessed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan
SB 1000 2016 Requiring local governments to identify environmental justice communities (called “disadvantaged communities” or “DACs”) in their jurisdictions and address environmental justice in their general plans. This new law has several purposes, including to facilitate transparency and public engagement in local governments’ planning and decision making processes, reduce harmful pollutants and the associated health The 2040 General Plan Update includes goals, policies, and objectives prioritizing improvements and programs to address the needs of DACs, particularly as they pertain to the following: civic engagement, food access, safe and sanitary housing, physical activity, pollution exposure, public facilities, and unique and compound health risks.

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE YUBA CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040

CITY OF YUBA

1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR

risks in environmental justice communities, and promote equitable access to health-inducing benefits, such as healthy food options, housing, public facilities, and recreation.The inclusion of this Element would not either be part of a project subject to CEQA, or would be the communication and outreach requirements leading to a future action, the policies, actions, and goals. As such, it would not result in physical environmental impacts, would not result in any of the conditions of CEQA Guidelines section 15162(3) being met, and as a result no additional analysis is required by this Addendum.

November 2024 Page 13

2. CEQA Analysis

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project contains policies related to agriculture, land use, circulation, climate change, housing, conservation, open space, economic development, historic resources, community design, environmental justice, air quality, noise, and safety. While the proposed update will incorporate the Housing Element approved as part of the most recent review cycle, the Housing Element has already been environmentally assessed through an Addendum to the General Plan EIR and no changes are being proposed to the same, and the proposed project will be consistent with the adopted Housing Element. The General Plan is largely designed to be selfmitigating by incorporating policies and implementation programs that address and mitigate environmental impacts related to implementing the General Plan.

As depicted in Table 1-1, the proposed project’s projected population in 2040 is104,740. The existing General Plan’s projected population in 2025 was projected to be 108,377. According to the Department of Finance (DOF), the Yuba City Sphere of Influence (SOI), including the City of Yuba City and surrounding unincorporated areas, contained approximately 89,437 people as of 2023 (DOF 2023). As described in greater detail, above, the current (2023) and proposed (2040) population for the City and SOI are both below what is analyzed in the General Plan EIR, impacts analyzed under the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. While plan-to-plan analysis is generally not used, in this context it is appropriate because the growth anticipated in the existing General Plan and evaluated in the EIR has not yet materialized and will remain below the original projections. Therefore, the analysis in the EIR that anticipated development remains valid because the projected population with the proposed project is below the originally projected figures. Additionally, the policies and ordinances included with the existing General Plan remain in place to mitigate the impacts of the proposed project. Similarly, the development standards adopted to implement the existing General Plan that would help with drainage, road development, noise, dust control, and other construction impacts also remain in place and would apply to the proposed project. As a result, any impacts of the proposed General Plan update would be qualitatively less, the project will not have a more significant effect than previously assessed in the General Plan EIR, none of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(a)(1-3), and an addendum is warranted consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15164(a).

Table 1-2 provides a high-level overview of CEQA changes that have occurred since the adoption of the Yuba City General Plan EIR and certification of the General Plan EIR. Table 1-2 also provides analysis of these changes in regard to the proposed project. As shown in Table 1-2 the changes to CEQA since certification of the EIR would not significantly affect the proposed project or the impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE YUBA CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040

CITY O F YUBA

2. CEQA Analysis

2.2 FINDINGS
The discussion in this addendum confirms that the proposed project has been evaluated for significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. The discussion is meaningfully different than a determination that a project is “exempt” from CEQA review because the proposed General Plan Update is not exempt. Rather, the determination here is that the General Plan Update does not require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts or substantial increases to the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts. Among others, this is because the proposed update is focused on refining and refreshing policy issues to be consistent with the latest requirements and practice standards and does not propose changes to land use or other items that could have an impact greater than that which has already been fully assessed. Furthermore, future development projects facilitated by the General Plan Update would continue to be subject to the requirements of CEQA as to any project-level environmental review that may be required. In addition, the General Plan Update’s projected population for the horizon year is less than the projected population described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the General Plan EIR provides a sufficient and adequate analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan.

There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. The proposed project consists entirely of land uses permitted by project sites’ existing General Plan land use designation and zoning and represents no change from the impacts that were assumed and analyzed by the General Plan EIR.

As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 allowing the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum. This EIR addendum has been prepared accordingly.

The following identifies the standards set forth in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines as they relate to the proposed project.

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

No substantial changes are being proposed in the project as contemplated by this standard. Instead, this project merely proposes refinements to address the latest legal requirements and refreshes policies best practices for general plans, etc. As described in Table 1-2, which highlights and evaluates these refinements within the context of CEQA, these changes in law and best practices are not “substantial” as compared to the existing General Plan. Any modifications to an element that could potentially result in additional physical impacts to the environment (such as changes to land use, intensity of development, and potential resulting effects on noise, traffic, air quality, GHG, agricultural land conversion, etc.) are simply not present here. Instead, the proposed refinements essentially maintain at or below the existing status quo regarding environmental impacts. Further, there

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE YUBA CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040

CITY OF YUBA

2. CEQA Analysis
November 2024 Page 15
are no new significant environmental effects that were not previously assessed in the General Plan EIR. Given that the proposed project is not proposing substantial changes, the update would not result in physical changes more substantial than those already assessed, then no major revisions of the General Plan EIR are required.

Likewise, the proposed refinements would not result in the severity of any previously identified significant effects that were assessed in the General Plan EIR.

2. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified shows:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

As previously discussed, the proposed project would result in a smaller, less impactful, population and resulting buildout as compared to that currently anticipated by the current General Plan. This means that the proposed refinements would qualitatively result in environmental impacts at or below the existing status quo. These status quo effects have already been discussed and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the update to the General Plan will have one or more significant effects not previously assessed in the General Plan EIR. b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

As previously discussed, the proposed project does not introduce new changes to land use, population, intensity of development, or other items which could have a substantially more sever impact. Instead, the proposed refinements would result in a reduction of approximately 3,600 people as part of the resulting buildout. Given the General Plan EIR analyzed a greater population and impacts, the proposed refinements would qualitatively result in environmental impacts at or below those assessed in the General Plan EIR. Further, there is no substantial evidence that any of the significant effects previously examined would be more severe than as shown in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the assessment impacts in the General Plan EIR are adequate for the proposed project as contemplated by CEQA.
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The 2004 General Plan did have mitigation and alternatives determined to be infeasible. With regard to alternatives, the “no project” alternative was not found to be not feasible in the EIR. The “no project” alternative remains infeasible for not only the reasons previously identified by the City when approving the General Plan in 2004, but also because there has been intervening development consistent with the 2004 General Plan and i) it is now not reasonably feasible to turn back time to original “no project” development under the prior (pre 2004) General Plan; and ii) the current “no project” would be to retain the existing 2004 General Plan which would not result in a General Plan consistent with state law. The same logic applies to Sketch Plan Alternative A and Sketch Plan Alternative B, both of which were identified as more environmentally impactful than the proposed 2004 General Plan. (See General Plan EIR p. 4-17.) The proposed project does not make any land use or policy changes that would reduce the environmental impacts to either Alternative A or Alternative B as

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE YUBA CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040

CITY O F YUBA

2. CEQA Analysis

evaluated in the General Plan EIR to a level where adopting them would make sense. There were no other alternatives identified in the General Plan EIR and as noted in this Addendum, there are no changes to the General Plan in the proposed project that would result in the need for a new alternative.

Additionally, the General Plan EIR acknowledged significant, unavoidable impacts created by full implementation of the General Plan for the relative degradation of air quality in the immediate Yuba City area and the loss of agricultural land. While several policies and other items served to reduce the impacts, no specific proposed mitigation was identified which was then found to be infeasible. General findings were made that no additional mitigation was feasible. (See General Plan EIR, p. 3-48, 3-83.) Regardless, nothing has changed that would now render mitigation measures and alternatives feasible for the refinement to the General Plan for all of the same reasons previously identified by the City as part of approval of the General Plan and its EIR. As a result, the analysis for this item has been satisfied.. d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Likewise, any such mitigation or alternatives would not reduce one or more significant effects of the significant impacts on agricultural or air quality. The proposed project would have the same, or slightly reduced significant impacts as the previously certified General Plan EIR, and all associated policies and mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all future development and have the same mitigating effect. As previously noted, this project merely proposes refinements to address the latest legal requirements and refreshes policies best practices for general plans, etc., while maintaining the same underlying land uses or otherwise reducing environmental impacts as compared to the existing General Plan. There would be no new significant impacts resulting from adoption of the General Plan Update; therefore, there would be no new mitigation measures or alternatives required for the proposed project.

ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE YUBA CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2040

CITY OF YUBA

2. CEQA Analysis
November 2024 Page 17

2.3 REFERENCES
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA – Sutter County. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6829/fhszl06_1_map51.pdf.

Department of Finance (DOF). 2023 (accessed). Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2023, with Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020- 2023/.

Sutter, County of. 2007. Sutter County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan – Section 4.3 Jurisdictional Elements. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_239174/File/Public%20Works/Engineering/Technical%20Documents/Multi-Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan/MultiHazardSection43JurisdictionalElements.pdf Yuba, City of. 2004. Yuba City General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2001072105). ______.2024. Yuba City General Plan Update.

Agenda Item 20

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: January 21, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: City Wide Traffic Demand Model Update
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Travel Demand Model Development Report, dated October 2020 prepared by Fehr & Peers, updating the City’s Travel Demand Model for General Plan Buildout conditions
Fiscal Impact: No immediate fiscal impacts are associated with this item. Costs for determined transportation improvements will be further analyzed and considered with a future update to the City’s Road Impact Fee Nexus Study Purpose:

To implement a comprehensive update of the City’s travel demand model and Transportation Element of the General Plan to reflect changes and policies over the past two decades.

Council’s Strategic Goals:

This item supports Council’s Strategic Goals of Fiscal Responsibility and Infrastructure by ensuring that development constructs the appropriate roadway network to align with projected City growth.

Background:

An accurate, updated traffic model is very important to the City because it establishes the foundation for roadway and circulation needs to ensure that the City is systematically developing and constructing transportation infrastructure that aligns with the City’s ultimate needs.

On March 5, 2019, Council authorized a professional services agreement with Fehr & Peers, a transportation consulting firm, to update the City's travel demand model.

Analysis:

The Travel Demand Model Development Report, dated October 2020 prepared by Fehr & Peers (Attachment 2) analyzed the current City Sphere of Influence, including the Bogue Stewart Master Plan and the prior Lincoln East Specific Plan areas to reflect changes to land uses and transportation needs.

