Yuba City City Council
August 18, 2026

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

AGENDA
AUGUST 18, 2026

REGULAR MEETING

CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF YUBA CITY
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION

SUTTER ROOM/VIRTUAL
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS/VIRTUAL
MAYOR ● Marc Boomgaarden
VICE-MAYOR ● Michael Pasquale
COUNCILMEMBER ● Toni Cole
COUNCILMEMBER ● Wade Kirchner
COUNCILMEMBER ● Dave Shaw
CITY MANAGER ● Robert Bendorf
CITY ATTORNEY ● Shannon L. Chaffin
1201 Civic Center Blvd, Yuba City CA 95993
Wheelchair Accessible

Aviso Legal sobre Traducción Automática: De conformidad con la sección 54953.4(b)(2) del Código de Gobierno de California, esta traducción ha sido generada mediante un servicio de traducción automatizada y se proporciona únicamente para la comodidad del público. Es posible que no constituya una traducción exacta o completa de la versión original en inglés. En caso de cualquier discrepancia o conflicto, prevalecerá la versión en inglés. La Ciudad de Yuba City no se hace responsable de la exactitud ni del contenido de las traducciones automatizadas.

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF YUBA CITY
AUGUST 18, 2026
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION

SUTTER ROOM/VIRTUAL
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS/VIRTUAL
The City Council meetings are open to the public. The meeting may also be viewed and accessed remotely at:
https://yubacitynet.zoom.us/j/83384137980?pwd=rzyklBX7ZNuUQ6ALHagRXskEdVI7MX.1 If you are attending remotely and wish to comment on a specific item, please electronically raise your hand. Speakers will be unmuted for the item at the appropriate time. Members of the public may also provide comments on agenda items in person.

Written comments may also be submitted by email at [email protected] or mail addressed to the City Clerk, 1201 Civic Center Blvd, Yuba City, CA 95993. Written comments received at least 24 hours before the meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the meeting. Please identify the Agenda item(s) addressed by the comments. Materials or comments related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at 1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Yuba City’s website at www.yubacity.net, subject to staff’s availability to post the documents before the meeting.

A recording of the meeting will be posted on https://www.youtube.com/@YubaCityCA as soon as practicable following the conclusion of the meeting. An electronic copy of this agenda and any associated staff reports and materials may be found at:
https://www.yubacity.net/city_council/council_agenda___minutes.php Public Comment:

Any member of the public wishing to address the City Council on any item listed on the closed session agenda, if any, will have an opportunity to present testimony to the City Council in the Council Chamber prior to the City Council convening into closed session. Comments from the public will be limited to three minutes. No member of the public will be allowed to be present once the City Council convenes into closed session.

Closed Session
A. Liability Claim
Claimant: Orchard Land Corporation, Claim 26-29
Agency Claimed Against: City of Yuba City

B. Liability Claim
Claimant: Rebecca Roger and Gary Ernest Morse II, Claim 26-31 Agency Claimed Against: City of Yuba City
C. Liability Claim
Claimant: Sherri Gonsalves Johnson, Claim 26-32
Agency Claimed Against: City of Yuba City
Regular Meeting
Call to Order
Roll Call
__ Mayor Boomgaarden
__ Vice-Mayor Pasquale
__ Councilmember Cole
__ Councilmember Kirchner
__ Councilmember Shaw
Invocation/Inspiration
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
City Attorney's Report on Closed Session Items, City Attorney Shannon Chaffin Agenda Modifications
Presentations

1. Proclamation - Dave Dillabo, Yuba Sutter Fair

2. Update on Annual Sikh Parade
Public Communication

3. Appearance of Interested Citizens
You are welcome and encouraged to participate in this meeting. Public comment is taken on action items appearing on the Consent Calendar or Business Items on the Agenda when they are called. Public comment on any other items within the scope of the City’s jurisdiction, including items not listed on the Agenda will be considered at this time. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. Members of the public submitting written requests at least 24 hours prior to the meeting will be allotted five minutes to comment per speaker. Repetitive comments may be limited, and large groups are encouraged to select representatives to express the opinions of the group.

Consent Calendar
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time that Council votes on the motion unless members of the City Council request specific items to be discussed or removed from the Consent Calendar for individual action.

4. SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Cycle Programs – System Performance Program and Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program – Grant Application Signature Authority
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit grant applications to SACOG requesting funding under the 2026 System Performance Program and the Next Generation

Solutions & Clean Air Program

5. MOU for Yuba City Police Department Dispatchers to provide temporary dispatch relief services to Sutter County Sheriff's Office due to staffing shortages Recommendation: A. Ratify and approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Yuba City and the County of Sutter for temporary dispatch services
B. Authorize the City Manager to execute and ratify the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City of Yuba City

6. Road Facilities Development Impact Fee Implementation Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City amending Section 12 of Resolution 26-030 to extend the
deadline to record eight final maps until October 30, 2026, in order to allow additional time for processing of final maps that will be exempt from the City’s updated Road Facilities development impact fee and be required to pay the legacy Road Facility fee rate

7. Public Works Crafco Patcher 4 Equipment Capital Acquisition Award Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution awarding a purchasing contract to Crafco, Inc of Phoenix, Arizona for the purchase of one (1) Crafco, Inc Patcher 4 Mastic Melter and Applicator with accessories in the not to exceed amount of $125,398.80, including tax and freight, plus $9,000.00 contingency for a total of $134,398.80, by piggybacking on Sourcewell Open Contract #050625-CFC. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City

8. Annexation of Eight (8) Subdivisions into Community Facilities District 2021-1 Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution annexing certain areas within the City Limits into an existing Community Facilities District (CFD No. 2021-1) to fund municipal services, and authorizing filing said Resolutions, along with their associated Amendments to the Notice of Special Tax Lien, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Sutter

9. Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with Police Officers’ Association, Police First Level Managers, and Police Mid Managers
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the Memoranda of Understanding with the Yuba City Police Officers’ Association, Police First Level Managers, and Police Mid Managers

10. Side Letter Agreements with Yuba City Firefighters’ Association-Local 3793 and Yuba City Fire Management Unit
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving side letter agreements with the Yuba City Firefighters’ Association - Local 3793 and Yuba City Fire Management unit to provide a one-time lump sum payment of $2,250 per employee in lieu of an ongoing salary increase

11. Wildewood West Landscaping District Budget Allocation Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Finance Director to

appropriate $17,194.56 from available reserves in Wildewood West Landscaping District Fund 275 to Account No. 6196-63663 (Materials) for fence replacement

12. Verkada Citywide Security Hardware and Install Contract Award Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution which takes the following actions:

A. Awards the purchase to Monarch of San Francisco, CA and installation of Verkada security hardware in the not to exceed amount of $148,487.38 plus 10% contingency of $14,848.74 for a total of $163,336.12 utilizing the CMAS contract number 3-26- 01-1007, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City B. Authorizes the Finance Director to transfer $19,062.07 from Account 941023 (City Hall Improvements) to Account 941028 (Improvements to Buildings & Grounds)

13. Side Letter Agreements with Yuba City First Level Managers Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving side letter agreements with the Yuba City First Level Managers unit to add supervisor classes eligible to work standby, extend the wage reopener to January 2027, and add provisions for supervisors assigned to work as relief operators at the Water Treatment Plant and the
Wastewater Treatment Facility

14. Tierra Buena Mobile Home Park Water Consolidation Project Award Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution taking the following actions:

A. Denies Newland Entities, Inc.’s request for relief based on a claimed clerical mistake pursuant to California Public Contract Code sections 5100 through 5107; evaluates the bid in accordance with the Proposal Documents at
$198,580.00; and finds that Ridgero Engineering, Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder
B. Awards a construction contract to Ridgero Engineering, Inc of Olivehurst, California, in an amount not to exceed $97,600.00 and authorizes the City Manager to execute
the contract on behalf of the City, subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney
C. Authorizes a construction contingency in an amount not to exceed $19,520.00, and authorizes the Public Works
Director to approve change order(s) addressing changes
in quantities, unforeseen field conditions, utility conflicts, design clarifications, and other circumstances arising
during construction, provided the cumulative value does not exceed the authorized contingency
D. Authorizes the Finance Director to execute a
supplemental appropriation in the amount of $126,880 to CIP Account No. 951092-65501, Water Line Extension &
Distribution Piping Enhancements, for the Tierra Buena
Mobile Home Park Water System Improvement Project,
and to process a corresponding budget adjustment to
recognize grant revenue in Account No. 951092-43126
(State Revolving Fund Grant Revenue)

E. Finds that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15304, that the actions authorized
herein are within the scope of the previously approved
Project, and that no further environmental review is
required

15. WWTF Septage Receiving Station Project Award
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution taking the following actions:

A. Rejects the bid submitted by Golden State Excavating, Inc. as nonresponsive for failure to provide the original bidder’s bond required by the Contract Documents and
separately consents to withdrawal of the bid without
forfeiture of bid security based on the bidder’s
demonstrated material clerical error pursuant to California Public Contract Code sections 5100 through 5107
B. Awards a Base Bid construction contract to GSE
Construction Company of Livermore, California, in an
amount not to exceed $1,056,400 and authorizes the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City,
subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney
C. Authorizes a construction contingency in an amount not to exceed $158,460, and authorizes the Public Works
Director to modify the scope of work through change
order(s) to address changes in quantities, unforeseen
field conditions, coordination with existing operating
facilities, design clarifications, and other circumstances arising during construction, provided the cumulative value of such change orders does not exceed the authorized
contingency amount
D. Awards a professional services agreement to HERWIT
Engineering of Clayton, California, for engineering
services during construction and supplemental
construction inspection in an amount not to exceed
$72,460 and authorizes the City Manager to execute the
agreement on behalf of the City, subject to review and
approval as to legal form by the City Attorney
E. Authorizes the Finance Director to execute a budget
transfer in the amount of $556,730 from the Unallocated Wastewater Fund to CIP Account No. 981329-65501
(Septic Station), utilizing available balances within the Unallocated Wastewater Fund
F. Finds that CEQA was previously assessed for the Project, a Class 1 Categorical Exemption was adopted, the
actions recommended herein are within the scope of the
previously approved Project, and no further
environmental review is required under CEQA

16. Utilities Department Laboratory Capital Acquisition Request Recommendation: A. Adopt a Resolution awarding the purchase of one (1) Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS) and one (1) Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometer (ICP-OES) to PerkinElmer U.S. LLC of Shelton, CT in the total amount of $194,755.08, including tax and freight, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City. Council waives the competitive bidding requirements set forth in Municipal Code Section 2.6.14 in favor of a sole source purchase, as authorized therein.

B. Authorize a contingency in an amount not to exceed of $15,244.92 for a total of $210,000.00, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City.

17. Letter of Support for Assembly Bill 1821 – California Public Records Act: Agency Response Time
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in support of Assembly Bill (AB) 1821, which would amend the California Public Records Act by calculating specified agency response deadlines using business days rather than calendar days

18. Authorization to Join the California Public Entity Tort Reform Coalition Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to approve the City of Yuba City's participation in the California Public Entity Tort Reform Coalition by allowing the City's name and logo to be added to the coalition support letter
Business Items

19. Agreement Between the City of Yuba City and the Downtown Business Association (DBA)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Yuba City and the Downtown Business Association (DBA) to establish a collaborative framework for downtown economic development, event coordination, tourism, and beautification

20. Office of Traffic Safety - Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant Recommendation: A. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police to accept $90,000 in grant funding from the 2026/2027 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program and approve expenditure
recommendations
B. Authorize the Finance Director to make the following supplemental appropriations to Account No. 2164-61430
($85,472) for personnel overtime costs, No. 2164-62801
($3,398.00) for travel and training, 2164-63801 ($1130.00) for direct costs associated with the grant. Reimbursement revenues will be recorded through Account No. 2164-43409

21. FY26/27 Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (CTFGP) from the California Highway Patrol (CHP)
Recommendation: A. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police to accept $269,666.80 in grant funding from the 2026/2027 Cannabis Tax

Fund Grant Program and approve expenditure
recommendations
B. Authorize the Finance Director to make the following supplemental appropriations to Account No. 2162-61430
($61,210.80) for personnel overtime costs, No. 2162-63801 ($12,000.00) for tools, supplies and equipment, No. 2162-62801 ($15,456.00) for travel and training expenses, and No. 2162- 69401 ($181,000.00) for equipment expenses. Reimbursement revenues will be recorded through Account No. 2162-69401

22. Rezone (RZ) 23-05 for Calvary Christian Center
Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing; then
B. Introduce, by title only, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City approving Rezone (RZ) 23-05 and Rezoning Assessor’s Parcel 63-010-145 from a Office Commercial Zoned District Combined with the X19 Zone District (C-O X19) by Removing the X19 Zone District resulting in the property being rezoned to the Office Commercial (C-O) Zone District, on a 12 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of El Margarita Road and State Route 10 (Colusa Highway)

23. WWTF Outfall Diffuser Relocation Project – Resolution Authorizing Execution of Final Form of Agreement
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the final form of the Agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program for the WWTF Effluent Outfall Diffuser Relocation Project and authorizing execution and delivery thereof
Future Agenda Items

24. Future Agenda Items
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

25. City Manager's Report

26. City Council Reports
Adjournment

Agenda Item 4

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: August 18, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works Department
Presentation By: Joshua Wolffe, Public Works Director
Summary
Subject: SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Cycle Programs – System Performance Program and Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program – Grant Application Signature Authority
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit grant applications to SACOG requesting funding under the 2026 System Performance Program and the Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program Fiscal Impact: Up to $15,000 for ongoing consultant work, plus minimal staff time to prepare the applications, with potential grant funding of over $2 million Purpose:

Comply with program requirements necessary to secure grant funding for improving City transportation infrastructure.

Strategic Focus Area:

This project addresses the City's Strategic Focus Areas of improving the City’s infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner, specifically by seeking grant funding to improve the conditions of City streets.