City staff, in conjunction with the consultant, have thoroughly coordinated to update the City-wide travel demand model utilizing the best available data and criteria to meet the City’s General Plan growth projections, key items of consideration in the report included:

• “Right” sizing roadways to avoid overdevelopment, which leads to higher costs to construct, maintenance, and unnecessary speeds.
• Updating the City’s growth boundary and land uses to reflect changes to the General Plan over the last two decades.
• Determining new data and criteria to align with new State laws to evaluate vehicle miles traveled, in addition to level of service criteria.

The resulting lane numbers and functional classification of the proposed roadway network are shown in Attachment 3. Staff has been utilizing the Travel Demand Model Report when analyzing new development since completion in 2020, with the report being the best available data for consideration.

With the finalization of the General Plan Amendment, which includes updating the Circulation Element to reflect the Travel Demand Model findings, and with the report planned to be utilized as the basis for a future Road Impact Fee Nexus Study, staff recommends formally adopting the report.

Fiscal Impact:

No immediate fiscal impacts are associated with adopting the updated traffic model. However, the roadway network determined creates the basis for calculating Road Development Impact Fees. With the traffic model update, there are immediate changes that will affect costs, including the addition of areas in the Bogue Stewart Master Plan and lane number reductions where it has been determined that revised growth projections and vehicle miles traveled do not require the number of additional lanes in certain areas, to better align with actual needs.

Staff is currently coordinating an update to the Road Development Impact Fee Nexus study for ultimate Council consideration. Public Workshops to provide information and policy direction are anticipated to occur over the next few months.

Alternatives:

1. Do not adopt the traffic demand model update. This may lead to development delays associated with determining necessary infrastructure, financial, and environmental needs.

2. Delay or modify recommended action.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Travel Demand Model Development Report, dated October 2020 prepared by Fehr & Peers, updating the City’s Travel Demand Model for General Plan Buildout conditions.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution - Traffic Model Update Adoption

2. Exhibit 1A - Travel Demand Model Development Report

3. Attachment 2 - Lane Numbers and Functional Classification Exhibit Prepared By: Submitted By:

Benjamin K. Moody
Public Works and Development Services Director
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

ACCEPTING THE TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT REPORT UPDATING THE CITY’S TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL AND UPDATING THE GENERAL PLAN

TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND ASSOCIATED ROADWAY NETWORK
WHEREAS, an accurate, updated traffic model is very important to the City because it establishes the foundation for roadway and circulation needs to ensure that the City is systematically developing and constructing transportation infrastructure that aligns with the City’s ultimate needs; and,
WHEREAS, the City has contracted with Fehr & Peers, a transportation consulting firm, for the development of the City’s travel demand model update; and WHEREAS, the Travel Demand Model Development Report, dated October 2020 prepared by Fehr & Peers (Exhibit A) analyzed the current City sphere of influence to reflect land use and transportation needs and changes; and
WHEREAS, City staff, in conjunction with Fehr & Peers, has thoroughly coordinated to update the City-wide travel demand model to provide the best available data and criteria to meet the City’s General Plan growth projections and criteria; and WHEREAS, the travel demand model update includes “right” sizing roadways to avoid overdevelopment, updating the City’s growth boundary and land uses to reflect changes to the General Plan over the last two decades, and determining new data and criteria to align with new State laws.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Yuba City as follows:

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

2. The City Council does hereby accept the Travel Demand Model Development Report, dated October 2020 prepared by Fehr & Peers, updating the City’s Travel Demand Model for General Plan Buildout conditions.

3. The City Council does hereby update the General Plan Transportation Element and associated Roadway Network, to reflect the updated Travel Demand Model Development Report determinations for roadway network functional classifications and number of travel lanes required for Buildout conditions.

4. The City Council has concurrently approved an Addendum to the 2004 General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2001072105) as part of the 2040 General Plan update. The 2040 General Plan included an update to the Circulation Element, which encompassed the travel demand model update. As such further CEQA is not required, as CEQA has been completed for this project.

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 21st day of January, 2025.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Dave Shaw, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit(s):

A. Exhibit 1A – Travel Demand Model Development Report

EXHIBIT 1A

City of Yuba City
Travel Demand Model Development Report
October 2020
Prepared By:

Prepared for

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
1 I. Base Year Model Development
To develop the updated base year (2020) travel demand model, Fehr & Peers began with the current version of the City’s model and then made land use and roadway network adjustments. The base year model was originally developed to match 2004 conditions, but has since been updated occasionally by Fehr & Peers for project-level evaluations (e.g., El Margarita Master Plan). The following describes the process undertaken to update this model to a new 2020 (pre-COVID) base year.

The City of Yuba City travel demand model is a traditional three-step model (trip generation, distribution, assignment) that covers the entire City. The model includes the entirety of the City as well as City of Marysville portions of unincorporated Sutter County and Yuba County. It includes State Route 99, State Route 20, Highway 65 and Highway 70. It includes 21 “external gateways”, which represent roads, highways, and freeways that extend beyond the model limits.
2020 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT
Several adjustments to the model’s traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure were initially made to reflect best practices in terms of TAZ boundaries, size, and centroid connections. Refer to Appendix A for TAZ map. The model’s trip generation, distribution, and assignment modules were left unchanged because those procedures are were found to still be valid (based on validation statistics presented later in this chapter).

The approach for developing existing (2020) land uses within the City of Yuba City was to collect a variety of available data, and then review/interpret/analyze this data. The following sources were used to estimate the residential dwelling units and occupied non-residential space within the City limits. • Previous Base Year (2004) Yuba City travel demand model – data from this model was used for a variety of land use categories that have not likely changed much. This includes golf courses, mall, cemetery, hospitals, convention centers, fairgrounds, and parks. This data source is also used to compare the 2020 totals with 2004 land uses for reasonableness. It also provides helpful data regarding land use totals in more established areas of the City. • Other Sources – Aerial imagery from Google Earth was reviewed and drive-by investigations were performed to confirm built / occupied buildings in various parts of the City. Additionally, investigations were conducted to determine the proper designation for several developed land use parcels, as to whether they were best classified as light industrial or office.

To confirm the accuracy of the 2020 land use totals, control total checks were made against the following sources:
• 2018 ACS – the most recent American Community Survey (2018)1 estimates that the City of Yuba City has 24,071 housing units. Of this, almost 77 percent were single unit residents (attached and detached).
1 American Community Survey Data Table

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
2 • LEHD Data – the most recent Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data estimates that there were 19,181 primary jobs (21,122 total jobs) located within the City of Yuba City in 20172.

A job density map indicated the greatest density of jobs were located along the State Route 20 corridor between Walton Avenue and Gray Avenue. The work location and home locations of the workers in Yuba City map shows that 35 percent of those employed within Yuba City live within the City limits.

Table 1 displays the existing (2020) land use totals within the City of Yuba City for key categories including single-family housing, multi-family housing, retail, mall, office, light industrial, and school uses.

TABLE 1: YUBA CITY LAND USE TOTALS UNDER EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS Land Use Category Unit Yuba City
Residential Single-Family Residential DU 18,468
Multi-Family Residential DU 5,134
Schools
Elementary School Students 7,380
Middle School Students 1,360
High School Students 3,700
Other School Students 1,263
Retail
Neighborhood Commercial KSF 592
Community Commercial KSF 3,565
Regional Commercial KSF 1,235
Non-Retail
Office KSF 1,126
Light Industrial KSF 4,681
Manufacture 1 KSF 0
PQP KSF 230
Notes:
1 Base year model classifies manufacturing uses as light industrial. ksf = thousand square feet of occupied space. du = dwelling unit.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020
Key findings from this table include the following:
• The 23,602 total dwelling units shown in Table 5 is 469 units less than the 2018 ACS total. This discrepancy of about two percent is fairly common when reviewing model land uses against control totals, and may be explained by timing of new construction, categorization of areas as within versus outside the City limits, and small errors in unit totals in individual TAZs. • Of the 23,602 total dwelling units, an estimated 78 percent are single-family, which closely matches the ACS estimate of 77 percent.
2 On the Map LEHD Data

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
3 Table 2 presents an estimate of the number of persons employed within the City of Yuba City based on the model’s land use input. For each category, a typical employee unit yield is assumed. For schools, a value of 2,298 persons is shown based on employment by type data from the US Census. This table shows that the employee yield estimate is within one percent of the US Census value (for all jobs). It should be noted that the City’s model uses building area (represented in thousand square feet, or ksf) versus employees as a land use input.

Among primary jobs within the City of Yuba City, 61 percent pay less than $40,000 per year according to the US Census. The top five most common job types are:
• Health Care and Social Assistance
• Retail Trade
• Accommodation and Food Services
• Educational Services
• Public Administration
The City of Yuba City has an overall jobs-housing ratio of 0.88 (based on the 24,071 total dwelling units and 21,122 total jobs). As is discussed later, substantial proportions of Yuba City residents commute outside the City while substantial proportions of persons who work within the City limits commute from outside it.

TABLE 2: YUBA CITY EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATE UNDER EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS Land Use Category Amount Unit Value Estimates Total Employees Retail
Neighborhood Commercial 592 @2 per ksf 1,184
Community Commercial 3,565 @2 per ksf 7,130
Regional Commercial 1,235 @2 per ksf 2,470
Non-Retail
Office 1,126 @ 3 per ksf 3,378
Light Industrial 4,681 @ 1 per ksf 4,681
PQP 230 ksf @ 1 per ksf 203
Educational Institutions 13,703 students 2,2981 2,2981
Total Employees Based on Unit Values 21,371
Primary Jobs in Yuba City (2017)1 19,181
All Jobs in Yuba City (2017)1 21,122
Notes: 1 US Census Bureau, 2017
ksf = thousand square feet of occupied space
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
4 ROADWAY NETWORK DEVELOPMENT
The 2020 base year roadway network was developed from the previous 2004 base year network. Where necessary, adjustments to the number of lanes, capacities, free-flow speeds, and permitted turning movements (particularly for centroid connections to TAZs) were made to the model to replicate current conditions. The following sources were used to verify roadway network • Aerial imagery, Google Earth and Open streets maps
• Field Visits
• Regional Centerline file, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Figure 1 shows the number of travel lanes and functional class of existing roadways within the City. Figure 2 displays the existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on these streets as well as portions of State Route 20 and

99. MODEL VALIDATION
Model validation is the term used to describe model performance in terms of how closely the model’s output matches existing travel data in the base year. The extent to which model outputs match existing travel data validates the assumptions of the inputs. This section presents the results of those validation tests for the updated City of Yuba City base year (2020) travel demand model. The intent is for the model to be validated so that it accurately predicts conditions in 2020, for a pre-COVID condition.

Traditionally, most model validation guidelines have focused on the performance of the trip assignment function in accurately assigning trips to the roadway network. This metric is called static validation, and it remains the most common means of measuring model accuracy.

Models, however, are seldom used solely for static applications. By far the most common use of models is to forecast how a change in inputs would result in a change in traffic conditions. Therefore, another test of a model’s accuracy focuses on the model’s ability to predict realistic differences in outputs as inputs are changed. This method is referred to as dynamic validation. This section describes the results of both the static and dynamic validation tests.