Background:

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG’s) 2026 Federal Funding Cycle is now open to local agencies in the six-county SACOG region, which includes Yuba City. This cycle SACOG has announced the following three programs will be included:
• System Preservation Program – Application submitted May 8th • System Performance Program
• Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program
The first program released was the System Preservation Program, which invests in maintaining and resurfacing major roadways that keep people and goods moving. Public Works staff submitted three applications for this program on May 8, 2026. Applications for the System Performance and Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program are due in September.

The project evaluation and selection process utilizes the Project Performance Assessment Tool developed by SACOG to generate data about project benefits that can be compared to other projects.

Priority is given to corridors that serve transit, freight, key community destinations, equity-priority areas, and emergency or evacuation routes. SACOG will review all projects for eligibility and consistency with 2025 Blueprint goals prior to projects being reviewed by a six-county committee consisting of technical experts from SACOG, local transportation departments, and other transportation professionals. Projects will be prioritized across all six counties by the review committee using the criteria established by the SACOG Board of Directors at the beginning of the federal funding cycle. SACOG staff will review recommendations and ensure all projects are scored using regional performance criteria. Ultimately, the SACOG Board will approve the final grant awards.

Analysis:

System Performance Program
Public Works staff have reviewed SACOG’s System Performance Program requirements, participated in a pre-application coordination meeting with SACOG staff, reviewed the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, Active Transportation Plan, and the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan, and evaluated the City’s Pavement Management System ratings for applicable streets to develop potential projects for the System Performance Program. Staff recommend applying for the Gray Avenue Safety Project, which would include safety improvements, including buffered bike lanes, sidewalks, consolidation of existing road crossings, a new Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, accessible ramps, an overlay, plus improved signage and roadway markings, on Gray Avenue from State Route 20 to Kimball Avenue.

Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program
Similarly, Public Works staff have reviewed SACOG’s Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program requirements, participated in a pre-application coordination meeting with SACOG staff, reviewed the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, Active Transportation Plan, and the Yuba-Sutter Regional Safety Action Plan, and referenced the Sacramento Regional Trail Network for applicable streets to develop potential projects for the Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program. Staff recommend applying for the Reeves Avenue Downtown Bike Route Project, which includes constructing a Class IV bikeway and sidewalk, along with related curb, gutter, drainage improvements, ADA compliant curb ramps, and roadway markings on Reeves Avenue between Cooper Avenue and the Plumas Tower Plaza at Plumas Street.

SACOG requires an adopted resolution as part of the funding applications. SACOG also requires that the resolution commit the applicant to deliver the projects on time, ensure accountability, and assert that the projects align with funding goals and timelines. The attached resolution consists of SACOG’s grant application template and follows SACOG requirements.

Fiscal Impact:

Public Works has contracted with Peterson Consulting Advantage to assist with preparation of the grant applications, for a cost not to exceed $15,000. Minimal staff time is also required to complete the applications. The grant amount and local cost share for each application are as follows:

Project Total Cost Grant Amount Local Share
Gray Avenue Safety Project $2,306,000 $2,040,000 $266,000 Reeves Avenue Downtown Bike Route
Project
$2,726,000 $2,410,000 $316,000
There is a minimum 11.47% local cost share required, which would be funded by gas tax revenues.

Alternatives:

Do not authorize the Public Works Director to submit grant applications for these projects and forego applying this funding round.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Public Works Director to submit grant applications to SACOG requesting funding under the 2026 System Performance Program and the Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program.

Attachments:

1. Resolution - System Perf & NextGen Authorization
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Kevin Bradford
Deputy Public Works Director
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

AUTHORIZING APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDING FROM THE SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SACOG) 2026 FEDERAL FUNDING PROGRAMS AND

AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT CITY OF YUBA CITY SACOG 2026 FEDERAL FUNDING PROGRAM APPLICATION PRIORITIES, EXECUTE ALL GRANT

DOCUMENTS, AND TIMELY PROJECT DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has announced three 2026 Federal Funding Cycle Programs (Funding Programs), which are open to sponsoring agencies within the six-county SACOG region: System Preservation Program, System Performance Program, and Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program; and WHEREAS, the System Performance Program funds projects that improve how the transportation system functions day-to-day, including roadway and safety improvements, transit upgrades, EV charging, new bike and pedestrian connections, mobility hubs, and smarttransportation technologies that help manage traffic and improve reliability; and WHEREAS, the Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program supports projects that reduce emissions and improve air quality—such as high-capacity transit, zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure, bikeways and trails, Complete Streets, traffic flow improvements, and programs that encourage carpooling, transit use, and other clean transportation options; and
WHEREAS, eligible projects for Funding Programs must be listed in the 2025 Blueprint or fit within 2025 Blueprint lump-sum project categories, including, but not limited to, road maintenance and reconstruction, transit vehicle replacements, operational improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and bicycle and pedestrian investments; and WHEREAS, SACOG limits Funding Programs grant applications to no more than three applications per sponsoring agency for any one of the three different Funding Programs to SACOG, up to a maximum of nine total applications per sponsoring agency; and WHEREAS, City of Yuba City (City) staff have reviewed SACOG’s System Performance Program and Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air Program requirements, participated in a pre-application coordination meeting with SACOG staff, and evaluated potential projects to determine the ideal projects for which to submit applications; and WHEREAS, applicants shall affirm their commitment to delivering projects in accordance with the requirements of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program and Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, as applicable; and WHEREAS, grant proposals for construction work shall obligate Funding Program dollars for construction activities no later than the end of federal fiscal year 2028-29; and WHEREAS, SACOG will not provide additional federal or state funding in the event that cost overruns are identified; and
WHEREAS, project sponsors shall commit to providing local matching dollars, typically

11.47% of the total project cost; and

WHEREAS, SACOG requires that if awarded federal funds by the SACOG Board, City staff responsible for project delivery must attend quarterly project delivery meetings with SACOG staff to receive assistance until project closeout.

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

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

2. The City Council authorizes the Public Works Director or designee to execute all documents necessary to committing the City to federal, state and regional funding and project delivery requirements, including, but not limited to, abiding by Funding Program guidelines.

3. The City Council acknowledges that in the event of receiving an award by the SACOG Board of Funding Program dollars, that City will be required to abide by multiple timely use of funding requirements described in Funding Program guidelines and SACOG’s Regional Delivery Policies, including, but not limited to, obligating federal funding no later than the end of federal fiscal year 2028-2029 for construction activities, committing to securing required local match dollars, acknowledging that SACOG does not cover cost overruns, and committing staff to attend delivery meetings until project closeout.

4. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director or designee to submit the following application for the 2026 Six-County Federal Funding Cycle System Performance Program:
a. Title: Gray Avenue Safety Project
Description: On Gray Avenue, from SR20 to Kimball Avenue: safety improvements, including buffered bike lanes, sidewalks, consolidation of existing road crossings, a new Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, accessible ramps, an overlay, plus improved signage and roadway markings.

5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director or designee to submit the following applications for the 2026 Six-County Federal Funding Cycle Next Generations Solutions & Clean Air Program:
a. Title: Reeves Avenue Downtown Biek Route Project
Description: On Reeves Avenue, construct a Class IV bikeway between Cooper Avenue and the Plumas Tower Plaza at Plumas Street, including curb, gutter, drainage improvements, sidewalks, accessible curb ramps, and re-striping the roadway.

6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th Day of August, 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Marc Boomgaarden, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

Agenda Item 5

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: August 18, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Police Department
Presentation By: Michael Bullard, Police Lieutenant
Summary
Subject: MOU for Yuba City Police Department Dispatchers to provide temporary dispatch relief services to Sutter County Sheriff's Office due to staffing shortages
Recommendation: A. Ratify and approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Yuba City and the County of Sutter for temporary dispatch services B. Authorize the City Manager to execute and ratify the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City of Yuba City
Fiscal Impact: The Fiscal Impact includes the initial cost of dispatcher’s wages for the time worked assisting the County of Sutter.

The County of Sutter will reimburse the City for the actual fully burdened hourly costs associated with personnel assigned to provide dispatch services, including salary, payroll taxes, employee benefits, and required training time. The agreement establishes a reimbursement cap of $50,000 per fiscal year. Existing staff will perform services only as operationally feasible, minimizing any impact on City operations.

Yuba City will invoice the County of Sutter monthly for reimbursement for time worked.

Purpose:

To ratify and approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Yuba City and the County of Sutter, effective July 15, 2026, authorizing the Yuba City Police Department to provide temporary dispatch staffing assistance to the Sutter County Sheriff's Office while ensuring full reimbursement of the City's personnel costs. Ratification confirms and approves the actions previously taken to implement the agreement without interruption to regional public safety communications services.

Strategic Focus Area:

Ratification and approval of this MOU falls in line with the City Council’s Strategic Goal of Safe Communities.

Background:

The Sutter County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) is currently experiencing staffing shortages within its Dispatch Center while actively recruiting and training additional dispatch personnel. To assist during this transition period, SCSO requested temporary staffing assistance from the Yuba City Police Department (YCPD).

Due to an immediate operational need at the Sutter County Sheriff's Office Dispatch Center, the Memorandum of Understanding was executed by both agencies and became effective on July 15, 2026, to allow dispatch services to begin without delay. This staff report seeks City Council ratification of that agreement and approval of its effectiveness retroactive to July 15, 2026, thereby confirming the City's participation and ensuring the continuity of regional emergency communications services. Under the proposed Memorandum of Understanding, qualified YCPD dispatch personnel may voluntarily provide dispatch services at the Sutter County Dispatch Center based upon employee availability and operational needs of the Yuba City Police Department. Dispatch services may be provided seven days per week at the sole discretion of the City.

Services performed under this agreement include answering 911 and non-emergency telephone calls, radio communications, Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) operations, California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) entries and inquiries, routing reports to the District Attorney's Office, and relaying information to allied agencies as necessary. The agreement became effective on July 15, 2026, and remains in effect through December 15, 2026, unless terminated earlier by either party with thirty days written notice.

Analysis:

The proposed Memorandum of Understanding represents a collaborative partnership between the City of Yuba City and the County of Sutter to address a temporary regional public safety staffing need.

The agreement provides flexibility for YCPD to assign qualified dispatch personnel only when staffing levels permit and at the City's sole discretion. Participation will not compromise the City's ability to provide emergency communications services to Yuba City residents.

Sutter County will reimburse the City for the actual fully burdened hourly rate of each employee providing dispatch services, including salary, payroll taxes, employee benefits, and required training time. Monthly invoices will document personnel assigned, dates worked, hours worked, and applicable hourly rates. Total reimbursement under the agreement is limited to $50,000 per fiscal year.

Additionally, the agreement clearly establishes operational responsibilities, indemnification, administrative oversight, dispute resolution procedures, and termination provisions to protect the interests of both agencies. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) will be jointly developed to ensure consistency in scheduling, shift transitions, and operational expectations.

Fiscal Impact:

The Fiscal Impact includes the initial cost of dispatcher’s wages for the time worked assisting the County of Sutter.

The County of Sutter will reimburse the City for the actual fully burdened hourly costs associated with personnel assigned to provide dispatch services, including salary, payroll taxes, employee benefits, and required training time. The agreement establishes a reimbursement cap of $50,000 per fiscal year.

Existing staff will perform services only as operationally feasible, minimizing any impact on City

operations.

Yuba City will invoice the County of Sutter monthly for reimbursement for time worked.

Alternatives:

1. Decline approval of the Memorandum of Understanding and not provide Dispatch Services to the Sutter County Sheriff's Office.

2. Direct staff to negotiate revisions to the agreement prior to approval.

Recommendation:

A. Ratify and approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Yuba City and the County of Sutter for temporary dispatch services.

B. Authorize the City Manager to execute and ratify the MOU on behalf of the City of Yuba City.

Attachments:

1. Yuba City Police Dept-Sutter County Sheriff Dispatch Services MOU 7-15-26 Prepared By: Submitted By:

Mike Bullard
Police Lieutenant
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

Agenda Item 6

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: August 18, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Development Services Department
Presentation By: Doug Libby, Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Road Facilities Development Impact Fee Implementation Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City amending Section 12 of Resolution 26-030 to extend the deadline to record eight final maps until October 30, 2026, in order to allow additional time for processing of final maps that will be exempt from the City’s updated Road Facilities development impact fee and be required to pay the legacy Road Facility fee rate Fiscal Impact: This item does not have an impact on the General Fund. Existing budgeted monies are paying for staff time to address this item
Purpose:

To allow additional time for processing eight final subdivision maps in order to be exempt from the City’s updated Road Facilities development impact fee.

Strategic Focus Area:

This item supports Council’s Strategic Focus Area of Fiscal Responsibility and Infrastructure by ensuring that Road Development Impact Fees are appropriately calculated and collected to fund the roadway improvements necessary to support projected City growth.

Background:

On March 17, 2026, the City Council unanimously approved an AB 1600 Fee Justification Study and adopted an updated Road Facilities Development Impact Fee by adopting Ordinance 001-26 and Resolution 26-030. The Road Facilities fee was last updated in 2007.

The City utilized Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) to assist in preparing the AB 1600 fee justification study for the Road fee update. The purpose of this Nexus Study is to establish the Roadway Fee Program and the legally required nexus findings for the City to implement the Roadway Fee Program and to set the initial development impact fee rate. The Nexus Study summarizes key components of the implementation and administration of the proposed Roadway Fee Program.

As part of approving an updated Road Facilities fee, it was determined that existing projects having an active building permit as of May 14, 2026, would be exempt from the updated fee and would continue to pay the previously existing Road fee rate.

Additionally, for subdivision entitlements, it was determined if a project having an approved tentative subdivision map submitted a final map to the City by May 14, 2026, and the final map was recorded by August 27, 2026, the project would be exempt from the new Road Facilities fee and would be required to pay the previously existing Road fee rate. The eight subdivisions where final maps were submitted timely are:

Thiara Estates, Brownstone Estates, The Ridge Estates Units 1 and 2, Elmer Ranch West, Newkom Ranch Units 1 and 2, and Sohal Ranch Estates.

Analysis:

Staff proposes amending Resolution 26-030 to extend the period allowed to record the eight final maps until October 30, 2026. This will allow developers, City staff and the City Attorney’s Office sufficient time to finalize these eight final maps and accompanying documentation in order to bring them forward to the City Council in a form ready for recording. This extension of time has been coordinated with the project representatives or developers, and they are supportive of this request.

Fiscal Impact:

There is not a General Fund impact to process or implement this request. Existing budgeted monies are being used to pay for preparation of this staff report. Developer fees are collected to pay for staff time associated with processing of the eight final maps.

Alternatives:

Do not approve an amendment to Resolution No. 2026-30. The impact of this decision will be the majority of the subdivisions mentioned will not be exempted from the updated Road Facilities fee.

Additionally, the City Council may provide alternative direction to staff.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuba City amending Section 12 of Resolution 26- 030 to extend the deadline to record eight final maps until October 30, 2026, in order to allow additional time for processing of final maps that will be exempt from the City’s updated Road Facilities development impact fee and be required to pay the legacy Road Facility fee rate.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Doug Libby, AICP
Director of Development Services
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

Attachment 1

RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AMENDING RESOLUTION 26-030 REGARDING THE TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CITY’S UPDATED ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, in March of 2026, the City Council of the City of Yuba City adopted Resolution 26-030 and Ordinance 001-26 adopting an updated Road Facilities Development Impact Fee to provide for improved roadways as planned growth occurs consistent with the 2040 General Plan, for the benefit of residents, businesses, and employees within the City; and,
WHEREAS, a copy of Resolution 26-030 is included as Exhibit A to this resolution.

WHEREAS, Section 12 of Resolution 26-030 established the effective date of the updated fee schedule for the Road Facilities Development Impact Fee by providing a timeline for the filing of approved tentative subdivision maps with the City and requiring that timely filed tentative maps be recorded within 105 days, or until Thursday, August 27, 2026, to record final maps, will be exempt from the updated Road fee; and, WHEREAS, the City received eight timely filed approved tentative subdivision maps by the new Road fee’s implementation schedule, or by May 14, 2026. City staff, developers and project representatives have been working to complete the work necessary to be able to record the eight timely filed approved tentative subdivision maps; and, WHEREAS, the City, developers of the eight approved timely filed tentative subdivision maps, and project representatives find it desirable to extend the deadline to record the eight timely filed tentative subdivision maps from August 27, 2026, until October 30, 2026, to allow additional time to assemble the materials necessary to have a complete package for each subdivision’s recording and to allow time for City Attorney review; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Yuba City as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council finds that all of the recitals and facts cited herein and in Resolution 26-030 and Ordinance No. 001-26 are true and correct and incorporated herein.

Section 2. CEQA Finding. The City Council finds that the actions in this Resolution as well as Resolution 26-030 and Ordinance No. 001-26 are statutorily exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and it is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15273(a)(1) (Rates, Tolls Fairs and Charges) of Title 14 of the Code of California Regulations (CEQA Regulations) because the rates established

are funding capital projects. The written findings supporting this determination can be found herein, in the 2040 General Plan (Resolution No. 25-007), the technical update to the 2004 General Plan (Resolution No. 04-049), and in the Fee Study supporting the establishment of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees. Likewise, the City Council finds that this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Regulations Section 15061 (b )(3) because it can be seen with the required certainty that action will not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Moreover, the City Council finds this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Regulations Sections 15378(b)(4) because this establishment of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact 26-030 Fees and the rates herein do not involve any commitment to any specific project, now or in the future.

Section 3. Section 12 of Resolution 26-030 is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“ Effective Date of Resolution and Fee Schedule. This Resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee Schedule shall become legally effective immediately, but it shall not be implemented and charge until 60 days after this resolution's effective date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developments that received approval from the Planning Commission or the City Council and have recorded a final map or have an active building permit before the Fee Schedule's implementation shall be assessed the road impact fee that was in place and charged at the time of entitlement.

Additionally, projects that have submitted a final map to the City by the Fee Schedule's implementation and the final map is recorded within 169 days, or by 5pm October 30, 2026, of the Fee Schedule's implementation, shall also be assessed the road impact fee that was in place and charged at the time of entitlement.”
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 18th day of August, 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
__________________________
Marc Boomgaarden, Mayor

ATTEST:
____________________________
Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

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

EXHIBIT A

RESOLUTION NO. 26-030

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY CONCURRENTLY

ADOPTED WITH AND MAKING FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES THROUGH ORDINANCE NO. 001-26 AND THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 12 (ROADWAY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES) TO TITLE 8, OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE; ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY AND; ADOPTING RELATED CEQA FINDINGS; AND, ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR ROADWAY

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City (the "City") provides numerous public services and it constructs and maintains numerous public improvements, including roadways, for the benefit of residents, businesses, and employees within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2040 General Plan on January 21, 2025 (Resolution No. 25-007) as a technical update to the 2004 General Plan (Resolution No. 04-049).

The General Plan provides policy direction for ministerial and discretionary project reviews, together with implementation programs and comprehensive policy direction for growth and development; and,
WHEREAS, new development generally generates growth which in turn impacts public facilities and roadways in ways that the revenues generated through property taxes and other means are generally insufficient to accommodate; and,
WHEREAS, if additional capital roadway improvements are not added to the City as development occurs, the existing roadway facilities will become inadequate over time resulting in numerous adverse impacts, including inadequate traffic safety and transportation improvements; and,
WHEREAS, to prevent undesirable consequences, and to reduce the impacts of new development on the City's roadways, the City's must develop and improve roadways at a rate which will accommodate the City's expected growth; and, WHEREAS, it is the City's intent and desire in the adoption of the Fee Schedule attached here to as Exhibit A to have developers pay for their fair share of public costs associated with new development while at the same time facilitating growth that is in the public interest; and, WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared the "Yuba City Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, dated December 31, 2025 ("Fee Study"). The Fee Study is, and has been on file with the City Clerk; and,
WHEREAS, The Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees established by this Chapter will be imposed upon development projects for the specific purpose of mitigating the impact of the development on the City's ability to provide public roadway improvements and services as needed; and,
WHEREAS, the Fee Study and its supporting documents identify the development potential of the City from the year 2025 until 2040; identifies roadway improvements to serve and 26-030

accommodate new development; and provides a summary of the portion of each housing improvement category's costs that can be funded by new development; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has relied upon and adopts the factual information, analysis, and conclusions in the Fee Study in the establishment of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees and concurrent adoption of Ordinance No. 001-26; and, WHEREAS, all legal publications, notices, and prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution, the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees, and Ordinance No. 001-26 have occurred; and,
WHEREAS, the City has and will continue in the future to implement and maintain accounting of the funds collected in accordance with the requirements of State law and in particular the Fee Mitigation Act; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees is both in the best interests of the community and needed to ensure adequate traffic safety and transportation improvements are implemented as development occurs.

WHEREAS, the City Council in adopting this Resolution does hereby replace and superseded any previously adopted Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees, whether they are set forth by resolution or ordinance, that are directly contrary to the Fees adopted by this Resolution and the concurrently adopted Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Yuba City as follows:

Section 1.

Section 2.

Recitals. The City Council finds that all of the recitals and facts cited herein and in Ordinance No. 001-26 which is adopted concurrently with this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein.

CEQA Finding. The City Council finds that the actions in this Resolution and the concurrently adopted Ordinance No. 001-26 are statutorily exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and it is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15273(a)(1) (Rates, Tolls Fairs and Charges) of Title 14 of the Code of California Regulations (CEQA Regulations) because the rates established are funding capital projects. The written findings supporting this determination can be found herein, in the 2040 General Plan (Resolution No. 25-007), the technical update to the 2004 General Plan (Resolution No. 04-049), and in the Fee Study supporting the establishment of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees. Likewise, the City Council finds that this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Regulations Section 15061 (b )(3) because it can be seen with the required certainty that action will not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Moreover, the City Council finds this action is categorically exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Regulations Sections 15378(b)(4) because this establishment of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact 26-030

Section 3.

Section 4.

Section 5.

Section 6.

Fees and the rates herein do not involve any commitment to any specific project, now or in the future.

Compliance with Mitigation Fee Act. The City Council finds and determines it has complied with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.

Adoption of Roadway Facilities Capital Improvement Program. The City Council finds and determines that the City of Yuba City Roadway Facilities Capital Improvement Program dated December 31, 2025, is complete and accurate and the City Council hereby adopts the factual information, analysis, supporting documents, and conclusions in the Capital Improvement Program for the purposes of establishing the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees in this Resolution and Ordinance No. 001-26. The Capital Improvement Program, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, has been on file and it will remain on file with the City Clerk for review in perpetuity.

Adoption of Fee Study. The City Council finds and determines that the "Fee Study", is complete and accurate and the City Council hereby adopts the factual information, analysis, supporting documents, and conclusions in the Fee Study for the purposes of establishing the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees in this Resolution and Ordinance No. 001-26.

The Fee Study, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, has been on file and it will remain on file with the City Clerk for review in perpetuity.

Specific Fee Study Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. New development generates additional demand for
roadway and transportation improvements.
b. The City's adopted Roadway Impact Fee Study identifies the purpose and use of the fee as well as the relationship between the impacts of development and the proportionality of the fee to those impacts.
c. Without the imposition of Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees on new impactful development, existing
roadway facilities will become inadequate over time
resulting in numerous adverse impacts, including
inadequate traffic safety and transportation improvements. d. The City's adopted Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees shall be supplementary to any other conditions
imposed upon a development project pursuant to other
provisions of the Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, or any other
Federal, State or local laws, which may authorize the
imposition of project specific fees or conditions on
development.
26-030

Section 7.

Section 8.

Section 9.

Section 10. Section 11.

Section 12.
e. The fee methodology allocates roadway costs among land uses in proportion to traffic generation.
f. The collected fees will fund capacity-enhancing
improvements necessary to serve new growth.
g. Actual fee amounts shall be adopted and amended by City Council resolution.

Creation of Reserve Account. The City Council hereby directs staff to create and establish the City's Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fee Reserve Account (Reserve Account) and to ensure that the funds in the Reserve Account are used, reviewed, accounted for, and reported as required by the Mitigation Fee Act, as now written and as it may be amended in the future.

City Manager Authority. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or her/his designee, to establish procedures and hear any appeals a developer may have regarding the application or calculation of the Roadway Facilities Development Impact Fees to any development.

The City Manager is authorized to adopt any procedures, regulations, or guidelines that are consistent with terms and conditions of this Resolution, Ordinance 001-26, the Mitigation Fee Act, and any other applicable legal limitations on the City Manager's authority. The City Council directs the City Attorney to provide the City Manager with counsel during such development and adoption and to provide appropriate legal counsel during any appeals.

Fee Schedule. The City Council hereby adopts the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A
CEQA Filing. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager, or her/his designee, to ensure the proper filing of a Notice of Exemption.

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

Effective Date of Resolution and Fee Schedule. This Resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee Schedule shall become legally effective immediately, but it shall not be implemented and charge until 60 days after this resolution's effective date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developments that received approval from the Planning Commission or the City Council and have recorded a final map or have an active building permit before the Fee Schedule's implementation shall be assessed the road impact fee that was in place and charged at the time of entitlement. 26-030

Additionally, projects that have submitted a final map to the City by the Fee Schedule's implementation and the final map is recorded within 105 days of the Fee Schedule's implementation, shall also be assessed the road impact fee that was in place and charged at the time of entitlement.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of March, 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Councilmembers Cole, Kirchner, Pasquale, Shaw, and Mayor Boomgaarden None None
~WcJ~U
Attachments:

A: Exhibit A: Fee Schedule

APPROVED AS TO FORM

COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY
affin, City Attorney
ire & Wynder, LLP
B: Exhibit B: Roadway Facilities Capital Improvement Program dated December 31, 2025
C: Exhibit C: Development Impact Fee Study dated December 31, 2025 26-030

EXHIBIT A

!ROAD DEVELOPMENT !IMPACT FEE BY LAN USE TYPE
Proposed Impact Fee Including Administration Fee
Land Use Category <1,500 SQFT 1,500 - 2,499 SQFT 2,500+ SQFT Nonresidential per KSF
Single-Family Residential $14,990 $16,625 $18,284
Multi-Family Residential $7,182 $7,965 $8,760
Single-Family Residential - Senior $3,843 $4,263 $4,688 Multi-Family Residential - Senior $2,944 $3,264 $3,590
Mobile Home $7,431 $8,242 $9,064 Neighborhood Commercial $30,126 Community Commercial $29,184
Regional Commercial $40,482
Office $16,990
Light Industrial $6,288
Manufacture $9,466
Notes:

SQFT = square feet KSF = thousand square feet

EXHIBIT 8

CltyofYijb,CltyTr1fflclmp,1ctFt1 Upd.ite
HajotPlarv,C!d~I~•lnActorduKewlththeOctober20l4Trlfflc9U<ly ~e 1-1-1 =1··--·1·--1
.. :-:-;.·;;;::.,:: :r:-:::· "' ,:r;-;.·:,r.:,:::,... , .... , • ... _,,,..,,._,,. ,. _
·: :~"
_
,,
__ ,_,_ "' .:
~ 1---7. --;;i - -,r,,
. '
,. '" '
•
_
••- O H
• • ,·-•-..... R• • •
, ............... ...
... .................. ..
'"' • .. ~~.~;.":';',.:,'\ ..
·•• ..
-
..
··-,•·. "-•··--·--
..
-
.,. .....
·
..
--
. _
-
.....
-
... .... ......