Static Validation
The 2010 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Guidelines specify that travel demand models to be used in the preparation of RTPs should undergo a series of diagnostic tests to determine their ability to accurately estimate traffic volumes and other travel parameters. Fehr & Peers interprets this guidance to also extend to travel demand models being developed for other purposes such as fee programs, CIPs, LOS policy development, infrastructure studies, etc. In accordance with this guidance, the model’s performance was evaluated using criteria described in the Caltrans Travel Forecasting Guidelines, 1992, Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, 1997, and Fehr & Peers’ internal standards. In particular, the following validation measures were evaluated:

Garden Hwy
Pease Rd
SWalton Ave
STownship Rd
S GeorgeWash ni gton Blvd
NWalton Ave
Tierra Buena Rd
Riverside Dr
Richland Rd
Railroad Ave
Cal rk Ave
El Margarita Rd
BridgeSt
Queens Ave
Stabler Ln
N GeorgeWashington Blvd
HarterPky
Tharp Rd
Gray Ave
Butte House Rd
SWalton Ave
Live Oak Blvd
Lincoln Rd
Franklin Rd
Bogue Rd
PlumasSt
Hooper Rd
Railroad Ave
E OnstottFrontage Rd
Stewart Rd
Western Pkwy
ShastaSt
SutterSt SecondSt
Feather River
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 4
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 6 6
2 2
2 2 4 2
4 4
4 2
2 4
2 2
2 4
4 2
5 4
Feather River

YUBA CITY

MARYSVILLE
\\Fpsa03.fpainc.local\Data\2019 Projects\3764.00_CONF_Yuba_City_Impact_Fee_Study_Model_Update\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig01_FClass.mxd Number of Lanes
and Functional Classification -
Existing Conditions
Figure 1
∙þ99
∙þ20
X Roadway Number of Lanes
(Excluding turn pockets or
center turn lanes)
Functional Classification
Freeway
Parkway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Highway

° °
°
°
°
°
°
° °
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
Garden Hwy
Pease Rd
S Walton Ave
S Township Rd
S George Washington Blvd
N Walton Ave
Tierra Buena Rd
Riverside Dr
Richland Rd Railroad Ave Clark Ave
El Margarita Rd
Bridge St
Queens Ave
Stabler Ln
N George Washington Blvd
Harter Pky
Tharp Rd
Gray Ave
Butte House Rd
S Walton Ave
Live Oak Blvd
Lincoln Rd
Franklin Rd
Bogue Rd
Plumas St
Hooper Rd
Railroad Ave
E Onstott Frontage Rd
Stewart Rd
Western Pkwy
Shasta St
Sutter St
Second St
7,200
9,100 5,200
6,500
3,500
5,500
9,700
7,200
8,500
10,300
11,380
16,100 13,600
14,100
19,200
13,700
17,800
11,700
10,100
13,000
11,900
10,800
22,800
15,800
13,800
19,300
15,800
58101
29770
20,040
20,160
12,820
Feather River
Feather River

YUBA CITY

MARYSVILLE
\\Fpsa03.fpainc.local\Data\2019 Projects\3764.00_CONF_Yuba_City_Impact_Fee_Study_Model_Update\Graphics\GIS\MXD\ADT.mxd Average Daily Traffic Volumes -
Existing Conditions
° Average Daily Traffic Volume Location
Figure 2
∙þ99
∙þ20
x,xxx Average Daily Traffic Volume
Note: Traffic counts collected in March and April, 2019 while schools were in session.

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
7 • Volume-to-Count Ratio – Divides the model volume by the actual traffic count for individual roadways throughout the model.
• Percent of Links Within Caltrans Deviation Allowance – Calculated as the difference between the model and actual traffic count divided by the actual traffic count. Result is then evaluated against prescribed deviation thresholds.
• Correlation Coefficient – estimates the correlation (strength and direction of the linear relationship) between the actual traffic counts and the estimated volumes from the model. • Percent Root Mean Square Error (% RMSE) – is the square root of the model volume minus the actual count squared divided by the number of counts. It is a measure similar to standard deviation in that it assesses the accuracy of the entire model.

The model validation tests are performed for Daily, AM and PM peak hour conditions for a typical weekday in which schools are in session. Fehr & Peers identified 27 roadway segments within the City of Yuba City and six segments of SR 99 and SR 20 for use in the validation tests. The segments on City streets consist primarily of arterial roadways, which are situated at the City entry/exit points, across geographic boundaries (e.g., railroad or freeway overpasses), or on otherwise critical travel corridors throughout the City (e.g., overcrossings). Appendix A displays the existing weekday Daily, AM and PM peak hour volume on each segment based on traffic counts collected in Spring 2019. For each segment, the predicted traffic volume from the base year traffic model is also shown.

Table 3 displays the results of the Daily, AM and PM peak hour validation tests including the applicable criteria for acceptance (see Appendix A for detailed calculations). As shown, the City of Yuba City (2020) base year travel demand model passes all three validation tests that have measurable acceptance criteria for the Daily, AM and PM peak hour model network.

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
8 TABLE 3: BASE YEAR TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL VALIDATION TESTS Validation Test Criteria for Acceptance 1 City of Yuba City (2020) Base Year Traffic Model
Daily Model Validation
Volume-to-Count Ratio Not Defined 0.98
Percent of Links Within Allowable Deviation ≥ 75% 100%
Correlation Coefficient ≥ 0.88 0.98
Percent Root Mean Squared Error (%RMSE) ≤ 40% 15%
AM Peak Hour Model Validation
Volume-to-Count Ratio Not Defined 0.97
Percent of Links Within Allowable Deviation ≥ 75% 97%
Correlation Coefficient ≥ 0.88 0.95
Percent Root Mean Squared Error (%RMSE) ≤ 40% 21%
PM Peak Hour Model Validation
Volume-to-Count Ratio Not Defined 0.98
Percent of Links Within Allowable Deviation ≥ 75% 97%
Correlation Coefficient ≥ 0.88 0.96
Percent Root Mean Squared Error (%RMSE) ≤ 40% 20%
Notes:
1 Source of acceptance criteria is Travel Forecasting Guidelines, Caltrans, 1992. 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines for Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, Caltrans, 2017 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020

DYNAMIC VALIDATION
Static validation provides information on a model’s ability to reproduce a static condition. However, the most common use of models is to forecast how a change in inputs would result in a change in traffic conditions. Dynamic validation tests, recommended in the 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, evaluate a model’s response to changing inputs. The results of dynamic validation tests are inspected for reasonableness relative to the direction and magnitude of change.

Land Use Tests
The Yuba City Model has been developed, in part, to be used as a tool to evaluate land use scenarios in planning efforts such as EIRs, City General Plan Updates, etc. The specific dynamic validation tests completed for this model update are listed below.
• Add 10 and 100 dwelling units to a TAZ
• Add 10,000 and 100,000 square feet of retail to a TAZ • Remove 10 and 100 dwelling units from a TAZ

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
9 • Remove 10,000 and 100,000 square feet of retail from a TAZ The key model output variables involved in the dynamic validation tests are vehicle trips generated and vehicle miles of travel (VMT). These tests are intended to reveal whether the model output changes in the correct direction and magnitude. The dynamic validation results for the land use changes are summarized in Table 4.

TABLE 4: DYNAMIC VALIDATION TESTS-CHANGES IN LAND USES
Validation Test
TAZ level Changes Model-wide Totals
TAZ Trip
gen
Vehicle
Trips/ HH
or KSF
Vehicle
Trips
Vehicle
Trips/ HH
or KSF
VMT VMT/HH or
ksf
Add 10 Housing Units +103.5 10.39 601,360 15.38 2,791,306 71.37 Add 100 Housing Units +1031.9 10.37 602,805 15.38 2,797,070 71.36 Remove 10 Housing Units -103.6 10.39 601,038 15.38 2,790,072 71.38 Remove 100 Housing Units -1036.3 10.42 599,592 15.37 2,784,403 71.40 Add 10 KSF Retail +359.6 36.80 601,328 111.32 2,796,679 517.71 Add 100 KSF Retail +3550.6 36.31 602,450 109.70 2,795,961 509.10 Remove 10 KSF Retail -360.9 36.92 601,075 111.68 2,790,038 518.40 Remove 100 KSF Retail -3657.7 37.45 599,926 113.36 2,787,284 526.70 Note:

TAZ 145 and TAZ 415 were used for the housing unit validation tests, while TAZ 145 were used for the retail tests.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020
Table 4 shows that the model responds reasonably to changes in land uses. For example, when changing residential uses, the change in overall model vehicle trip generation and VMT is stable across the entire range and produces results that are reasonable (i.e., approximately 10.4 vehicle trips per household and

71.4 VMT per household). In addition, the change in trip generation at the TAZ level is as expected with the increase/decrease corresponding to the change in households. The magnitude of vehicle trip generation at the TAZ level is reasonable given the socioeconomic characteristics of the test area located in Yuba City.

Roadway Network Tests
The specific network dynamic validation tests performed on the model focused on what occurs when network capacity is increased or decreased via lane additions or new roadway segments. The specific tests are listed below.
• Add lanes to a roadway segment
• Remove lanes from a roadway segment
• Add a new roadway segment
• Remove a roadway segment

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
10 The dynamic validation results for the network tests are summarized in Table 5.

TABLE 5: DYNAMIC VALIDATION TESTS: CHANGES TO ROADWAY NETWORK Validation Test
ADT Before Change ADT After Change
Test Roadway Screen-line Test Roadway Screen-line
Add 1 lane each direction on Lincoln Rd
between Walton Ave and SR 991
9,025 52,960 9,539 53,670
Remove 1 lane each direction on Franklin Rd
between Walton Ave and SR 991
20,992 52,960 13,238 52,257
New Extension- Harter Pkwy between
Redheaven Ave and Franklin Rd2
0 38,333 3,545 38,839
Remove Bridge St between Clark Ave and
Cooper Ave3
12,920 42,269 0 39,079
Source: 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines 1 Screen-line includes ADT on Sunsweet Blvd, Bridge St, Franklin Rd, Richland Rd, Lincoln Rd, and Bogue Rd west of SR 99
2 Screen-line includes ADT on Walton Ave, Tharp Rd, El Margarita Rd, Harter Pkwy, George Washington Rd, and Township Rd South of SR 20
3 Screen-line includes ADT on Forbes Ave, Bridge Street, B St, Franklin Ave, and Morton St South of SR 20 Fehr & Peers, 2020
As shown in Table 5, the model behaves as would be expected in response to changes in the roadway network. For example, the addition of a lane in each direction on Lincoln Road between Walton Avenue and SR 99 increases traffic on the link as well and the entire screen-line. Similarly, removing lanes from Franklin Rd between Walton Ave and SR 99 decreases traffic on the link and across the screenline. When a new extension of Harter Parkway between Redheaven Avenue and Franklin Road was added, the overall screenline volumes increased. However, the new roadway experienced more growth than the screenline as a whole. This result is reasonable, since the new roadway would provide an alternative to more parallel routes and would induce more traffic across the screen-line. When Bridge Street between Clark Avenue and Cooper Avenue is removed, the screenline volume decreases as people find alternate routes but the rate of decreases is much lower than the actual volume of the removed link. This is also an expected result of road closure.

As a whole, the model performs in a very reasonable manner in the validation tests.

Additional Validation Tests
In addition to the above standard validation tests, there are several other measures of validation that are relevant to the City’s model. These measures are described below.

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
11 The following was obtained regarding work travel by Yuba City residents • 72 percent of employed persons living within Yuba City commute to a job outside the City limits (source: US Census).
• The average travel time to work for Yuba City residents was 26.4 minutes, which is too long on average for those trips to remain within the City limits (source: 2018 ACS). Hence, the above conclusion that three of every four employed City residents commute to outside the City is confirmed by this travel time.
• 10.8% of the workforce in Yuba City, CA have "super commutes" in excess of 60 minutes.

This evaluation confirms that the model adequately replicates this commute pattern.

The model results show that about 27 percent of home-based trips are for work purposes. This trip purpose split is in line with generally accepted values and rules of thumb.

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
12 II. Cumulative Year Model Development
City staff requested that two distinct models be developed. One represents a “buildout condition” while the other represents market-absorption over the next 20 years. The buildout model is discussed first, followed by the market-absorption model, which effectively dials back the amount of land use and roadway network expansion assumed.

BUILDOUT MODEL
The buildout model for Yuba City assumes full buildout of all planning areas in the City. Appendix B includes the land use totals for each of these planning areas including a map of those planning areas.

Land Use Assumptions
Table 6 displays the land use totals within the City for the primary trip-generating land use types under the buildout model. The following key findings are derived from this table:
• The City is expected to add approximately 28,500 new dwelling units at buildout. Single-family dwelling units represent 75.6 percent of the new units to be added. The total number of residential units in the City would increase by 117 percent over current conditions. • An anticipated 13 million square feet of non-residential growth would occur. The growth will be similar in magnitude to that of residential growth, representing a 114 percent increase in added floor space over current conditions. Neighborhood, community, and regional commercial space totaling about 3.9 million square feet would be the largest contributor, representing 30 percent of the total.

Despite similar rates of overall residential and non-residential growth in the City, the jobs/housing ratio of the City is expected to increase to about 1.15 under cumulative buildout conditions. This is due to a large portion of the non-residential growth being in professional office, which has higher employee per square foot density than the other non-residential categories. Equally importantly, wages are often higher for professional office employees than other employment categories, which could lead to fewer Yuba City residents traveling externally for work.

Roadway Improvement Assumptions
The major roadway improvements assumed in the cumulative model are shown in Figure 3. As shown, a number of new roadways, widenings of existing roadways and other improvements are planned. Figure 4 displays the resulting cumulative ADT forecasts based on the land use growth and planned roadway improvements.

Garden Hwy
Pease Rd
S Walton Ave
S Township Rd
S George Washington Blvd
N Walton Ave
Tierra Buena Rd
Riverside Dr
Richland Rd Railroad Ave Clark Ave
El Margarita Rd
Bridge St
Queens Ave
Stabler Ln
N George Washington Blvd
Harter Pky
Tharp Rd
Gray Ave
Butte House Rd
S Walton Ave
Live Oak Blvd
Lincoln Rd
Franklin Rd
Bogue Rd
Plumas St
Hooper Rd
Railroad Ave
E Onstott Frontage Rd
Stewart Rd
Western Pkwy
Shasta St
Sutter St
Second St Feather River
4 4
4 2
2 4
4 4
2 2
2 2 4
2 4
4 4 4 4
2 2
2 2
2 4
2 2
2 4
4 2
4 2
4 4 2
4 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
4 6
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 6 6
2 4
4 4 4 4
4 4
4 2
2 4
2 2
2 4
4 4
5 4
4 4
2 4
2 2
4 2
4 2
2 2
2 2
4 4
2 4
2 2
2 4
4 2
2 2 4
2 2
2 4
2 2
4 2
2 Feather River

YUBA CITY

MARYSVILLE
N:\2019 Projects\3764.00_CONF_Yuba_City_Impact_Fee_Study_Model_Update\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig0x_FClass_Cumulative_10.51.mxd Number of Lanes and
Functional Classification - Buildout Conditions
Figure 3
99 20
X Roadway Number of Lanes
(Excluding turn pockets or
center turn lanes)
Functional Classification
Freeway Parkway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Highway
New Interchange
New/Widened Road

° °
°
°
°
°
°
° °
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°°°
°
°
° °
°
°
°
°°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
° °
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
° °
°
°
590
760
8,960
5,210
5,820
4,320
7,740
3,880
7,510 6,430
4,280 1,370 1,080
6,750
3,930
7,560
4,200
2,700 5,470 8,460
5,800
3,500
52,990 49,190
18,250
10,290
10,360
40,970
43,560
12,170 13,340
41,530
32,610
29,360
28,730
66,820
63,840
18,850
18,750
13,640
32,260
17,960
10,000
19,220
31,480
23,430
31,490 27,570
15,020
25,180 22,680
26,680
20,570
10,470 21,990
13,330
18,260
13,800
15,990
15,140
10,550
12,290
16,830
22,520 20,920
29,740
21,570
23,450
20,550
33,180
26,480
19,610
31,720
18,930
32,200
25,350
27,190
30,780
24,450
25,350
25,730
30,500
24,240 15,480
Fe
ath
er River
Tierra Buena Rd
Pease Rd
E Ons ot tt Frontage Rd
Butte House Rd
Western Pkwy
Hooper Rd
Harter Pky
Tharp Rd
Stab el r Ln Queens Ave
Gray Ave
C al rk Ave
Live Oak Blvd
Plumas St
Shasta
St
Sutter St
Second
St
Bridge St N Wal ot n Ave
N George Washington Blvd
S George Wash ni gton B vl d
S Township Rd
S Walton Ave
Bogue Rd
Stewart Rd
Railroad Ave Railroad Ave
Lincoln Rd
Richland Rd
Garden H
wy
El Margarita Rd Harter Pky
Franklin Rd
Feather River

YUBA CITY

MARYSVILLE
C:\Users\aislam\Desktop\Project\19_YubaCity\08_ADT_graphic\MXD\ADT_Forecast_Buildout.mxd Average Daily Traffic Volumes -
Buildout Conditions
Figure 4
∙þ99
∙þ20
x,xxx Average Daily Traffic Volume
New/Widened Road
No of Lanes
2 4
6 ° Cumulative Daily Volume

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
15 TABLE 6: YUBA CITY FUTURE YEAR LAND USE TOTALS
Land Use Category Unit Base Year Buildout
Scenario
Market
Scenario
Residential Single-Family Residential DU 18,468 39,997 29,274 Multi-Family Residential DU 5,134 12,067 9,995
Retail
Neighborhood Commercial KSF 592 1,240 1,101
Community Commercial KSF 3,565 5,685 5,133
Regional Commercial KSF 1,235 2,353 2,218
Non-Retail
Office KSF 1,126 3,325 3,007
Light Industrial KSF 4,681 8,184 7,620
Manufacture 1 KSF - 1,193 1,151
PQP KSF 230 2,511 1,916
Notes:
1 Base year model classifies manufacturing uses as light industrial. ksf = thousand square feet of occupied space
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020

MARKET-ABSORPTION MODEL
The market-absorption model for Yuba City assumed full buildout for some of the planning areas and partial/no buildout for others. Appendix B includes the land use totals by planning areas.

Land Use Assumptions
Table 6 displays the land use totals within the City for the primary trip-generating land use types under the cumulative model. Under this scenario, the City is expected to add approximately 15,600 new dwelling units, three million square feet of retail, 4.4 million square feet of office, and four million square feet of light industrial/manufacturing. These values are considerably lower than the buildout model, with the majority of excluded land uses being located in Planning Areas in the southwest and northwest portions of the City.

Roadway Improvement Assumptions
Figure 5 shows the planned roadways under the market-absorption model condition along with the ADT on key roadways. A comparison of Figures 4 and 5 shows a number of north-south roadways whose construction and/or widening is differed until the buildout condition.

° °
°
°
°
°
°
° °
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°°°
°
° °
°
°
°
°°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
° °
°
°
3,800
680
710
1,920 1,920
400 400 800
5,620
4,060
5,870
5,170
3,750
2,970
9,270
7,710
4,130
7,830
1,180
5,270
9,300
1,080 1,940
3,540
2,990
5,960
4,740
49,790 47,540
17,550 10,100
40,190
42,300
10,520 11,860
23,660
34,130
30,130
26,690
66,480
63,710
12,990
19,580
14,810
25,480
22,770
24,850 29,820
13,290
17,560 12,660
16,960
16,650
13,660
10,860
11,730
16,730
20,550 13,960
28,250
21,810
21,160
20,710
33,140
24,190
18,430
31,530
19,520 29,830
22,510
27,620
28,980
18,620
24,180
19,010
16,000
23,080 12,210
Fe
ath
er River
Tierra Buena Rd
Pease Rd
E Ons ot tt Frontage Rd
Butte House Rd
Western Pkwy
Hooper Rd
Harter Pky
Tharp Rd
Stab el r Ln Queens Ave
Gray Ave
C al rk Ave
Live Oak Blvd
Plumas St
Shasta
St
Sutter St
Second
St
Bridge St N Wal ot n Ave
N George Washington Blvd
S George Wash ni gton B vl d
S Township Rd
S Walton Ave
Bogue Rd
Stewart Rd
Railroad Ave Railroad Ave
Lincoln Rd
Richland Rd
Garden H
wy
El Margarita Rd Harter Pky
Franklin Rd
Sanborn Rd
Royo Ranchero Dr
Feather River

YUBA CITY

MARYSVILLE
C:\Users\aislam\Desktop\Project\19_YubaCity\08_ADT_graphic\MXD\ADT_Forecast_market_v2.mxd Average Daily Traffic Volumes -
Market Conditions
Figure 5
∙þ99
∙þ20
x,xxx Average Daily Traffic Volume
New/Widened Road
No of Lanes
2 4
6 ° Cumulative Daily Volume

City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2020
17 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
One VMT is defined as one mile driven by a vehicle (regardless of the number of occupants). VMT is commonly expressed as a daily value for a typical weekday when schools are in session. The following describes the change in total VMT occurring on the City of Yuba City roadways (i.e., including SR 20 and SR 99 as they are integral travel routes to City land uses) under base year, market-absorption, and buildout conditions:
 Base Year Model = 856,600 VMT
 Market-Absorption Model = 1,438,700 VMT (68% increase over Base Year)  Buildout Model = 1,732,700 VMT (102% increase over Base Year) The above indicates significant VMT growth, particularly under the buildout condition. However, it is worth noting that the buildout condition also contains a substantial number of roadway improvements to accommodate that growth.