. ,
-- .--·--
.;;;:;;-
--
·
--
!If-:
,
____ ,..,,_, ,, ____ _
,
_____ ,_,_,
··--· ...
·--- i--•-·-··--·-
, ____ i--•-··-··--·
--- -
... --· .. -~
• i-•n•--- - ..
--- ------
_,..
, .........
---
-,-
-
....
.... ,
-···-·-
............ .. .
c::===::J-•··-·--····· c:::===J-•----
= •~<- c:::=::=:i ........... ..

Qty of V11bl 0ty Tr1fflc Im put ftt llputt
Hi)«Pl.ined~l~,l11Ac<onla!IOl!VllththeOdOW2014T~tSllldy~• . ' \'~ ... .. ..... ,~ ....... .......
--
......
,,_ ............... ,_
,_ .... , .......... .....
·-·-

EXHIBIT C

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 701
Sacramento, CA 95814
916 649 8010 tel
916 649 2070 fax
Oakland
Sacramento
Denver
Los Angeles
www.epsys.com
Final Report
Yuba City Roadway Facilities
Development Impact Fee
Nexus Study
Prepared for:

City of Yuba City
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
December 31, 2025
EPS #222104

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Executive Summary ..................................................................... 1 Roadway Fee Program Overview ....................................................................................... 1 Nexus Study Requirements ................................................................................................. 3 Roadway Fee Program Implementation and Administration ................................... 6 Supporting Documents ......................................................................................................... 7 Organization of Report ............................................................... ........................................... 8

2. Land Uses and Demographics ..................................................................................... 9 Demog ra ph ic Information .................................................................................................... 9

3. Yuba City Roadway Improvements and Cost Allocations .............................. 12 Capital Improvement Program ...................... .................................................................. 12 Roadway Facility Cost Allocations ................................................... ............................... 17

4. Nexus Findings .............................................................................................................. 19 California Government Code Section 66001 .............................................................. 19 California Government Code Section 66016.5 (AB 602) ....................................... 21

5. Fee Program Implementation and Administration ........................................... 24 Inflation Adjustment .. .......................................................................................................... 24 Implementing Ordinances/Resolutions ......................................................................... 25 Fee Administration ............................................................................................................... 25 Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers ................................................................. 25 Fee Cred it and Reimbursement to Developers .......................................................... 27 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process ........................................................................ 28 Programming Revenues and Projects with the
Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................................ 28 Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................ 28 Appendices
Appendix A: City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations, prepared by Fehr & Peers
Appendix B: Summary of Roadway Capital Improvement Program Appendix C: Transportation Impact Fee Comparisons
Appendix D: Development Impact Fee Comparisons

List of Tables and Figure
Table 1-1. Table 2-1. Table 2-2. Table 3-1. Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Table 3-4.

Figure 1.

Roadway Facility Fees ......................................................................................... 2 Yuba City 2040 Buildout Estimates ........................................ .. ................... 10 PPH-National Data Single Family Detached Units ............................... 11 Description of Roadway Improvements .................................................... 13 Roadway Fee Program Cost Summary ...................................................... 15 Roadway Facilities Costs by Category ........................................................ 16 Roadway Facility Fees by Residential Unit Size Range ........................ 18 Number of Lanes and Functional ClassificationBuildout Conditions ........................................................................................... 14

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025

1. Introduction and Executive Summary
Under the direction of the City, Fehr & Peers prepared an updated traffic analysis to model future land use and transportation demands-related roadway circulation needs and MHM Engineers & Surveyors prepared detailed roadway improvement costs estimates (Roadway Facilities Capital Improvement Program [CIP or Roadway CIP]) for those roadway facilities. Fehr & Peers prepared a City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations report1 (Fee Calculations or Fee Calculations Report) to inform the calculations in this City of Yuba City Roadway Impact Fee Program Nexus Study (Nexus Study). This Nexus Study justifies the maximum allowable roadway impact fees that may be collected by the City. This fee program is referred to hereafter as the City of Yuba City Roadway Fee Program (Roadway Fee Program).

Roadway Fee Program Overview
The purpose of the Nexus Study is to establish the Roadway Fee Program and the legally required nexus findings for the City to implement the Roadway Fee Program and to set the initial development impact fees (roadway fees or fees).

This Nexus Study also summarizes key components of the implementation and administration of the proposed Roadway Fee Program. As described herein, the Roadway Fee Program may be updated periodically to reflect changes in land uses, facilities requirements, improvement costs, and other fee program information over time.

The Roadway Fee Program will be a City-implemented roadway fee applicable to new development in the City. The Roadway Fee Program will contain the following fee components:
• Roadways Fee
• Administration Fee
Table 1-1 summarizes the proposed Roadway Fee by residential and commercial land use. For each land use, the administration component fee is calculated as 2 percent of the cost and will fund administration of the Roadway Fee Program.

The Roadway Fee will be charged and collected per residential dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space and are consistent with the requirements of California Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code sections 66000 et. seq.). 1 City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations report by Fehr & Peers dated December 6, 2024.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 1

Table 1·1
Yuba City Roadw ay Faclllt les Fee Nexus Study
Ro adway Facility Fees
Land Use Cat egory U111t
Resldentlal Land Use,
Single Family Resldential DU
Multi Family Residential DU
Single Famlly Residential • Senior DU
Multifamily Resident!a1- Senior DU
Mobile Home DU
Nonres ldentall Land Usu
Neighborhood Commercial ,,,
Community Commercial ksf
Regional Commercfal ,,,
Office ,,,
Light Industrial ,,,
Manufacture ,,, POP (Office) ksf
Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
[1) City administration fee equal to 2%
Prep,red by EPS 3120/2025
~"!Y...f..£,g ___ _ _ _ ___ _Ml)_l_!!!I__~~ ~~___fitlfil!_ml1!!.9~!!!_11 1Ql_}l..ri!!..!.2!!_ < l ,S OO sr,lt l 500 • 2,499 2,500 + sqft Nonrec;1 dcnt1al <l 500 sqft 1,500 • 2,499 l,SOO + sqft Nonr es1 dent1 al <l ,500 sq lt 1,500 • 2 499 2,500 + 51111 Nom es 1dent1al s qft pe1 ksf s 11ft p e1 k s f s qft per l(sf
$ 14,696 $ $ 7,041 $
S 3,768 $ S 2,866 $
$ 7,285 S
16,299
7,809
4,179
3,200
8,080
$ 17,925
8,588
4,596
$ 3,520 $ 8,886
29,535
28,612
39,688
16,657
6,165
9,280
294 $
141 $
75 $
58 $
146 $
328 $
156 $
84 64
162
359
172
92 70
178
$
$
$
591
572 794
333
123
186
14,990 $
7,182 $
$ 3,843 $
2,944
7,431
16,625
7,965
4,263
3,264
8,242
18,284
8,760
4,888
3,590 9,064
30,126
29,184
40,482
16,990
6,288
9,466
2 Z~~ I04\'lbooCly 0,,,'fllcpm/,rl /~"""~°'"bddr\ZZZ l~n'02Jtll'025•lot

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
To address provisions of California Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), enacted in 2021, Roadway Fees will vary based on residential dwelling unit size. AB 602 modified the Mitigation Fee Act and stipulates that a jurisdiction must calculate residential fees proportionately to the square footage of the dwelling units, with the exception of water and sewer fees and any other fees for which specific findings can be made as to why the fees should not be enacted on a square foot basis. The Mitigation Fee Act requirements are detailed in the next section.

In response to the provisions of AB 602, Roadway Fees will differ by dwelling unit size with the proposed residential fee land uses for all fee components summarized below:

Roadways Residential Fee Categories
• Single Family <1,500 sq. ft.

Single Family 1,500 sq. ft.-2,499 sq. ft.
• Single Family >2,500 sq. ft.
• Multifamily (same size ranges) • Single Family - Senior (same size ranges) • Multifamily - Senior (same size ranges)
Mobile Home (same size ranges)
The proposed fees are based on the best land use information, backbone infrastructure and public facilities costs estimates, funding source information, and administrative cost estimates available at this time. The cost estimates presented in this report are in constant 2024 dollars. The following chapters of this report detail the land uses, facilities requirements, cost estimates, and cost allocation methodology used to estimate the fees.

Nexus Study Requirements
California Government Code 66000
The purpose of a Nexus Study is to establish the legally required nexus (or reasonable relationship) between projected new residential and nonresidential development and the capital facilities that will be required to serve that new development.

As briefly described in the previous section, the nexus requirements for imposing development impact fees were established under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act; California Government Code section 66000 and following). The Act sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. The procedures require that a "reasonable Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 3

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition."2 Specifically, each local agency imposing a fee must:
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify how the fee is to be used.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

City Determination Affecting Roadway Facility Cost Allocations The City's roadway facilities CIP include approximately $39. 7 million in costs for utility construction and relocation. These costs are related to new or expanded roadway construction where the adjacent utilities will have to be relocated or placed underground. A disproportionate majority of the utility construction and relocation expenditures are adjacent to planned residential development (as measured by lineal feet of street frontage). When frontage for parks, recreation and open space and public/semi-public uses are excluded, planned residential development represents approximately 79 percent of the street frontage while nonresidential uses represent the remaining 21 percent.

Before adjustment, residential development reflects approximately 63 percent of total dwelling unit equivalent from planned development. Thus, before adjustment, residential development would be allocated approximately $24. 9 million of the total $39. 7 million in utility construction and relocation costs.

The roadway fee calculations in the Fee Calculations report adjust $24.9 million to a total of $31.3 million (increase of $6.4 million) to allocate 7~ percent of the utility construction and relocation costs to residential development.

Assembly Bill 602
In addition, in 2021, AB 602 amended the requirements that would apply to new or updated impact fees by creating a "standards and practices" section to the Act, codified as Government Code Section 66016.5. This section is both declaratory of previously existing law and added certain new requirements. A new provision that pertains to this report requires that a nexus study "shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of 2 Public Needs & Private Dollars; William Abbott, Marian E. Moe, and Marilee Hanson, page 109.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 4

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
proposed units of the development" [66016.5{a)(5)(A)], and "large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study" [66016.5(a)(6)]. The City has prepared a Roadway Facility Capital Improvement Plan that is summarized in Appendix B of this Nexus Study.

Water and sewer systems are specifically exempt from the requirements of Section 66016.5. An exemption to the square footage allocation method may be made for other backbone infrastructure if the nexus study makes the following three findings:
• An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project. • An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
• That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Section 66016.5 [66016.5{a)(5)(C)] also states that the square footage allocation method "does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments."
In response to these provisions of AB 602, this Nexus Study makes findings justifying the use of the residential fee land uses summarized above for the various fee components. Chapter 4 details all required nexus findings. For the Roadway Fee, the City has decided to establish separate fees for single family and multifamily units and for senior categories of these land use types in recognition of different persons per household and trip generating characteristics for these different types of units.

Senate Bill 13 and Accessory Dwelling Units
In addition to the considerations discussed above pursuant to AB 602, a separate piece of legislation, California Senate Bill 13 (SB 13,) passed in 2019, establishes a new system for assessing fees on accessory dwell ing units (ADUs). It amended California Government Code Section 65852.2(3)(A)(f)(3) to read:
"A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit."
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS} 5

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Based on this section of the California Government Code, any ADU smaller than 750 square feet is exempt from Roadway Fee Program fees. Fees on ADUs larger than 750 square feet require the City to perform the following calculations:
1) Determine the total habitable building square footage of both the proposed ADU and the primary residential unit on the lot on which the ADU is proposed.

As an example, assume that a primary single family dwelling unit has 2,000 habitable building square feet and the proposed ADU has 1,000 habitable building square feet.
2) Calculate the ADU's habitable building square feet as a percentage of the primary unit's habitable building square feet.

In the example from step 1), the size of the ADU is 50 percent of the primary residential unit.
3) Identify the fee category and fee that would have applied to the primary residential unit. In the Roadway Fee Program, the fee category would differ for the different fee components.

In the example from step 1), the fee category is "Single Family 1,500 sq. ft. - 2,499 sq. ft."
4) Calculate the ADU fees as the percentage from step 2) multiplied by the Roadway Fee for the fee category identified in step 3).

In the example from step 1), the ADU fee is 50 percent of the primary unit fee.

Roadway Fee Program Imp lemen tatio n
and Admin is tra tio n
Implementation
The proposed Roadway Fee Program will be approved by the City through an ordinance establishing and authorizing collection of the fee and a resolution setting the amount of the fees. The Roadway Fee Program will be independent and separate from all other City, Sutter County (County), other agency, or regional development impact fees that may be applicable to residential and nonresidential development in the City.

Administration
The City will administer the Roadway Fee Program. The Roadway Fee Program will include a 2 percent planning and administration component to fund Roadway Fee Program administration. The administration component of the fee must be paid in cash at the issuance of a building permit to provide the City with funding to administer the Roadway Fee Program, while fee credits may be available for the Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 6

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
other fee components (as detailed in Chapter 5). Administration of the Roadway Fee Program will include the following major tasks:
• Tracking all Roadway Fee Program payments and assignment of fee credits and reimbursements for improvements constructed privately by developers. • Tracking the progress of construction contracts for Roadway Fee Program improvements.
• Performing annual fee adjustments to account for the inflation of infrastructure and public facilities costs.
• Conducting periodic reviews of development projections, facilities requirements, improvement costs, funding sources, and cost allocation methodologies and making necessary adjustments to the Roadway Fee Program.
• Preparing the required annual and five-year reports on the status of the Roadway Fee Program.

The Roadway Fee Program implementation and administration are detailed in Chapter 6 of this report. Using its authority to implement the Roadway Fee Program, the City reserves the right to make interpretations, clarifications, or other modifications to the Roadway Fee Program implementation and administration provisions summarized in this Nexus Study.

Supporting Documents
The following documents produced by or for the City are being prepared in conjunction with this analysis:
• City of Yuba City General Plan.
• City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model (2020 update) prepared by Fehr & Peers.
• Fee Calculations report - March 2025 (Fehr & Peers).
• CIP prepared by MHM Engineers and Surveyors (2025). A summary of the CIP is included as Appendix B of this report.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Organization of Report
This Nexus Study is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter 1 summarizes the proposed Roadway Fee Program. Chapter 2 identifies the land uses that will be subject to the Roadway Fee Program.
• Chapter 3 details the Roadway Fee Program improvements, estimated costs, cost allocations, and fee calculations.
• Chapter 4 summarizes the nexus findings for each Roadway Fee Program component.
• Chapter 5 describes Roadway Fee Program implementation and administration.

In addition, the Nexus Study contains the following appendices:

Appendix A: City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations (Fehr & Peers).
• Appendix B: Summary of Roadway CIP.
• Appendix C: Transportation Impact Fee Comparisons
Appendix D: Development Impact Fee Comparisons
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 8

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025

2. Land Uses and Demographics
The City's land use and growth projections are derived from the City's General Plan document and were summarized in the Fee Calculations Report. While the City provided land use information for full City buildout, a "market absorption" scenario corresponding to cumulative development through 2040 was chosen for the traffic modeling and Fee Calculations Report.

Demographic Information
Land Use Information
Table 2-1 details the base year and market absorption 2040 buildout estimates from the Fee Calculations Report. As shown, the City anticipates residential growth of approximately 21,500 single family units, 6,900 multifamily units and approximately 12.4 million square feet of nonresidential development.

The estimated number of persons per unit and trips per household by persons per unit factors are used in the cost allocation. As discussed in Chapter 1, in response to the provisions of AB 602, the City is permitted to establish different fees for different land use types. Thus, the roadway fee is proposed to have different residential fee categories, as summarized below:
• Single family by unit size range
• Single family - Senior by unit size range
• Multifamily by unit size range • Multifamily - Senior by unit size range Persons per Household and Trips per Household Factors
EPS compiled information from the U.S. Census American Housing Survey (AHS), the National Household Travel Survey and the City to complete the calculations shown in Table 2-2. The AHS data are for single family detached units and are compiled into three dwelling unit size ranges. These unit size ranges were selected based on review of historical single family dwelling unit building permit data from the City. When estimated trips per household from the National Travel Survey are included, the estimated trips per household unit size are ca lculated for each dwelling unit size range. The unit size category of 1,500 to 2,499 building square feet is considered the average unit size so each other unit size category is compared with the average to derive a trip generation dwelling unit equivalent (DUE) by unit size range.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 9

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Table 2-1. Yuba City 2040 Buildout Estimates
Base Buildout Land Use Growth 1 Land Use Category Unit Year Condition (2020) Single-Family DU 18,468 39,997 21,529
Residential Residential
Multi-Family Residential DU 5,134 12,067 6,933
Neighborhood KSF 592 1,240 648 Commercial
Retail Community Commercial KSF 3,565 5,685 2,120
Regional Commercial KSF 1,235 2,353 1,118
Office KSF 1,126 5,606 4,480
Light Industrial KSF 4,681 8,184 3,503
Non-Retail Manufacture 2 KSF - 1,193 1,193
Public/Quasi-Public KSF 230 230 (PQP)
Notes:
1 Represents growth between base year (2020) model and buildout model. 2 Base year model classifies manufacturing uses as light industrial.

Per previous discussions with the City and EPS, it was decided that growth in PQP would be classified as office given similar trip rates.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet of occupied space.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 10

Table 2-2
Yuba City Roadway Facilities Fee Nexus Study
PPH - National Data Single Family Detached Units
Dwelling Units (in Thousands) by Number cl Persons Per Unit and Unit Square Feet <1,500
Sq, Ft.

Trips per Number of Percent of Number of
Household Units Units Trips Units
[1]
Persons per Lnt
1 person 3.82 6,852 30% 1.13 6,218
2 persons 6.88 8,194 35% 2.43 12,688
3 persons 9.44 3,547 15% 1.44 5,924
4 persons 12.61 2,658 11% 1.44 5,166
5 persons 14.72 1,181 5% 0.75 2,436
6 persons 15.28 511 2% 0.34 868
7 persons or more [2] 21.03 279 1% 0.25 485
Total 23,222 100% 7,78 33,785
Pct. ofTotal Units 30% 44%
Trip Generation DUE [3] 0,90
Source: US Census American Housing Survey 2021 - National, GHD, John E. Long and EPS. [1] 2017 National Household Travel Survey, California Add On. [2] Assumes 7 persons in a "7 persons or more household." [3] Trips as compared to trips for a 1,500-2,499 sq. ft. unit.

Prepared by EPS 12/311'2025
1,500-2,499 2,500+
Sq. Ft. Sq, Ft Total
Percent of Number of Percent of
Units Trips Units Units Trips
18% 0.70 2,065 11% 0.41 15,137
38% 2.58 7,314 38% 2.61 28,202
18% 1.66 2,960 15% 1.45 12,434 15% 1.93 3,980 21% 2.60 11,808 7% 1.06 1,877 10% 1.43 5,496
3% 0.39 730 4% 0.58 2,110
1% 0.30 383 2% 0.42 1,148
100% 8.63 19,309 100% 9.49 76,334
25% 100%

1.00 1,10
11 Z:\Shlired\Pro}ects\SAC\222000\222104 Yube City Development Jmpsct Fee Updstes\Models\222104 m02 3.16.2025.xlsx

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025

3. Yuba City Roadway Improvements and
Cost Allocations
This chapter summarizes the planned roadway facilities estimated costs and funding sources, which are based on the Fee Calculations report and MHM Roadway Facilities CIP, which is included as Appendix B of this Nexus Study.

Capital Improvement Program
As detailed in Appendix B, the CIP contains approximately $447.3 million in roadway facility costs. The CIP was informed by a series of model runs performed by Fehr & Peers with input and feedback from City staff. The City contemplates development will occur in five planning areas (North, Northwest, North Central, Southwest, and Southeast) shown in Table 3-1. Specifically in the west and southern portions of the City, there are several large Specific Plans or Master Plans that have been approved.

Figure 1 illustrates the planned roadway facility network including the roadway facilities included in the CIP. The Fee Calculations report summarized the categories of major roadway costs as displayed in the table below.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 12

Table 3-1
Yuba City Roadway Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Description of Roadway Improvements
Type [1]
East-West Roadway Capacity Increase
North-South Roadway Capacity Increase
State Highway Improvements
Description
Widening of four lanes of partes of Butte House Road, Bridge Street, Franklin Road, Lincoln Road, Lassen Boulevard, and Bogue Road. Westerly extension of Bridge Street.

Widening to four lanes of parts of George Washington Boulevard, Walton Avenue, Harter Parkway, Tharp Road, and Garden Highway. Estension as two or four lanes of Western Parkway and Harter (Tuly) Parkway.

New Interchange at State Route 99/Pease Road. Widening of State Route 20 from four to siz lanes from State Route 20 to west of Stabler Lane.

Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
[1] This is a partial/summarized list. Improvements are also planned on other roadways (e.g., Pease Road, Township Road, etc.) to upgrade facility type but may not solely increase capacity. See Appendix B for the complete list of projects.

Prepared by EPS 12131/2025
13 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 m02 3.18.2025.xlsx

;--. -- 2
X Number of Lanes Roadway ockets or (Excluding turn p
center turn lanes)
0 New Interchange
t·onal Classification
Fune 1 _ Parkway
- Freeway
-
Highway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
__ Collector
Local Street
New /VV·1dened Road
2 Figure 1
Number of Lanes and

Functional Classification - Buildout Conditions

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Roadway Fee Program Costs
Table 3-2 summarizes the Roadway Fee Program improvements and costs that are included in Appendix B.

Table 3-2. Roadway Fee Program Cost Summary
Item [1]
North - South Roadways
East-West Roadways
Interchanges and Bridges [2]
Total
TOTAL ROUNDED [3]
Roadway
Fee
Program
$316,614,000
$303,140,000
$16,751,000
$636,505,000
$636,500,000
Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
[1] All costs are rounded to the nearest thousand, except the Total Rounded Cost.
[2] Amounts shown for Interchanges and Bridges under
"Roadways Cost" is a combination of roadway, bridge
and related costs.
[3] Rounded amount used in Fehr & Peers fee report.

Roadway Facilities
The Roadway Fee Program also includes an Administration component that is calculated as 2 percent of all Roadway Fee Program costs. The following sections generally describe roadway facility cost categories.

Table 3-3 illustrates the roadway facility costs by category of cost. The total costs in Table 3-3 may differ from the totals in Table 3-2 because of rounding.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 15

Table 3-3
Yuba City Roadway Facilities Fee Nexus Study
Roadway Facilities Costs by Category
Right
Item [1] of Way
North - South Roadways $48,780,000
East-West Roadways $31,880,000
Interchanges and Bridges [2] $1,240,000
Total $81,900,000
TOTAL ROUNDED [3]
Percentage of Total 12.9%
Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
[1] All costs are rounded to the nearest thousand.

Utility
Relocation
$16,830,000
$43,210,000
$0
$60,040,000

9.4%
Roadway Construction Soft Adjustment
Roadway Cost Intersections Cost Costs for Rounding
[3]
$164,660,000 $12,100,000 $74,240,000 $4,000
$109,350,000 $51,250,000 $67,460,000 ($10,000)
$10,930,000 $0 $4,590,000 ($9,000)
$284,940,000 $63,350,000 $146,290,000 ($15,000)

44.8% 10.0% 23.0% 0.0%
[2] Amounts shown for Interchanges and Bridges under "Roadways Cost" is a combination of roadway, bridge and related costs. [3] Rounded amount used in Fehr & Peers fee report.

Total
$316,614,000
$303,140,000
$16,751,000
$636,505,000 $636,500,000
100.0%

Prepared by EPS 12/31/2025
16 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Models\222104 m02 3.18.2025.xlsx

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Roadway Right of Way
The Roadway Fee Program includes a total of approximately $81.9 million in land acquisition and related right-of-way costs.

Utility Construction and Relocation
As noted, construction of new roadway facilities and additional capacity will require utility construction and relocation costs. The CIP includes an estimated $60.0 million in utility construction and relocation costs.

Roadway Construction
The majority of the CIP costs are roadway construction costs, which include grading, aggregate base, asphalt, curb, and gutter, etc. The Roadway Fee Program includes a total of approximately $348.3 million in roadway construction, consisting of approximately $284.9 million in roadway costs and $63.4 million in intersection costs.

Soft Costs
The Roadway Fee Program includes soft costs of approximately $147.3 million for design, construction management and completion of the roadway projects.

Roadway Facility Cost Allocations
For each improvement type, the Roadway Fee is estimated by allocating the roadway costs to the various land uses based on each land use's relative demand for and benefit received from the facilities.

Table 3-4 provides a cost allocation summary and fee estimate.

The general steps to allocate the costs and estimate the fees are outlined below:
1) Determine the Roadway Fee Program costs. These costs were detailed in the previous chapter.
2) Determine the Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) factor for each land use type that serves as a measure of demand placed on the improvement relative to the demand of an average "Single Family 1,500 - 2,499 sq. ft." dwelling unit. 3) For each residential unit size category, estimate the fees using the DUE factor by dwelling unit size category from Table 2-1.
4) Add the cost of fee program administration to determine total fee amount.

Costs are shown on a per unit basis for residential development and on a per one thousand building square foot basis for nonresidential development.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 17

Table 3-4
Yuba City Roadway Facllltles Fee Nexus Study
Roadway Faclllty Fees by Resldentlal Unit Size Range
DUE Factor AdJustrnent hy Roadway Cost hy Residential Unit Ro.idw.1y Fees (Incl Adm11uslr,111on) [1]
PM Pc.ik Hour < 1 500 1,500 - 2 499 2,500 + < 1,500 1SOD · 2499 2 SOD+ <1,500 1,500.2, 199 2,500 + Nor1tt'mhrnt1,1I Trq> H.itc per Average Tnp DUE f,1ctor A<l1uste<I f1.,,c sqft Sljlt sqft sqft sqft siift sqrt sqrt sqfl per ksf Land Use C.1legory Unit Un1l Lenglh per U111t Per Unit
Resldentlal Land Uses
Single Family Residential DU 1.17 3.70 1.00 $ 16,299 0.90 1.00 1.10 $14,696 16,299 17,925 $14,990 16,625 $18,284 Multi Famlly Residential DU 0.61 3.4D 0.46 7,609 0.43 0.46 0.53 ' 7,041 7,809 B,586 ' 7,181 7,965 • B,760 Single Family Residential - Senior DU 0.30 3.70 0.26 4,179 0.23 0.26 0.26 ' 3,768 4,179 4,596 $ 3,843 4,263 $ 4,688 Multifamily Residential - Senior DU 0.25 3.40 0.20 3,200 0.18 0.20 0.22 • 2,886 3,200 3,520 $ 2,943 3,264 • 3,590 Mobile Home DU 0.58 3.70 0.50 8,080 0.45 0.50 0.55 $ 7,285 6,080 8,686 $ 7,431 8,241 s 9.064 Nonresldentall Land Uses
Neighborhood Commercial ksf 2.56 3.2 1.89 29,535 30,126 Community Commerclal ksf ~56 3.1 1.83 28,612 29,185
Regional Commercial ksf 2.56 4.3 2.54 $ 39,688 40,482
Offioo ksf 1.32 3.5 1.07 16,657 16,990
Light Industrial ksf 0.45 3.8 0.40 6,165 6,289 Manufacture ksf 0.66 3.9 0.59 9,260 9,466 PQP (Omce) ksf 1.4 3.4 1.10 Sources: Fehr & Peers, EPS, and City of Yuba City
(1) City administration fee equal to 2%
18 ProparudbyEPS 12'31/2025

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025

4. Nexus Findings
This report has been prepared to establish the Roadway Fee Program fees in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in the Mitigation Fee Act, which are codified in California Government Code (CGC) Section 66000 et. seq.