Feather River
Marysville
Feather River
Yuba City
304
244
303
1001
301
300
1000
302
246
709
421
605
613
806
443
618
516 515
523
607
503
602
708
601
805
906
543
612
445
606
442
522
500
704
535
226
310
719
328
520
243
521
818
526
518
538
436
416
218
528
807
407
531
907
808
928 925
712
412
718
423
828
214
909
713
545
408
440
609 608
305
710 812
405
902
533
504
409
1137
505
922
537
904
502
614
910
611
426
415
733
425
329
958
966
529
410
937
913
926
956
227
914
711
430
242
501
513
1125
953
510
809
307
729
444
230
703
438 437
216
736
420
939
404
735 700
337
428
957
912
900
920 1016
332
542
424
245
508
402 327
824 734
931
219
417
540
1014
1124
206
615
954
965
701
506
439
514
311
240
418 433
1020
427
403
541
234
617
429
921
237
539
224
936
952
217
509
702
930
1002
512
229
932
927
432
1019
727
810
929
967
801
1140
616
903
507
714
202
968
916
400
316
915
222
901
536
726
955
511
446
811
228
241
1135
200
730
1013
326
519
406
1134
431
829
419
517
1127
223
1123
717
800
817
238
221
707
1133
239
830
951
248 247
1111
1011
1129
414
422
411
706
604
413
546 441
924
923
544
603 600
547
321
728
524
905
731
964
610
1139
309
941
720
320
335
721
220
435
527
313
960
205
950
1143
1015
732
715
235
306
114
314
1017
1103
323
1131
325
324
333
534
225
312
334
1010
338
322
962
331
944
832
1102
434
107
336
919 908
145
917
231
100
933 831
532
935
141
1126
918
525
401
945
207
1104
934
826
1109
827
330
833
724
1005 1006
215
725
723
1136
308
705
963
1128
943
1018
233
947
315
232
319
911
946
825
530
209
1110
236
213
816
737
1132
822
1141
814
1003
716
961
813
1142
317
802
1009
1012
116
1144
803
146 148
112
938
108
804
117
940
109
115
111
318
819
201
1004
820
1007
208
204
113
815
106
948
142
823
210
140 121
135
120
110
1105
959
131
1138
2135
C:\Users\aislam\Desktop\Project\19_YubaCity\08_ADT_graphic\MXD\TAZ.mxd

TAZ MAP
Figure 1

APPENDIX A

Yuba City Impact Fee Study Yuba City Model- 2020 Update Daily Validation Static Model Validation - Two-Way Total Roadway Segment Model Volume Count Volume Model / Count % Deviation Max Allowable % Deviation Within Deviation Model - Count Difference Squared George Washington Blvd South of SR 20 6,805 8,522 0.80 20% 41% Acceptable -1,717 2,947,613Walton Avenue South of SR 20 19,345 19,344 1.00 0% 28% Acceptable 2 3Butte House Road West of Harter Parkway 12,825 13,777 0.93 7% 31% Acceptable -951 904,659Butte House Road East of Stabler Lane 14,357 15,756 0.91 9% 30% Acceptable -1,398 1,954,554Franklin Road West of SR 99 23,777 22,830 1.04 4% 27% Acceptable 947 896,828Lincoln Road West of SR 99 9,853 10,750 0.92 8% 36% Acceptable -897 803,887Bogue Road West of SR 99 7,139 7,212 0.99 1% 44% Acceptable -72 5,211Walton Avenue North of Lincoln Road 10,790 11,882 0.91 9% 34% Acceptable -1,092 1,191,562Lincoln Road East of SR 99 11,539 13,006 0.89 11% 33% Acceptable -1,466 2,150,410Bogue Road East of SR 99 9,650 10,051 0.96 4% 36% Acceptable -400 160,059Garden Highway South of Bogue Street 13,539 11,670 1.16 16% 34% Acceptable 1,869 3,492,920Garden Highway North of Lincoln Road 15,925 17,846 0.89 11% 29% Acceptable -1,920 3,687,765Franklin Road East of SR 99 12,984 13,737 0.95 5% 33% Acceptable -753 567,330Bridge Street East of SR 99 17,773 19,166 0.93 7% 28% Acceptable -1,392 1,938,289Bridge Street West of Plumas St 13,580 15,790 0.86 14% 30% Acceptable -2,210 4,882,904Second Street South of Bridge Street 11,059 14,103 0.78 22% 31% Acceptable -3,043 9,260,556Bridge Street West of SR 99 17,773 16,135 1.10 10% 30% Acceptable 1,639 2,685,585Harter Parkway North of SR 20 10,828 9,668 1.12 12% 38% Acceptable 1,160 1,344,764Harter Parkway South of SR 20 4,288 5,450 0.79 21% 48% Acceptable -1,161 1,348,886Stabler Lane North of Tres Picos Dr 2,417 3,497 0.69 31% 58% Acceptable -1,080 1,166,202Bridge Street East of Tharp Rd 5,774 6,471 0.89 11% 44% Acceptable -696 484,590Bridge Street East of Gary Ave 11,557 13,608 0.85 15% 33% Acceptable -2,051 4,204,871Gray Avenue North of Queens Ave 4,179 5,190 0.81 19% 48% Acceptable -1,011 1,022,015Sutter Street North of Bridge St 8,067 11,380 0.71 29% 34% Acceptable -3,313 10,973,264Queens Avenue East of Live Oak Blvd 10,326 9,134 1.13 13% 38% Acceptable 1,192 1,420,608Live Oak Boulevard North of Pease 6,131 7,232 0.85 15% 44% Acceptable -1,101 1,211,452Shasta Street South of Bridge St 8,477 10,277 0.82 18% 36% Acceptable -1,800 3,239,501SR 20 West of Walton Ave 28,064 25,533 1.10 10% 26% Acceptable 2,531 6,405,663SR 20 West of Clark Avenue 38,407 34,296 1.12 12% 24% Acceptable 4,111 16,900,803SR 20 West of Shasta Street 36,410 32,352 1.13 13% 24% Acceptable 4,058 16,464,067SR 99 South of Franklin Ave 37,199 32,028 1.16 16% 24% Acceptable 5,171 26,736,898SR 99 South of Bogue Street 21,360 20,158 1.06 6% 28% Acceptable 1,203 1,446,095SR 99 North of Queens Ave 14,529 20,040 0.73 27% 28% Acceptable -5,511 30,367,741 Total 476,729 487,882

APPENDIX A
15%0.98
Percent Root Mean Square Error (<40%)
Correlation Coefficient (>0.88)
Notes: Criteria is consistent with Caltrans RTP Guidelines Fehr & Peers, 2019

0.98100%
Model/Count Ratio
Percent Within Caltrans Maximum Deviation (>75%)

Yuba City Impact Fee Study Yuba City Model- 2020Update
AM Peak Hour Validation Static Model Validation - Two-Way Total Roadway Segment
Model
Volume
Count
Volume
Model /
Count
%
Deviation
Max Allowable
% Deviation
Within
Deviation
Model -
Count
Difference
Squared
George Washington Blvd South of SR 20 506 630 0.80 20% 44% Acceptable -124 15,484Walton Avenue South of SR 20 1,291 1,036 1.25 25% 36% Acceptable 255 65,138Butte House Road West of Harter Parkway 841 1,117 0.75 25% 36% Acceptable -276 76,175Butte House Road East of Stabler Lane 937 923 1.02 2% 38% Acceptable 14 200Franklin Road West of SR 99 1,768 1,460 1.21 21% 31% Acceptable 308 94,877Lincoln Road West of SR 99 677 857 0.79 21% 41% Acceptable -180 32,521Bogue Road West of SR 99 480 585 0.82 18% 48% Acceptable -105 11,053Walton Avenue North of Lincoln Road 788 825 0.96 4% 41% Acceptable -37 1,357Lincoln Road East of SR 99 947 881 1.08 8% 38% Acceptable 66 4,406Bogue Road East of SR 99 565 713 0.79 21% 44% Acceptable -148 21,774Garden Highway South of Bogue Street 917 1,049 0.87 13% 36% Acceptable -132 17,424Garden Highway North of Lincoln Road 1,217 1,370 0.89 11% 33% Acceptable -153 23,394Franklin Road East of SR 99 1,064 966 1.10 10% 38% Acceptable 98 9,519Bridge Street East of SR 99 1,096 1,002 1.09 9% 36% Acceptable 94 8,892Bridge Street West of Plumas St 1,186 974 1.22 22% 38% Acceptable 212 44,913Second Street South of Bridge Street 729 960 0.76 24% 38% Acceptable -231 53,503Bridge Street West of SR 99 1,096 848 1.29 29% 41% Acceptable 248 61,651Harter Parkway North of SR 20 718 665 1.08 8% 44% Acceptable 53 2,829Harter Parkway South of SR 20 452 640 0.71 29% 44% Acceptable -188 35,429Stabler Lane North of Tres Picos Dr 169 271 0.62 38% 58% Acceptable -102 10,378Bridge Street East of Tharp Rd 227 392 0.58 42% 52% Acceptable -165 27,260Bridge Street East of Gary Ave 815 710 1.15 15% 44% Acceptable 105 10,940Gray Avenue North of Queens Ave 283 307 0.92 8% 58% Acceptable -24 554Sutter Street North of Bridge St 489 825 0.59 41% 41% Acceptable -336 112,831Queens Avenue East of Live Oak Blvd 630 608 1.04 4% 48% Acceptable 22 483Live Oak Boulevard North of Pease 432 539 0.80 20% 48% Acceptable -107 11,451Shasta Street South of Bridge St 505 775 0.65 35% 41% Acceptable -270 73,136SR 20 West of Walton Ave 2,149 2,068 1.04 4% 28% Acceptable 81 6,595SR 20 West of Clark Avenue 2,678 2,553 1.05 5% 26% Acceptable 125 15,736SR 20 West of Shasta Street 2,780 2,507 1.11 11% 26% Acceptable 273 74,418SR 99 South of Franklin Ave 2,605 2,386 1.09 9% 26% Acceptable 219 47,941SR 99 South of Bogue Street 1,582 1,696 0.93 7% 29% Acceptable -114 13,110SR 99 North of Queens Ave 1,087 1,889 0.58 42% 28% Low -802 642,457 Total 33,706 35,027

0.9697%21%0.95
Model/Count Ratio
Percent Within Caltrans Maximum Deviation (>75%)
Percent Root Mean Square Error (<40%)
Correlation Coefficient (>0.88)