The Mitigation Fee Act sets forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees.

In particular, CGC Section 66001 includes specific requirements for establishing a reasonable relationship or nexus between the development impact fee, and CGC Section 66016.5 (added in 2021 to address the newly enacted AB 602) includes additional requirements for development impact fees. The remainder of this chapter addresses the requirements of CGC Section 66001 and CGC Section 66016.5.

California Government Code
Section 66001
CGC Section 66001 requires that a "reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition."3 Specifically, each local agency imposing a development impact fee must make the following findings:
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify how the fee is to be used.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
• Demonstrate how a reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

This section details these findings for each Roadway Fee Program component that is addressed in this report.
3 Public Needs & Private Dollars; William Abbott, Marian E. Moe, and Marilee Hanson, page 109.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 19

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
City Determination Affecting Roadway Facility Cost Allocations The City's roadway facilities CIP includes approximately $39. 7 million in costs for utility construction and relocation. These costs are related to new or expanded roadway construction where the adjacent utilities will have to be relocated or placed underground. A disproportionate majority of the utility construction and relocation expenditures are adjacent to planned residential development (as measured by lineal feet of street frontage). When frontage for parks, recreation and open space and public/semi-public uses are excluded, planned residential development represents approximately 79 percent of the street frontage while nonresidential uses represent the remaining 21 percent.

Before adjustment, residential development reflects approximately 63 percent of total dwelling unit equivalents from planned development. Thus, before adjustment, residential development would be allocated approximately $24. 9 million, of the total $39. 7 million in utility construction and relocation costs.

The roadway fee calculations in the Fee Calculations report adjust $24. 9 million to a total of $31.3 million (increase of $6.4 million) to allocate 79 percent of the utility construction and relocation costs to residential development.

Roadways
Purpose of Fee
The purpose of the Roadway Fee Program streets fee is to provide funding to construct new roadway facility infrastructure required to serve the new City residents and employees.

Use of Fee
The Roadway Fee Program streets fees will be used to construct and expand roadway facilities needed to accommodate future traffic volumes projected as a result of new development. The Roadway Fee will be used to fund land acquisition and right of way costs, utility construction, roadway construction and soft costs.

Relationship Between Use of Fee and Type of Development The Roadway Fees will be used to construct roadway improvements needed to adequately serve an increased service population as the result of the new development. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of the Roadway Fees and the residential and commercial development on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the roadway system needed to serve the new residents and employees generated by the new development.

Relationship Between Need for Facility and Type of Development New residential and commercial development in the City will generate new residents and employees that will result in new vehicular trips and the need for additional roadway improvements to maintain adequate levels of service.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 20

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for roadway improvements and the type of new residential and nonresidential development projects because the roadway improvements must be constructed to accommodate the new development types that will place an increased demand on the roadway system.

Relationship Between Amount of Fee and Cost of Facility or Portion of Facility Attributed to Development on Which Fee is Imposed
The total cost of improvements funded by the Roadway Fees is allocated among the projected new residential and nonresidential land uses in the City at buildout based on the relative demand each land use is anticipated to place upon the improvements. Cost allocation factors based on trip generation and vehicle miles travelled are used to measure the relative demand generated by each land use and to allocate the roadway costs across all benefiting land uses in the City.

A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the Roadway Fees and the costs of the facilities attributable to the new residential and nonresidential development on which the fees are imposed because the fees are derived using appropriate cost allocation factors as measures of the proportional demand generated by each development type.

Administration
The administration component of the Fee Program funds City costs associated with fee program administration and implementation, including credit and reimbursement agreement negotiations and implementation, credit and reimbursement tracking, annual reporting requirements, periodic updates to the Nexus Study, and other related costs. Collection and implementation of the Roadway Fee is reliant upon funding from the administration component.

For each land use, the administration component is calculated as 2 percent of the roadway costs. Costs of the administration component are therefore based on each fee component, and associated nexus findings for the administration component are established by the nexus finding for the Roadway Fee documented above.

California Government Code
Section 66016.5 (AB 602)
As noted earlier in this document, this nexus analysis must consider the newly created CGC Section 66016.5. This section stipulates that a jurisdiction must calculate residential development impact fees proportionately to the square footage of the dwelling units, with the exception of water and sewer fees and any other fees for which specific findings can be made as to why the fees should not be enacted on a square foot basis.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 21

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
As described in this report, the residential roadway fees have been calculated by dwelling unit square foot ranges. Thus, the required findings detailed in CGC Section 66016.5 must be made for these residential roadway fees. The specific requirements and findings are detailed in the remainder of this chapter.

Requirements for Exceptions to Fee Proportional to Housing Square Footage CGS Section 66016.S(a)(S)(A) states, among other things, that fees "imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development." However, Section 66016.S(a)(S)(B) states that a nexus study "is not required to comply with this proportionality requirement if the local agency makes the following findings:
a) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project. b) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
c) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees."
Roadway Facilities
a) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.

The roadway costs are allocated to dwelling units on a trips basis in the form of VMT per unit, which relies on transportation factors (number of PM peak hour trip rate, length of trips), as well as on persons per household, as persons per household has a direct relationship to the number of daily trips. The persons per household data provided in this report supports identification of an increasing number of people per household and trips per household as a dwell ing unit size increases. However, the data present limitations on both the lower/smaller unit size range and on the higher/larger unit size range. For example, regardless of how small a dwelling unit may be, the minimum assumed persons per unit would be 1. Similarly, as home size continues to increase, the data are not as conclusive that the number of persons per unit and daily trips per unit continue to increase in a linear or otherwise determinant fashion . For these reasons, deriving a fee directly calculated on residential building square footage alone is not an appropriate metric to calculate the Roadway Fees.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 22

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
b) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.

As detailed in Chapter 2, the number of people per household, trips per household, and VMT per household show a pattern of increasing as unit size increases. Thus, implementing the fee based on ranges of building square feet for residential development bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development because units that fall in the lower building unit size range pay a lower fee than units that fall in a higher building unit size range, which is proportional to the estimated number of people per household by unit size within each size range. c) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Implementation of the Roadway Fee Program fees for residential development by building square foot range achieves the objective that smaller residential units would be charged a lower fee than larger units and ensures proportionality of fees based on relative demand for the facilities, as documented in this report.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 23

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025

5. Fee Program Implementation and
Administration
This chapter identifies tasks that the City will complete when implementing the Roadway Fee Program.

The Roadway Fee Program fees presented in this report are based on the best improvement cost estimates, funding source information, administrative cost estimates, and land use information available at this time. If costs change significantly, if the type or amount of new development changes, if other assumptions significantly change, or if other funding becomes available (as a result of legislative action on state and local government finance, for example), the Roadway Fee Program should be updated accordingly.

After the fees presented in this report are established, the City will conduct periodic reviews of the public improvement costs and other assumptions used as the basis of this Nexus Study. Based on these reviews, the City may make necessary adjustments to the Roadway Fee Program through subsequent updates.

Inflation Adjustment
The costs in this report are shown in 2024 dollars based on the CIP prepared by MHM Engineers and Surveyors. To ensure that the Roadway Fee Program stays current with the prevailing cost of construction, the proposed fees will be automatically adjusted by the City annually to account for the inflation (or deflation) of construction, right-of-way acquisition, environmental, and design costs. Consistent with other City-administered fee programs, annual fee adjustments shall occur automatically on January 1 of each calendar year.

The Roadway Fee will be adjusted automatically by the percentage change in the average of the Engineering-News Record's San Francisco and 20-City Construction Cost Indices for the 12-month period ending in October of the previous year, or equivalent, as determined by the Finance Director if these numbers are not available. For example, the adjustment for January 2025 will be determined by calculating the percentage change from October 2023 to October 2024 in the average of the ENR 20-city and San Francisco CCis. The resulting value will be the adjustment factor that will be applied to the Roadway Fee in January 2025.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 24

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Implementing Ordinances /Resolutions
The proposed Roadway Fee would be adopted by the City through one or more ordinances authorizing collection of the fees and through one or more fee resolutions establishing the fees. The fee will be effective 60 days following the City's final action on the ordinances authorizing collection of the fee and on the fee resolutions establishing the fee. The new ordinances and resolutions should reference the automatic inflation adjustment factor discussed in this section.

Fee Administration
The Roadway Fee will be collected from new development in the City subject to the fee at the time of building permit issuance; use of these funds may need to wait until a sufficient fund balance can be accrued. According to CGC Section 66000, the City is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in a prescribed manner.

Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and
Waivers
Public Agencies
All federal and state agencies, public school districts, and the City may be exempt from the Roadway Fee Program fees. Other non-City public agencies shall be subject to payment of the Roadway Fee Program fees.

Replacement/ Reconstruction
Any replacement or reconstruction (no change in use) of any residential unit or any nonresidential structure that is damaged or destroyed as a result of fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other calamity, or act of God shall be exempt from the Roadway Fee. However, if the replacement or reconstructed residential unit exceeds the documented total number of units or unit size of the damaged/destroyed residential structure, or the replacement or reconstructed nonresidential building exceeds the documented total floor area of the damaged/destroyed building, the excess units or building square footage is subject to the Roadway Fee.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 25

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Additions/ Alterations/Modifications/Temporary Facilities The following rules shall apply to additions, alterations, modifications, and temporary facilities:
1) Consistent with current State law, ADU and Junior ADU that are fewer than 750 building square feet shall not be assessed the Roadway Fee. 2) Additions to residential structures where the total square footage of the dwelling remains within a fee category range, provided no change in use occurs and a second full kitchen is not added, shall not be charged a fee.

If the square footage of the dwelling increases into a new fee category range, the difference of the two fee category ranges shall be collected before building permit issuance.
3) Except as otherwise provided, when an existing residential dwelling is converted into two primary units, or a new primary dwelling is added to the property, that new unit shall be assessed a fee consistent with the provisions of this Nexus Study.
4) Supporting use square footage in multi-unit residential projects, such as the office and recreation areas required to directly serve the multifamily project, shall not be subject to a fee. The residential unit fee will provide the full mitigation required in multi-unit residential projects. 5) Non-habitable residential structures, including decks, pools and spas, pool cabanas, sheds, and detached garages, shall not be assessed a fee.

An attached garage shall not count towards the square footage of the dwelling.

Accessory Dwelling Units
Fees on ADUs larger than 750 square feet require a two-part calculation. First the City will determine the total habitable building square footage of the proposed ADU and the primary residential unit on the lot on which the ADU is proposed.

The City will determine the ADU building square footage as a proportion of the primary residential unit. As an example, if the primary residential dwelling unit is 2,000 building square feet and the proposed ADU is 1,000 building square feet, then the ADU would be 50 percent of the primary residential unit. The City would then identify the Roadway Fee that will apply to the primary residential unit and apply 50 percent to that amount as the Roadway Fee applicable to the ADU . In this example, the categories would be the Single Family 1,500 - 2,499 sq. ft. category for streets and parks and open space fees and either low density residential or medium density residential for the other fee categories.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 26

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Credit for Replacement of Existing Buildings
New development that replaces existing development is eligible for a fee credit to the extent the facilities to be funded by the new development are already provided to the existing development. For example, a 4-unit apartment complex that is replaced by an 8-unit apartment complex could receive up to a 50 percent credit in the fee (4/8 = 50 percent). The City's Community Development Director will determine the amount of the fee credit at the time a site plan is submitted to the City.

Fee Credit and Reimbursement to
Developers
As is typical with development impact fee programs, many of the public infrastructure facilities are needed up front before adequate revenue from the fee collection would be available to fund such improvements. Consequently, some type of private funding may be necessary to pay for the public improvements when they are needed. This private financing may be in the form of land-secured bonds, developer equity, or other forms of private financing.

In cases where a private party (e.g., developer) has advance-funded an eligible Roadway Fee Program facility, the party will be due fee credits or reimbursements from the fee program. Note that the Roadway Fee administration component must be paid at the issuance of a bui lding permit to provide the City with funding to administer the Roadway Fee Program. Roadway Fee credits or reimbursements will be provided under the following conditions:
• Developer-installed improvements shall be considered for reimbursement.

Only funds collected from the Roadway Fee shall be used to reimburse a developer who installed el igible Roadway Fee Program improvements identified in the Roadway CIP.
• The value of any developer-installed improvement for fee credit or reimbursement purposes sha ll be based on the lesser of the actual cost of eligible facilities (as determined at the sole discretion of the City via a review of the construction contract and payments made, plus an allowance determined by the City for soft costs directly associated with the facility design and construction) or the total eligible facility costs based on the cost schedule and estimate set forth in the CIP, subject to the automatic annual inflation adjustment described previously in this chapter. The Master Reimbursement Agreement governs how the Roadway Fee reimbursements will be provided. • All construction contracts, construction work, and requests for reimbursement are performed in conformance with the most current City policies governing such construction of elig ible improvements and the Master Reimbursement Agreement.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 27

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in CGC Section 66016 through CGC Section 66019. Adoption of this impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures, including holding a public hearing with at least 30 days' notice for the hearing (Gov. Code§ 66016.S(a)(7)). The City is required to post a public notice at least 30 days before the public hearing considering the fee. The City shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.

Mailed notice 14 days before the public hearing is required for those individuals who request such notification. Data, such as this Nexus Study and referenced material, must be made available at least 10 days before the public hearing.

Any new or increased fees would be effective 60 days after adoption.

Programming Revenues and Projects
with the Capital Improvement Plan
The City will update its Roadway CIP to identify specific projects and program fee revenues to those projects. Use of the Roadway CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues.

The City shall plan its CIP expenditures at least 5 years in advance and show where all collected development impact fee revenues will be spent. The City can hold funds in a project account for longer than 5 years, if necessary, to collect sufficient funds to complete a given project. See Compliance Requirements below for the specific CIP update requirements stated in CGC Section 62000.

Co mp lian ce Requirements
The California Mitigation Fee Act (CGC Section 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection, accounting, refunds, updates, and reporting. The City must comply with the annual and 5-year reporting requirements. For facilities to be funded with a combination of impact fees and other revenues, the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project. The City's compliance obligations regarding the act include the specific requirements detailed below.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 28

Earmarking of Fee Revenues
Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
CGC Section 66006 mandates that the City deposit fees for the improvements in a separate capital facilities account or fund to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the City, except for temporary investments.

Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected.

Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. The California Mitigation Fee Act is not clear as to whether depositing fees "for the improvements" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., fire or police facilities). The City maintains discretion as to how it will collect and account for Roadway Fee fees, while maintaining compliance with CGC requirements.

Reporting
CGC Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the City must make available to the public the following information for each account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1) The amount of the fee.
2) The beginning balance and the ending balance of the account or fund. 3) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. 4) Identification of each public improvement on which fee revenues were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fee revenues.
5) Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected for financing of an incomplete public improvement. 6) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvements on which the transfer or loan will be expended. 7) The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to CGC Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).

The above-listed information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not fewer than 15 days after the statements are made public.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 29

Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
December 2025
Findings and Refunds
CGC Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by CGC Section 66006, and every 5 years thereafter, the City must make all the following findings for any fee revenues that remain unexpended, whet her committed or uncommitted:
1) Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put.
2) Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
3) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which the impact fees are to be used. 4) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Updating of the Impact Fee Nexus Study
According to CGC Section 66016.5(a)(8), impact fee nexus studies shall be updated at least every 8 years from the date of adoption. This requirement became effective on January 1, 2023.

In future updates, the City may use the impact fee nexus study template developed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code to update the nexus study.

Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan
CGC Section 66002 provides that if the City adopts a CIP to identify the use of impact fees, that program must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The City maintains two CIPs:
one includes the programming of al l projects funded or partly funded by impact fee revenues (Roadway CIP prepared by MHM, a summary of which is contained in this nexus study in Appendix B) and an overall citywide 5-year CIP that is adopted annually during the City budget process.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 30

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Roadway Facilities
Cost Estimate Detail
Appendix B: Summary of Capital
Improvement Program
Appendix C: Transportation Impact Fee
Comparisons
Appendix D: Development Impact Fee
Comparison

APPENDIX A:

Roadway Facilities Cost Estimate Detail
City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations, prepared by Fehr & Peers

City of Yuba City
Roadway Development Impact Fee
Calculations
March 2025
Prepared By:
fEHR f PEERS
Prepared for:

Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
RS24-4369

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS ................................................................................................................. 2 Land Use Growth .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ......................................................................................... 4 Project Identification ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

4. NEXUS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 7 Existing Deficiencies ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 Justification for Roadway Capacity Increases ............................................................................................................ 9 Fee Calculations .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Appendices
Appendix A: January 2024 City of Yuba City Fee schedule Appendix B: Detailed Information and Cost Estimates for Roadway Development Impact Fee Program

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND
The City of Yuba City roadway fee component of its Development Impact Fee program was most recently updated on January 1, 2024. The road fee currently stands at $6,654 per Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE). See Appendix A for current fee schedule. Over time, a number of adjustments to the road fees have been made by the City Council for different land use types and within different areas of the City (i.e., infill versus new growth areas).

At the recommendation of City staff, this report calculates impact fees in a standard manner and does not implement any of the fee adjustments previously established by the City Council. It is anticipated that these draft fees may undergo similar adjustments by the City Council.

In 2019-2020, the City retained Fehr & Peers to update its travel demand model, which had not undergone a full recalibration since 2004. As part of this effort, a review of land use growth assumptions and planned roadway improvements was conducted. Chapter 2 presents the anticipated land use growth, while Chapter 3 lists the roadway improvements needed to support that growth.

As documented in this report, the fee update process includes updating the City's land use growth projections, updating the list of projects to be included in the roadway fee program, and updating the fee calculations.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

2. GROWTH PROJECTIONS

LAND USE GROWTH
An important step in quantifying the nexus relationship is to determine the amount of new development anticipated in the planning horizon of the study. City staff provided anticipated land use growth for a "buildout condition", which would occur after 20401. Table 1 displays the expected land use totals within the City for the primary trip-generating land uses under buildout conditions. The following key findings are derived from this table:
• The City is expected to add approximately 28,500 new dwelling units at buildout, which represents a 121 percent increase 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 over current conditions. Office and retail (including neighborhood, community, and regional) space totaling about 8.4 million square feet would be the largest contributor, representing 64 percent of the total non-residential growth.

TABLE 1: YUBA CITY FUTURE YEAR LAND USE TOTALS
Land Use Category Unit Base Year (2020) Buildout Condition Single-Family Residential DU 18,468 39,997
Residential
Multi-Family Residential DU 5,134 12,067
Neighborhood Commercial KSF 592 1,240
Retail Community Commercial KSF 3,565 5,685
Regional Commercial KSF 1,235 2,353
Office KSF 1,126 5,606
Light Industrial KSF 4,681 8,184
Non-Retail
Manufacture 1 KSF - 1,193
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) 2 KSF 230 230
Notes:
1 Base year model classifies manufacturing uses as light industrial.

Per previous discussions with the City and EPS, it was decided that growth in PQP would be classified as office given similar trip rates.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet of occupied space.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

A "market absorption" scenario, corresponding to a 2040 condition, was also developed as part of the model update process. However, a full buildout scenario was selected for this fee program update so that all planned roadways would be included.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

TRIP GENERATION
Once the land use assumptions were established, the trip generation associated with those land uses was calculated. The PM peak hour time period was chosen as the basis for the fee calculations because most transportation facilities are designed to accommodate usage during this peak hour of travel demand.2 Trip generation rates from the updated City of Yuba City travel demand model were used as the basis for the trip generation estimates. To learn more about the model development process, contact City staff to obtain the City of Yuba City Travel Demand Model Development Report (Fehr & Peers, October 2020).

Table 2 indicates that the land use growth would generate approximately 47,640 PM peak hour trips. This represents about 12 percent more trips than generated by existing land uses within the City.

TABLE 2: PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION OF YUBA CITY FUTURE YEAR LAND USES Land Use Category Unit Land Use PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Growth 1 Trip Rate 2 Trips Single-Family Residential DU 21,529 1.17 25,189
Residential
Multi-Family Residential DU 6,933 0.61 4,229
Neighborhood Commercial KSF 648 2.56 1,659
Retail Community Commercial KSF 2,120 2.56 5,427
Regional Commercial KSF 1,118 2.56 2,862
Office KSF 4,480 1.32 5,914
Non-Retail Light Industrial KSF 3,503 0.45 1,576
Manufacture KSF 1,193 0.66 787
Total 47,643
Notes:
1 Represents growth between base year (2020) model and buildout model. 2 PM peak hour trip rates derived from City of Yuba City travel demand model.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet of occupied space.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Calculations were also performed using daily trip generation rates. This alternate method did not appreciably change overall results. Thus, the more traditional PM peak hour time period was chosen.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

3. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
A series of model runs were performed to determine the preferred set of roadway network improvements that would provide adequate street capacity to handle traffic demands under buildout conditions. Much of the land use growth will occur in the western and southern portions of the City, where there are several large Specific Plans or Master Plans (e.g., Lincoln East, Harter, El Margarita, and Bogue Stewart) with approved land use plans. In addition to these plans, five distinct planning areas (North, Northwest, North Central, Southwest, and Southeast) are also contemplated. The net effect of the magnitude and location of growth is the need for substantial increases in east-west and north-south roadway capacity in the western part of the City.

Figure 1 shows the number of lanes and functional classification of roadways in the City of Yuba City under buildout conditions. Table 3 provides a summary of major roadway projects that would be included in the Roadway Development Impact Fee program. Appendix B contains a list of all projects to be included based on work by MHM Engineers and Surveyors in 2024. The status of state highway improvements within the program are as follows:
• SR 99/Pease Road Interchange - included with 15% of overall cost covered by fee program. This improvement is contained in the 2020 MTP/SCS with construction planned in 2036-2040. • SR 20/SR 99 Improvements - included with 100% funding for the widening of SR 20 from four to six lanes from SR 99 to west of Stabler Lane. The 2020 MTP/SCS shows an improvement consisting of the widening of SR 20 from four to six lanes from Walton Avenue to Rocca Way (east of SR 99), with construction planned in 2036-2040.
•
Page4
SR 99 Widening (South of SR 20) - is ful ly excluded from the fee program and shown as a post2040 project in the 2020 MTP/SCS.

X beroflanes Roadway Num ckets or (Excluding turn po
center turn lanes)
0 New Interchange
Funct1ona • I Classification
- Freeway
-
Highway
Major Arterial
Parkway
Minor Arterial
__ Collector
Local Street
New, /\Atdened .. i Road
Figure 1
Number o f Lanes and

Functional Classification - Buildout Conditions

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF FUNDING ALLOCATED TO MAJOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT

PROJECTS IN ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
Type 1 General Description
East-West Roadway Widening to four lanes: parts of Butte House Road, Bridge Street, Franklin Road, Lincoln Road, Lassen Boulevard, and Bogue Road. Capacity Increase Westerly extension of Bridge Street.

North-South Roadway Widening to four lanes: parts of George Washington Boulevard, Walton Avenue, Harter Parkway, Tharp Road, and Garden Highway. Capacity Increase Extension as two or four lanes of Western Parkway and Harter (Tuly) Parkway.

State Highway New Interchange at State Route 99/Pease Road.

Improvements Widening of State Route 20 from four to six lanes from State Route 20 to west of Stabler Lane.

Notes:
1 This is a partial/summarized list. Improvements also planned on other streets (e.g., Pease Road, Township Road, etc.) to upgrade facility type, but are not necessarily considered capacity increases. See Appendix B for complete list of projects.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

COST ESTIMATES
For the purposes of the Roadway Development Impact Fee prog ram, it is necessary to know the estimated cost of the roadway projects on the list. In 2024, cost estimates were developed for each project by MHM Engineers and Surveyors and include utility and construction costs, right-of-way costs, and engineering/administrative costs. As shown in Appendix B, the City's Roadway Development Impact Fee program would cover $636,500,000 in improvement costs, the vast majority of which would be for Citymaintained facilities. An additional $147,067,196 in external funds is expected to be available to cover the remaining cost for improvements not covered by the fee program. The CIP improvements include new traffic signals at various city intersections, though roundabouts cou ld also be constructed in lieu of signals at certain locations. The program also includes a new multi modal path along an abandoned rail line.

Page6

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

4. NEXUS ANALYSIS

EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
An important part of a nexus analysis is to establish whether the transportation facilities that will be addressed by the projects in the fee program are currently deficient. If there are existing deficiencies at any of those locations, then an adjustment should be made in the fee calculations to ensure new development pays its fair share and is not charged to correct an existing problem.

As part of the Yuba City travel demand model update, a comprehensive analysis of City intersections was performed. A total of 25 intersections throughout the City were analyzed during AM and PM peak hours based on traffic counts collected in 2019 while schools were in session (and prior to the onset of the COVID19 Pandemic which altered travel behavior). The City of Yuba City uses Level of Service (LOS) as the primary roadway network performance measure, with a standard of LOS D or better at all intersections (excluding bridges over the Feather River or Caltrans facilities).

Table 4 shows existing operations at the 25 study intersections. As shown, all of the intersections currently operate at LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours; this level of operation meets the City's standards, thus indicating these locations are not currently deficient.

Because there are no existing deficiencies, it is reasonable to carry forward all the cost of the future improvements into the next stage of the fee calculations.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025
TABLE 4: AM AND PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS - EXISTING CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Control Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS (seclveh) 1 (seclveh) 1 Live Oak Blvd & Queens Ave Signalized 20.6 C 21 C
Harter Pkwy & Butte House Rd Signalized 19.3 B 11 B
Stabler Lane & Butte House Rd Signalized 24.2 C 25.8 C
Gray Ave & Butte House Rd Signalized 14 B 19.9 B
Walton Ave & Bridge St Signalized 22.2 C 24.8 C
Gray Ave & Bridge St Signalized 23.8 C 23.7 C
Clark Ave & Bridge St Signalized 30 C 29.7 C
Plumas St & Bridge St Signalized 19.7 B 21 .8 C
Shasta St & Bridge St Signalized 18 B 22 C
Bridge Street & 5th St Bridge Signalized 53 D 42.3 D
Sutter St & 5th St Bridge sssc 2 1.2 (17) A(B) 0.9 (16) A(C) 2nd SUSutter St & Bridge Street Signalized 44 D 47.8 D
George Washington Blvd & Franklin Rd AWSC 14.2 B 15.2 C Walton Ave & Franklin Rd Signalized 34 C 33.8 C
Franklin Ave & Gray Ave Signalized 11 B 14 B
Clark Ave & Franklin Ave Signalized 24.4 C 27.8 C
Plumas Blvd & Franklin Ave (W) AWSC 10.6 B 10.3 B
Garden Hwy & Franklin Ave Signalized 14.6 B 15.8 B
Walton Ave & Richland Rd sssc 2 3.2(24.4) A(C) 2.9 (23) A(D) George Washington Blvd & Lincoln Rd AWSC 9.7 A 9.8 A
S Walton Ave & Lincoln Rd Signalized 29.7 C 23.1 C
Garden Hwy & Lincoln Rd Signalized 9.7 A 11.8 B
George Washington Blvd & Bogue Rd AWSC 9.1 A 9.3 A
S Walton Ave & Bogue Rd AWSC 11.5 B 11.6 B
Garden Hwy & Bogue Rd Signalized 21.6 C 19.8 B
Notes:
1 Based on analysis methods from the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016). Release of 7th Edition in 2022 did not alter calculation methods for intersection delay. 2 For SSSC intersections, the worst-case movement (in parentheses) and entire intersection (not in parentheses) are shown.