Yuba City Impact Fee Study Yuba City Model- 2020 Update PM Peak Hour Validation Static Model Validation - Two-Way Total Roadway Segment
Model
Volume
Count
Volume
Model /
Count
%
Deviation
Max Allowable
% Deviation
Within
Deviation
Model -
Count
Difference
Squared
George Washington Blvd South of SR 20 587 690 0.85 15% 44% Acceptable -103 10,510Walton Avenue South of SR 20 1,761 1,592 1.11 11% 30% Acceptable 169 28,570Butte House Road West of Harter Parkway 1,053 1,220 0.86 14% 34% Acceptable -167 27,879Butte House Road East of Stabler Lane 1,204 1,466 0.82 18% 31% Acceptable -262 68,766Franklin Road West of SR 99 2,104 1,805 1.17 17% 29% Acceptable 299 89,308Lincoln Road West of SR 99 743 992 0.75 25% 38% Acceptable -249 61,819Bogue Road West of SR 99 600 607 0.99 1% 48% Acceptable -7 43Walton Avenue North of Lincoln Road 834 1,015 0.82 18% 36% Acceptable -181 32,868Lincoln Road East of SR 99 1,061 1,121 0.95 5% 36% Acceptable -60 3,557Bogue Road East of SR 99 733 819 0.90 10% 41% Acceptable -86 7,341Garden Highway South of Bogue Street 1,109 987 1.12 12% 38% Acceptable 122 14,948Garden Highway North of Lincoln Road 1,435 1,542 0.93 7% 30% Acceptable -107 11,413Franklin Road East of SR 99 1,106 1,113 0.99 1% 36% Acceptable -7 50Bridge Street East of SR 99 1,446 1,577 0.92 8% 30% Acceptable -131 17,114Bridge Street West of Plumas St 1,324 1,306 1.01 1% 33% Acceptable 18 330Second Street South of Bridge Street 1,058 1,109 0.95 5% 36% Acceptable -51 2,604Bridge Street West of SR 99 1,446 1,310 1.10 10% 33% Acceptable 136 18,545Harter Parkway North of SR 20 933 796 1.17 17% 41% Acceptable 137 18,875Harter Parkway South of SR 20 321 506 0.63 37% 48% Acceptable -185 34,160Stabler Lane North of Tres Picos Dr 203 317 0.64 36% 58% Acceptable -114 12,976Bridge Street East of Tharp Rd 333 594 0.56 44% 48% Acceptable -261 68,134Bridge Street East of Gary Ave 1,031 1,049 0.98 2% 36% Acceptable -18 319Gray Avenue North of Queens Ave 364 464 0.78 22% 52% Acceptable -100 10,097Sutter Street North of Bridge St 713 944 0.76 24% 38% Acceptable -231 53,385Queens Avenue East of Live Oak Blvd 841 724 1.16 16% 44% Acceptable 117 13,772Live Oak Boulevard North of Pease 508 625 0.81 19% 44% Acceptable -117 13,631Shasta Street South of Bridge St 708 986 0.72 28% 38% Acceptable -278 77,355SR 20 West of Walton Ave 2,501 2,402 1.04 4% 26% Acceptable 99 9,814SR 20 West of Clark Avenue 3,380 2,858 1.18 18% 25% Acceptable 522 272,434SR 20 West of Shasta Street 3,375 2,696 1.25 25% 25% Acceptable 679 461,330SR 99 South of Franklin Ave 3,124 2,669 1.17 17% 25% Acceptable 455 206,677SR 99 South of Bogue Street 1,824 1,816 1.00 0% 29% Acceptable 8 70SR 99 North of Queens Ave 1,252 2,004 0.62 38% 28% Low -752 565,901 Total 41,018 41,721
20%0.96
Percent Root Mean Square Error (<40%)
Correlation Coefficient (>0.88)

0.9897%
Model/Count Ratio
Percent Within Caltrans Maximum Deviation (>75%)

Southwest
Planning Area
North Planning Area
Lincoln East SP
Bogue Stewart MP
El Margarita MP
North Central
Planning Area
Southeast
Planning Area
Northwest
Planning Area
Central City SP
Harter MP
Feather River

YUBA CITY

MARYSVILLE
C:\Users\aislam\Desktop\Project\YubaCity\Specific_Plans\GIS\MXD\Specific_Plans.mxd Yuba City Planning Areas
Figure 1
∙þ99
∙þ20
Appendix B

Planning Areas
Single-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Elementary
School
Middle
School High School Other School
Neighborhood
Commercial
Community
Commercial
Regional
Commercial Office
Light
Industrial Manufacture PQP
Bogue Stewart Plan Area 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000El Margarita Plan Area 284 41 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 132 0 64Harter Plan Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 228 63 272 0 0Lincoln East Plan Area 168 0 0 0 0 25 8 0 00009North Central Plan Area 323 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 00100Northwest Master Plan 268 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 00600Noth Specific Plan 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00100Southeast Master Plan 136 56 0 0 0 20 4 0 0 0 28 0 0Southwest Specific Plan 143 6 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 9 241 0 0Rest of the City 17,043 5,004 7,380 1,360 3,700 1,218 547 3,515 1,007 1,054 4,000 0 157 Total 18,468 5,134 7,380 1,360 3,700 1,263 592 3,565 1,235 1,126 4,681 0 230 Planning Areas
Single-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Elementary
School
Middle
School High School Other School
Neighborhood
Commercial
Community
Commercial
Regional
Commercial Office
Light
Industrial Manufacture PQP
Bogue Stewart Plan Area 1,759 758 1,400 0 0 0 85 391 0 223 230 230 0El Margarita Plan Area 1,168 342 0 0 0 0 29 0 227 55 501 163 0Harter Plan Area 148 180 0 0 0 0 0 244 280 142 660 0 0Lincoln East Plan Area 4,125 1,182 1,200 0 2,200 0 215 151 00000North Central Plan Area 1,353 10 0 0 0 0 0 114 00100Northwest Master Plan 1,133 16 1,110 0 0 0 0 0 00600Noth Specific Plan 2,951 0 2,220 0 0 0 63 127 00100Southeast Master Plan 901 189 0 0 0 0 20 0 35 48 600 42 0Southwest Specific Plan 5,318 1,945 3,330 0 0 0 66 324 100 279 233 0 595Rest of the City 21,141 7,445 7,775 3,519 5,521 1,630 762 4,334 1,711 2,578 5,952 758 1,916 Total 39,997 12,067 17,035 3,519 7,721 1,630 1,240 5,685 2,353 3,325 8,184 1,193 2,511 Planning Areas
Single-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Elementary
School
Middle
School High School Other School
Neighborhood
Commercial
Community
Commercial
Regional
Commercial Office
Light
Industrial Manufacture PQP
Bogue Stewart Plan Area 1,759 758 1,400 0 0 0 85 391 0 223 230 230 0El Margarita Plan Area 1,168 342 0 0 0 0 29 0 227 55 501 163 0Harter Plan Area 148 180 0 0 0 0 0 244 280 142 660 0 0Lincoln East Plan Area 4,125 1,182 1,200 0 2,200 0 215 151 00000North Central Plan Area 323 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 00100Northwest Master Plan 268 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 00600Noth Specific Plan 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00100Southeast Master Plan 136 56 0 0 0 20 4 0 0 0 28 0 0Southwest Specific Plan 143 6 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 9 241 0 0Rest of the City 21,141 7,445 7,775 3,519 5,521 1,630 762 4,334 1,711 2,578 5,952 758 1,916 Total 29,274 9,995 10,375 3,519 7,721 1,650 1,101 5,133 2,218 3,007 7,620 1,151 1,916 Buildout Scenario

APPENDIX B
2040 Market Scenario
Base Year (2020) Land Use

ATTACHMENT 2







 


 











 
!" 


#


$%














 
%& 
%


' 






(

 



!&
'

 







 

)*+,-*./01*.
2 2
2 3
3 2
2 2
3 3
3 3 2
3 2
2 2 2 2
3 3
3 3
3 2
3 3
3 2
2 3
2 3
2 2 3
2 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 3
2 4
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 4 4
3 2
2 2 2 2
2 2
2 3
3 2
3 3
3 2
2 2
5 2
2 2
3 2
3 3
2 3
2 3
3 3
3 3
2 2
3 2
3 3
3 2
2 3
3 3 2
3 3
3 2
3 3
2 3
3 )*+,-*./01*.
6789:;<6
=9>6?@;AAB
CDEFGHIJKLMNOPQERSTUVGGWXYCZW[\]^WX_P`Wabc^OPWZNNWdP\e`WfLeNgWhce^PNEiK^cj_OQEiadEfklEZ_mGnWZXg^QQWX\b\g^P_oNWHGVpHVbne qrstuvwxyz{u|z{}
~r{€w{z‚ƒ‚z||xz€w{„
r‚}wr€ƒw{}€w{|
†‡ˆ‰Š‹Œ

3Ž
 ‘’“”’•–‰—˜‹Š‘™š’›‹œ
žŸ ¡‰“‡›ˆ¢‰Š›£‘ ¤‹¢œ‘Š
‹›¢‹Š¢‰Š›¡’›‹œ¥
†‰› ¢‡‘›’¡¦¡’œœ‡™‡ ’¢‡‘›
†Š‹‹”’• §’Š¤”’•
¨’©‘ŠªŠ¢‹Š‡’¡
¨‡›‘ŠªŠ¢‹Š‡’¡
¦‘¡¡‹ ¢‘Š
š‘ ’¡«¢Š‹‹¢
¬‡ˆ­”’•
–‹”®›¢‹Š ­’›ˆ‹
–‹”¯°‡“‹›‹“‘’“

Agenda Item 21

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: January 21, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Kristi Morales , Administrative Analyst Summary
Subject: Amendments to the Community Sponsorship Policy Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution amending the Administrative Policy for Community Sponsorships
Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact associated with the proposed changes Council's Strategic Goal:

Community Sponsorships provide needed support to local non-profit organizations and contribute the overarching strategic goal of quality of life in our community.

Purpose:

To update the City’s Community Sponsorship Policy to ensure fair access to sponsorship funds, establish a structured application timeline, and provide clear guidelines for eligibility and application processes.

Background:

The City of Yuba City has long supported community events and non-profit programs that benefit its residents. These events contribute to cultural, athletic, and educational enrichment and promote the City of Yuba City. The Community Sponsorship Policy provides funding through monetary support or in-kind services for these events.

The current policy, as amended on January 18, 2022, outlines that applications for monetary sponsorships are reviewed quarterly at Council meetings in January, April, July, and October. The policy also specifies the conditions under which these sponsorships may be granted.

On October 1, 2024, the Mayor and City Council requested that staff update and revise the policy. Over time, staff has reviewed the policy's implementation and identified areas where updates could enhance clarity, fairness, and alignment with the City’s goals. The proposed amendments aim to improve the overall fairness of the program by limiting eligibility for sponsorships and ensuring that sponsorship opportunities are distributed more effectively.

• A red-lined version of the policy is included as an attachment to this report.

Analysis:

The proposed changes to the Community Sponsorship Policy are as follows:

1. One-Year Eligibility Restriction:
o Once an organization is awarded a sponsorship, they will not be eligible to apply for a new sponsorship for 12 months (one year) from the date of the last award. This ensures that multiple organizations have the opportunity to benefit from the sponsorship fund within the fiscal year.
o Exception: The City Council may override this eligibility restriction with a 4/5th vote. This provides flexibility in extraordinary circumstances where an exception may be warranted.

2. Quarterly Application Process:
o The policy already specifies that applications are reviewed quarterly at Council meetings in January, April, July, and October. This process ensures that sponsorship funds are allocated consistently throughout the year.
o Change: Sponsorship requests will now be considered for the quarter in which the application is submitted, rather than the quarter in which the event occurs. This adjustment aligns the review process with the City's fiscal schedule, allowing for better planning and resource management.
o Timeline for Collecting Sponsorships:
▪ Applications for the January quarter will be due in December, allowing for review before the first Council meeting.
▪ Applications for the April quarter will be due in March, prior to the next review meeting.
▪ Applications for the July quarter will be due in June. ▪ Applications for the October quarter will be due in September. ▪ If no applications are submitted by the specified deadlines, the City Council may still consider applications in that quarter, provided there are remaining funds available. This ensures that unused resources can still be allocated to eligible requests within the fiscal year.

Alternatives:

1. Do not adopt the proposed amendments.

2. Adopt the policy with changes.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution amending the Administrative Policy for Community Sponsorships.

Attachments:

1. Resolution - Administrative Policy Community Sponsorship

2. Amended Administrative Policy - Red-lined Community Sponsorship Prepared By: Submitted By:

Kristi Morales
Administrative Analyst
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

ADOPTING THE AMENDED GUIDELINES FOR CITY SPONSORSHIP

OF COMMUNITY EVENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of providing support for community events primarily benefitting residents of the City of Yuba City and are consistent with the goals and mission of the City that serve a public purpose; and WHEREAS, to ensure that a policy is set establishing the parameters for the approval of City Sponsorships for community events conducted by local organizations, including a 12-month eligibility restriction for organizations receiving sponsorships, quarterly application reviews, and first-come, first-served processing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Yuba City as follows:

Approve the attached Amended Administrative Policy - Community Sponsorships 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 January 21, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Dave Shaw, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Cira Wakefield, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

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

ATTACHMENT 2

AMENDED COMMUNITY SPONSORSHIP POLICY
OVERVIEW:

The City of Yuba City recognizes the importance of providing support for community events, or non- profit programs for the following purposes:
o Support of non-profit organizations serving Yuba City residents/community; o Cultural, athletic and educational enrichment;
o Promotion of the City of Yuba City
The City of Yuba City provides limited assistance, through in-kind sponsorships or monetary funding, to local organizations in support of community events consistent with the City's goals and mission and that serve a public purpose.

City sponsorship reflects the support of specific events by an organization. The intent is that the public will receive some intrinsic cultural, economic, educational, or entertainment value from the event.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this policy is to set parameters for the waiver of City facility and support services as in-kind donations and cash sponsorships for community programs conducted by local organizations seeking sponsorships that are not currently in the City's budget.

To improve fairness and ensure broader community participation, the policy has been updated.

A 12-month eligibility restriction has been introduced, meaning organizations that receive a sponsorship will not be eligible to apply for a new sponsorship within 12 months from the date of the last award. Additionally, applications will now be reviewed on a quarterly basis, aligning with the City's fiscal year. These changes aim to enhance the distribution of sponsorship opportunities and ensure that funding is available to a wider range of community organizations.

GENERAL POLICY:

The budget for the Community Sponsorship Program shall be established by City Council each year during the annual budget process. The fiscal year shall begin July 1 of each year and end on June 30 the following year. Applications will now be processed quarterly. Applications will be reviewed for the quarter in which they are submitted, rather than the quarter in which the event occurs. Sponsorship requests will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis.

Applications will be processed on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Applications will be considered for events and organizations meeting the eligibility criteria stated in this policy. The City Manager's Office will review sponsorship applications and make recommendations to City Council for final approval. The City Manager's Office shall be responsible for accounting for the Community Sponsorship account; shall keep a listing of all organizations and programs receiving sponsorships, and maintain a balance of funds available. Organizations that have received a sponsorship will not be eligible to apply for a new sponsorship within 12 months from the date of the last award.

Exception: The City Council may, by a 4/5th vote, approve an exception to the 12-month eligibility restriction in extraordinary circumstances.

Conditions of use for facilities and equipment, insurance, and other requirements shall be followed according to City policies, codes, and ordinances.

IN-KIND SERVICES:

In-kind donations is a non-cash contribution made to a non-profit organization for City services such as those services provided by Public Works like road closures for events, or waiver of facility rental fees. In-kind donations help non-profits access City Services that would otherwise be unaffordable, or free up resources to be spent on something else.

FACILITY FEE WAIVER:

Financial support, by way of reduced fees or fee waiver, may be approved by the City Manager in cases of hardship for facility use through this program on costs less than $1,000.00.

Fee waiver requests over $1,000.00 will go before City Council for approval.

The Community Sponsorship policy does not preclude individual departments supporting events and organizations directly in support of their missions directly through their budgets.

MONETARY FUNDING:

All monetary requests for events or non-profit programs made through the City’s Community Sponsorship program will go before City Council at a regular Council meeting. The Sponsorship Applications will be presented to Council quarterly on a first come first serve basis. In most cases this would occur at the first Council meeting in January, April, July, and October.

FUNDRAISER GIFT BASKET:

The Fundraiser Gift Basket Community Sponsorship request has been established for nonprofit organizations that meet the requirements below. This will provide additional Capital Campaign or fundraising support for non-profits at their event with local products and City Logo items gift basket. Gift basket requests will be submitted to the City Manager’s Office for approval.

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESS:

A community sponsorship application must be submitted on the attached form indicating:
o Name and contact information for the event organizer(s) o The local office/headquarters of the organization
o Organization's purpose/mission
o Event date(s), and time(s)
o Expected number of participants
o A statement that the event will be open to the general public o Purpose of the event

o How the organization and proposed event benefits the residents of Yuba City and meet the criteria within this policy
o Indication of what type of sponsorship is needed for the program o Outline of the event marketing plan
APPLICATION REVIEW/APPROVAL:

Cash sponsorship applications will be processed quarterly and submitted to the City Council for approval. Applications will be reviewed for the quarter in which they are submitted, rather than the quarter in which the event occurs. The City Manager's Office will advise the organizer when the request will go before the City Council. The organizer should be present at the City Council meeting to respond to questions in most cases. Sponsorship approval is determined on a case-by-case basis related to each independent event's eligibility requirements, purpose, and goals.

Factors that will be considered during the approval process include:
• Resources available (e.g., budget, staff, workload capacity, etc.) • Compatibility with the strategic goals of the City Council and mission of Yuba City. • Impact of the event on City facilities
• Risk to the City
• The ability of the organization to obtain liability insurance naming the City as additional insured
• The benefit to the community
Upon receipt of the Community Sponsorship Request, the City Manager's office will review to ensure applicability and consistency with said policy. Organizations that have received a sponsorship will not be eligible to apply for a new sponsorship within 12 months from the date of the last award. The City Manager's Office will advise the applicant of their application status within ten (10) business days of application submittal. The City Council may override the eligibility restriction with a 4/5th vote.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:

Event or Program Types
o Events or programs providing a benefit to Yuba City residents o Fundraising events for non-profit organizations that primarily serve Yuba City residents o Events or programs that contribute positively to the recognition and image of Yuba City o Events or programs that are open to the general public o Organizations that demonstrate that they can meet the necessary requirements of the agreement

1. For-profit organizations holding fundraiser programs must identify a 501(c)(3) or California not- for-profit corporation as a recipient of the program proceeds and provide acknowledgment of receipt of said proceeds from that non-profit organization with the postprogram financial affidavit.

2. Programs must be open to the public and free of charge, except programs may charge

participant fees, but not admission fees (gate, parking, ticket, or otherwise).

3. The sponsoring organization must also agree to do the following (failure to do so will result in future ineligibility):
a. Obtain all required permits, clearances, insurances, and program authorizations within time restraints in compliance with the City of Yuba City Code, policies, and Special Events Policy requirements.
b. When applicable, allow the City of Yuba City to have a sponsor booth at the program/event if the City so desires (at programs/events where a sponsorship booth is appropriate) to distribute information regarding City services and community programs. This booth shall be provided at no cost to the City. c. Provide the City with whatever benefits are afforded other sponsors of similar sponsorship levels (i.e., logo display, sponsor table, advertising benefits, etc.).

Not eligible
The City will not award sponsorships to any religious church, creed or sectarian organization to promote religious purposes. Religious organizations are not excluded from sponsorships; however, the purpose of the event shall not serve to promote a religious message. • City Sponsorship shall be consistent with the restrictions of State and federal law. • Political organizations and/or individual campaigns.
• Organizations that discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, or national origin.
• For-profit organizations for which the organization/corporation or its employees or officers will gain personal benefit.
• Organizations that have received a sponsorship will not be eligible to apply for a new sponsorship within the same fiscal year, effective from the date of the last sponsorship award.

Agenda Item 22

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: January 21, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Diana Langley, City Manager
Summary
Subject: Measure D - Voting Results
Recommendation: Receive a summary presentation on voting results for the City's proposed Transactions and Use Sales Tax Measure, identified as Measure D Fiscal Impact: None
Purpose:

To review voter data and receive feedback on the City's proposed Transactions and Use Sales Tax Measure, identified as Measure D.

Council's Strategic Goal:

The information provided will help form Council's next steps related to a future Transactions and Use Sales Tax Measure.

Background:

Over a two year period leading up to the November 2024 election, the City Council identified several operational priorities that require additional funding, established the tasks, objectives, composition, and qualifications for a Citizens' Oversight Committee, unanimously approved placing a 1% general sales tax measure, Measure D, on the November 5, 2024, ballot, and authorized the execution of a Revenue Sharing Agreement with Sutter County if Measure D passed. The identified priorities included:

1. Roads - Address $150 million in deferred maintenance

2. Fire Operations
a. Maintain critical staffing levels and response times b. Replace Fire Station 1 (824 Clark Avenue) to accommodate two engine companies

3. Police Operations
a. Add dedicated Homelessness Response personnel
b. Create a city-wide "Clean Team" to support small businesses and remove illegal dumping and biohazards
c. Provide police services to the Walton/Happy Park area residents (incorporated area south of Franklin Road and west of Highway 99)

As part of the November 2024 election, Yuba City voters were asked to consider the following ballot question:

To support vital city services such as: road repairs; increasing police and fire protection; protecting 911 emergency response times; addressing homelessness; and funding other general services and essential activity; shall an ordinance establishing a 1 percent sales tax in Yuba City, providing approximately $17,500,000 annually until ended by voters, requiring accountability, citizens' oversight and annual audits, with all funds staying local, be adopted? Voters rejected Measure D, with 11,480 votes in favor (46.07%) and 13,440 votes against (53.93%).

Analysis:

Donna Johnston, the Sutter County Registrar of Voters, provided the attached map that shows how Yuba City residents voted on Measure D. The map shows Council Districts and voter precincts.

Measure D passed by voters in Council District 1 and a portion of Council District 3, and failed in all other areas of the City.

Fiscal Impact:

The failure of Measure D will have significant impact on the City's current and future operations and ability to maintain the roads.

Alternatives:

None.

Recommendation:

Receive a summary presentation on voting results for the City's proposed Transactions and Use Sales Tax Measure - Measure D.

Attachments:

1. YC Measure D Results Map
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Diana Langley
City Manager
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda Item 23

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: January 21, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Administration Department
Presentation By: Dave Shaw, Mayor
Summary
Subject: Appointments to City Council Regional Boards and Committees Recommendation: Approve the City Council Assignments to Regional Boards and Committees for Calendar Year 2025
Fiscal Impact: None
Below are the City Council Assignments to Regional Boards and Committees for Calendar Year 2025:

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

recommendations.

Attachments:

1. 2025 - Council Assignments 01.21.25
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Ciara Wakefield
City Clerk
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

Page | 1
City Council
2025 Board and Committee Assignments
Commission Members Date/Time/Location Contact 700
Form Stipend
Advisory Board Screening
Committee
Dave Shaw (Mayor)
Marc Boomgaarden
(Vice-Mayor)
As needed – to fill term
ending dates June & Dec
1201 Civic Center Blvd YC
Ciara Wakefield
City Clerk Administrator
(530) 822-4817
[email protected]
NO None
Beale Military Liaison Dave Shaw
Marc Boomgaarden (Alt)
Volunteer/Advocacy
As needed
Janice Nall – Beale AFB
(530) 218-2121
[email protected]
N/A None
Blue Zones Toni Cole TBD / As needed
Marni Sanders
Executive Director
[email protected]
NO None
Downtown Business
Association Representatives
Dave Shaw
Michael Pasquale
8:30 a.m. First Thursday
Monthly & As needed
(530) 755-1620
[email protected] NO None
Countywide Redevelopment
Oversight Board*
(Mayoral appointment)
Michael Pasquale
Wade Kirchner (Alt)
As needed - Sutter County
1160 Civic Center Blvd
Yuba City, CA 95993
Steve Smith, Assistant CAO
(530) 822-7100
[email protected]
YES None
Feather River Air Quality
Management District
(FRAQMD)
Michael Pasquale
Wade Kirchner (Alt)
4:00 p.m. First Monday
Every other Month
541 Washington Ave, YC
Shelley Channel and
Maria Ramos - FRAQMD
(530) 634-7659 Ext 204
[email protected]
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting
Gilsizer Drainage District
Dave Shaw (Mayor)
Wade Kirchner
Michael Pasquale (Alt)
4:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 2nd Wednesday
1201 Civic Center Blvd YC
Tammi Gaschke – Sutter Co
(530) 822-7450
[email protected]
YES None
Gov’t Affairs Committee for
Sutter Yuba Homeless
Consortium
Michael Pasquale
Toni Cole (Alt)
When called
Via Zoom
Johnny Burke
(530) 632-5761
[email protected]
YES None
Greater Sacramento Economic
Development Council
(Recommendation)
Michael Pasquale
Dave Shaw
9:00 a.m. Quarterly
400 Capitol Mall #2520
Brittany Jones
(916) 287-9082
[email protected]
NO None

Page | 2
City Council
2025 Board and Committee Assignments
Commission Members Date/Time/Location Contact 700
Form Stipend
Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO)
Marc Boomgaarden
Dave Shaw (Alt)
2:00 p.m., 2nd Thursdays
Jan, Mar, May, July, Sep, Nov
1201 Civic Center Blvd YC
Doug Libby, Executive Director
(530) 822-3231
[email protected]
YES None
North Sacramento Valley
Integrated Regional Water
Management Group
Wade Kirchner
9:00 a.m. Mondays TBD
210 N. Lassen St
City Hall - Willows
Guadalupe Rivera
(530) 822-7400
[email protected]
YES None
Regional Housing Authority Marc Boomgaarden
12:15 p.m. Twice /Month
1st & 3rd Wednesdays
1455 Butte House Rd, YC
Jennifer Ruiz – Housing Authority
(530) 671-0220 Ext 122
[email protected]
YES $50/meeting
Regional Waste Management Dave Shaw
Toni Cole (Alt)
4:30 p.m. Monthly
Every 3rd Thursday
915 8th Street, Msvl
Scott Scholz & Lisa O’Leary
(530) 634-6890
[email protected]
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting
Regional Water Authority Wade Kirchner
Ben Moody
9:00 am 2nd Thursday
every other month in
various locations
Ashley Flores, Executive
Assistant & Board Secretary
(916) 967-7692 x2000
[email protected]
YES None
Sacramento Area Council of
Governments (SACOG)
Marc Boomgaarden
Toni Cole (Alt)
9:00 a.m. Monthly
Every 3rd Thursday
1415 L St #300, Sacto
Lanette Espinoza - SACOG
(916) 340-6232
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting
School District Liaison Wade Kirchner
Dave Shaw (Alt)
Quarterly
Thursdays @ 3:00
750 Palora Ave, YC
Lora Broad – YCUSD
(530) 822-7601
[email protected]
NO None
Sutter Animal Services
Authority (SASA)
Michael Pasquale
Toni Cole
Wade Kirchner (Alt)
4:00 p.m. Monday
Jan-Apr-Jun-Sep-Nov.
1201 Civic Center Blvd, YC
Ann Gillen – Yuba City
(530) 822-4652
[email protected]
YES None
Sutter Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA)
Dave Shaw
Marc Boomgaarden
Michael Pasquale (Alt)
Toni Cole (Alt)
1:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 2nd Wednesday
1201 Civic Center Blvd, YC
Terra Yaney – SBFCA
(530) 755-9859
[email protected]
YES None

Page | 3
City Council
2025 Board and Committee Assignments
Commission Members Date/Time/Location Contact 700
Form Stipend
Sutter County Children &
Families Commission Toni Cole Quarterly
Location TBD
Julie Price
(530) 822-7505
[email protected]
YES None
Sutter Yuba Mosquito Vector
District Wade Kirchner
4:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 2nd Thursday
701 Bogue Road, YC
Stephen Abshier & Jessica
Farrell
(530) 674-5456
[email protected]
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting
Yuba Sutter Arts Michael Pasquale
6:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 4th Wednesday
624 E Street, Msvl
David Read, Executive Director
(530) 742-2787
[email protected]
YES None
Yuba Sutter Economic
Development Corporation
(Recommendation)
Michael Pasquale
Diana Langley
Meets Quarterly
950 Tharp Road, #1303,
YC
Brynda Stranix, CEO
(530) 751-8555
[email protected]
NO None
Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority
(YSTA)
Toni Cole
Wade Kirchner
Marc Boomgaarden (Alt)
Dave Shaw (Alt)
4:00 p.m. Monthly
Every 3rd Thursday
915 8th Street, Msvl
Matthew Mauk & Lisa O’Leary
(530) 634-6880
[email protected]
[email protected]
YES $100/meeting

Page | 4
City Council
2025 Board and Committee Assignments
Ad Hoc Committees Members
Budget Oversight Dave Shaw
Michael Pasquale
Community Outreach Dave Shaw
Michael Pasquale
Habitat for Humanity Michael Pasquale
Toni Cole
Revenue Marc Boomgaarden
Wade Kirchner
Sikh Parade Dave Shaw
Marc Boomgaarden
Tierra Buena Traffic Dave Shaw
Marc Boomgaarden
Water Tower Park Naming Dave Shaw
Michael Pasquale

Page | 5
City Council
2025 Board and Committee Assignments
*=Mayoral Appointment ** = Recommendation Grey = Ad Hoc Committee Dave Shaw Marc Boomgaarden Toni Cole Wade Kirchner Michael Pasquale Advisory Board Screening
Committee
Advisory Board Screening
Committee Blue Zones County-Wide RDA Oversight
Board* (Alt)
County-Wide RDA Oversight
Board*
Beale Military Liaison Beale Military Liaison (Alt)
Gov’t Affairs Committee for
Sutter Yuba Homeless
Consortium (Alt)
Feather River Air Quality
Management District (Alt)
Downtown Business
Association
Downtown Business
Association
Local Agency Formation
District (LAFCO) Regional Waste Management
Authority (RWMA) (Alt)
Gilsizer Drainage District Feather River Air Quality
Management District
Gilsizer Drainage District Regional Housing Authority Sacramento Area Council of Government (SACOG) (Alt)**
North Sac Valley Integrated
Regional Water Mgmt Group Gilsizer Drainage District (Alt) Greater Sacramento
Economic Council (GSEC)
Sacramento Area Council of
Government (SACOG)**
Sutter Animal Services
Authority (SASA)
Regional Water Authority
(RWA)
Gov’t Affairs Committee for
Sutter Yuba Homeless
Consortium
Local Agency Formation
District (LAFCO) (Alt)
Sutter Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA)
Sutter Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA) (Alt) School District Liaison Greater Sacramento Economic Council (GSEC)
Regional Waste Management
Authority (RWMA)
Yuba-Sutter Transit
Authority (YSTA) (Alt)
Sutter County Children and
Families Commission
Sutter Animal Services
Authority (Alt)
Sutter Animal Services
Authority (SASA)
School District Liaison (Alt) Revenue Ad Hoc Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority (YSTA)
Sutter Yuba Mosquito Vector
District
Sutter Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA) (Alt)
Sutter Butte Flood Control
Agency (SBFCA) Sikh Parade Ad Hoc Habitat for Humanity Ad Hoc Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority (YSTA) Yuba Sutter Arts
Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority
(YSTA) (Alt) Tierra Buena Traffic Ad Hoc Revenue Ad Hoc Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corp (YSEDC)** Budget Oversight Ad Hoc Budget Oversight Ad Hoc
Community Outreach Ad Hoc Community Outreach Ad Hoc
Sikh Parade Ad Hoc Habitat for Humanity Ad Hoc
Tierra Buena Traffic Ad Hoc Water Tower Naming Ad Hoc
Water Tower Naming Ad Hoc

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