SSSC = Side-street stop control. AWSC = All-way stop-control.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations kmuary2025

JUSTIFICATION FOR ROADWAY CAPACITY INCREASES
Table 5 compares existing and cumulative buildout daily traffic levels on a dozen street segments in Yuba City. Chosen segments consist of two-lane facilities counted in 2019 and planned to be widened to four lanes as part of the Roadway Development Impact Fee program.

TABLE 5: COIVIPARISON OF EXISTING AND CUMULATIVE BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON

YUBA CITY ROADWAYS
Existing Conditions Cumulative Buildout Conditions
Roadway Segment ADT 1 LOS 2 ADT 1 LOS Without LOS With Widening 2 Widening 2 Butte House Road west of Harter Parkway 13,800 D 30,500 F D George Washington Blvd south of SR 20 8,500 D 15,500 E A Harter Parkway north of SR 20 9,700 A 21,600 F B Harter Parkway south of SR 20 5,500 A 29,700 F D Walton Avenue north of Lincoln Road 11,900 B 27,200 F C Garden Highway north of Lincoln 17,800 B 31,700 F D
Franklin Road west of Walton Avenue 6,500 A 28,700 F C
Franklin Road east of SR 99 13,700 C 27,600 F C
Lincoln Road west of SR 99 10,800 D 24,500 F B
Lincoln Road east of SR 99 13,000 C 25,400 F C
Bogue Road west of SR 99 7,200 D 30,800 F D
Bogue Road east of SR 99 10,100 D 32,200 F D
Notes:
1 ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume (both directions). 2 LOS based on two-lane rural roadway or two- or four-lane moderate access control arterial (having capacity of 9,000 daily vehicles per lane, and using v/c ratios of 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 to represents LOS D, E, and F condition thresholds, respectively).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Table 5 indicates that without the planned widenings, all but one of the twelve segments would degrade to LOS Funder cumulative bui ldout conditions. With the planned widenings, they would each improve to LOS D or better. This result illustrates how the planned widenings are necessary to accommodate travel generated by planned land use growth.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025

FEE CALCULATIONS
The road fees would be charged to all types of new development throughout the City. To allocate the fees equitably among different development types, the fee amounts charged to each land use category should reflect the relative effects of each category on the transportation system. This entails the use of different fee rates for different land use types. Table 6 shows the results of those calculations.

To calculate the fees, the product of each land use's PM peak hour trip rate and average trip length was calculated and compared against the single-family rate, which is, by definition, one Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE). Using this method, a DUE factor per unit of land use is established. The number of units of land use growth is then multiplied by the DUE factor to yield the number of DUEs for each land use category. The roadway fee per unit of land use is then calculated by dividing the total cost responsibility by total number of DUEs for each land use category. 3
Residential Cost Transfer for Utility Undergrounding
The City has decided that the cost of utility construction/relocation improvements for undergrounding should be borne in a manner proportionate to the amount of street frontage of each land use type.

According to MHM Engineers' spreadsheet, those costs amount to $39.7 million. According to City calculations, residential uses are situated along 79% of the linear distance of all roadways included in the fee program. The remainder are spread among a variety of non -residential land uses including business/ technology, commercial, office park, and public/semi-public.

Table 6 indicates that residential land uses represent 24,581 of the 39,680 total DUEs (63%). However, residential represents 79% of the frontage along which utility construction/relocation improvements would be constructed. Unlike general street widening for capacity purposes, uses abutting the roadway would more directly benefit from the uti lity improvements (versus parcels situated elsewhere). To account for this, a CIP cost transfer of $6.4 mill ion4 from non-residential uses to residential uses was determined to be necessary. That increase was then spread in proportion to the total number of DUEs in each land use category. The values shown in Table 7 reflect this transfer. 4

Note that the calculations do not explicitly consider pass-by trips to retail uses. This is because the city's travel demand model applies trip rates (2.56 trips per ksf of retail) that already reflect reductions for pass-by trips.

For example, the average weekday PM peak hour trip rate for a 160,000 square foot shopping center according to the ITE Trip Generation Manual is 3.75 trips per ksf. Rates used in the city's model are 34% below that, as the model is not able to account for pass-by travel.

Calculated as fol lows: Proportionate Al location ($39,700,000 * 78.8%) minus Current Allocation ($39,700,000 *

62.6%) = $6,420,738, split proportionally between single family and multi-family residential. Values do not match precisely due to round ing.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025
TABLE 6: ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM FEE BY LAND USE TYPE (UNADJUSTED) Land Use Land PM Peak Avg Trip DUE Factor Total Unadjusted Category Unit Use Hour Trip Length per Unit 1 DUEs 2 Responsibility 3 Impact Fee Growth Rate per Unit 4 Single-Family DU 21 ,529 1.17 3.7 1.00 21 ,529 Residential $ 345,339,830 $ 16,041 Multi-Family DU 6,933 0.61 3.4 0.48 3,322 Residential $ 53,280,118 $ 7,685 Neighborhood KSF 648 2.56 3.2 1.89 1,226 Commercial $ 19,669,81 1 $ 30,355 Community KSF 2,120 2.56 3.1 1.83 3,886 Commercial $ 62,340,854 $ 29,406 Regional KSF 1,118 2.56 4.3 2.54 2,843 Commercial $ 45,602,164 $ 40,789 Office KSF 4,480 1.32 3.5 1.07 4,781 $ 76,692,910 $ 17,119 Light KSF 3,503 0.45 3.8 0.40 1,384 $ Industrial 22,195,834 $ 6,336 Manufacture KSF 1,193 0.66 3.9 0.59 709 $ 11,378,479 $ 9,538 Total 39,680 $ 636,500,000 -
Notes:
1 Calculated as the ratio of the product of PM peak hour trip rate and average trip length against the single-family rate (i.e., the Dwelling Unit Equivalent). Example: multi-family is (0.61*3.4)/(1 .17*3. 7) = 0.48 2 Product of DUE factor per unit and number of added units or KSF by land use type. 3 Responsibility by land use type is that land use's proportion of all DUEs divided by the total program cost. 4 In this context, 'unadjusted' refers to methodology not considering residential cost transfer for utility undergrounding.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

TABLE 7: ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM FEE BY LAND USE TYPE (ADJUSTED) Land Use Category Unit DUEs 1 Unadjusted Impact Transfer Adjusted Impact Fee per Unit 1 Amount 21 Fee per Unit 2 Single-Family Residential DU 21 ,529 $ 16,041 + $5,562,533 $16,299 Multi-Family Residential DU 3,322 $ 7,685 + $858,205 $7,807 Neighborhood Commercial KSF 1,226 $ 30,355 -$530,918 $29,535 Community Commercial KSF 3,886 $ 29,406 - $1,682,673 $28,612 Regional Commercial KSF 2,843 $ 40,789 - $1 ,230,870 $39,688 Office KSF 4,781 $ 17,119 - $2,070,056 $16,657
Light Industrial KSF 1,384 $ 6,336 - $599,099 $6,165

Manufacture
Notes:
1 Source: Table 6.

City of Yuba City Roadway Development Impact Fee Calculations January 2025
I KSF I 709 I $ 9,538 I
2 This adjusted fee considers the residential cost transfer for utility undergrounding.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
- $307,122 I $9,280
The net effect of the shift is an increase of about $250 per single-family dwelling unit and $125 per multifamily dwelling unit. Conversely, office would experience a $460 decrease per ksf, while commercial fees would be reduced between $800 and $1,100 per ksf depending on the type of commercial.

Table 8 compares the existing (2024) fees by land use type against the fees developed in this study. As shown, all fees would increase substantially under the premise that the fee program would fully fund all planned improvements.

TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

FEE BY LAND USE TYPE
Land Use Category Unit Existing Impact Fee per Unit 1 Proposed Impact Fee per Unit 2 Single-Family Residential DU $6,654 $16,299
Multi-Family Residential DU $3,855 $7,807 Neighborhood Commercial KSF $5,592 $29,535 Community Commercial KSF $5,592 $28,612
Regional Commercial KSF $5,592 $39,688
Office KSF $4,025 $16,657
Light Industrial KSF $685 $6,165
Manufacture KSF - 3 $9,280
Notes:
1 Based on current fee schedule dated January 1, 2024.
2 Source: Table 7.

DU = dwelling units. KSF = thousand square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

APPENDIX A:

JANUARY 2024 CITY OF YUBA CITY FEE SCHEDULE

APPENDIX B:

DETAILED INFORMATION AND COST ESTIMATES FOR ROADWAY

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM

APPENDIX B:

Summary of Capital Improvement Program
Roadway CIP

' --- ........ __ _ -r-::::-=--.... ..:., .. ,_._.
~--·· :-•--··--·· ··-·· :-•-··--··
.......... _,_.,_,_···--·-· ·--- _ ,_.,_,_ .. _ ....
.... __
-·-·-·--···--·-
" ,,..
..
--.,. __ -·-··- ,_,,_,_·· ·-··--- --·-·
..., __ ....... ,,_, __ ,_ - - -- r-•- - -···---·
·- -
... r--.. - - ··--- ·
---· r--•-,- · .. - -·-
__ ,._ -·-· -_ ,, _ _ _ ·---- --·-
,. ____ _
,_ ......
-·-·--···--
.. . ·---· -·-·-.... ,. __ .. . .......... _,. ...... _,, __ .. . ---
.. , .. ----- ·-·--..
·---· --
.. _ ,.,., __ .. ------- --.. -·-· --·· ......... .. --.. _ ,.,, --. -·-··- --.. _ ,. .. --
......... .. --· _,.,.,_ ... .,, ........ .. --· _, .......... ......... .. ..,_., _ ,,,., ............... .
..........
-·-"'···--·-·
... ..... --.... .... -
CftyofYulNCltyTnlflclmpactfttUpd.ate
MaJorPlwinedRoadwayI~IWtmenl1lnAt<otdanuwllllll110ctober20l4TnfflcSll:udy~te .,_ ................. _ " ................ ,_
.. :-:·:::,:::.:::. .... _
... ·:.~::::::.:::.:.·.:::..
.,_ ............... _
._ ............. _
.. _ ................ ....
_ .,.,_ ... ., .. -_ ............ -
,._ .............. _ _ .,, .... , ....
__
,,_ ............... _
=·~ ..... ~-->-----
... ........ -... ;;-" .
.., _ __ , .. _ ,. _
__ ............ .-.. -
.......
-·-...
"-
,,_ ...
··.---· .....--- ....... --._
... _ . .,_ ........... _
., _ .., ............. _
,,_ ................ _ ._ ............
__
·-····· ........ _.,.
,_ ............. _ ,_ .............. " ...
, _ _,........ . ' ............. _ _,_.., ___ , .. ,,. __ .. -... -... , .. ,_ . _ ' _ _ ,,_..,.,., __ _
"r--'"'·""'·"'"''" '"-"r--""--· .. - ---
"' ' "
.
·--
-
::;.
--
·-·
. -··
·-·
-
.

.... _
_
., ...
___
-
,
-
_,_,_
-·-··
..
~
____
·--·
_
,
-
__
-·
,.,
--·--·
__ ,.,_n••• ,.,..
·-~
... ._,.,.
---
,.,_ ..
---··--
..
-----
--
..
-
..
·--· ...... .
~--· -·
"
·--· -- .. .

City of Yu~ City Tnffic Im put Fee Upd.te
MaJOJPlannedRoadwiyinvr!11e111e11lslnAa:ordancev.4!htll!!Octobel2024TrafflcSllldyl.pd;lte ' .,._ n•-•••,..•-••~
•• ••n'":::.:•••--
•1-• •··· ........ _ •r-••••• .......
_
•1 -•n•••., .. •••-
"-"'"•N•.,••••'""""
H- N "•• ...... .. ,. _
...................... _
·-
............... .._.
..
_ .............. _
.. , ... _, ................ ._.
,, _., ................ .
,, _ .............. , .....
,, _., .. ............ _
. .................. .....
................... ,._
''"" .....
-·- ·-
, ..... ........
-···
.··· : ... ....... '=.""•'- l\!l:. I,:;:_:,,
, .. ::

APPENDIX C:

Transportation Impact Fee Comparisons
Figure C-1 Single-Family Residential (2025$) .................................................. C-1 Figure C-2 Commercial/Retail Development (2025$) ....................... C-2 Figure C-3 Office Development (2025$) ......................................... C-3 Figure C-4 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... C-4 Table C-1 Single-Family Residential (2025$) ................................. C-5 Table C-2 Commercial/Retail Development (2025$) ....................... C-6 Table C-3 Office Development (2025$) ......................................... C-7 Table C-4 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... C-8

Figure C·l
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Single-Family Residential (2025$)
Sacramento County - North Vineyard Station
City of Sacramento - Panhandle
City of Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area
City of Folsom - Folsom Ranch
City of Rancho Cordova - Rio Del Oro
Placer County - Placer Vineyards
Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Single-Family Residential Development [1][2][3]
$13,900
$17,900
$21,900
$23,500
$22,500
$20,900
$21,200
$18,500
$19,400
$15,500·-----
$25,200
15 400
City of Roseville - Creekview Specific Plan
City of Lincoln - Independence
City of Rocklin - \Miitney Ranch/Hwy 65
City of Manteca - Infill Development
City of Lodi - Infill Development
City of Davis - Infill Development
City of Woodland - Spring Lake
City of West Sacramento - Liberty
Yuba. County - North Plumas Lake Nea
City of Chico - Urban Area
City of Madera - Growth Nea
City of Redding - Infill Development
City of Turlock - Morgan Ranch
City of Tulare - Infill Development $4,300
$5,000 $10,000 . $15,000 $20,000
Regional
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] All rates assumes a 2,400 Sq.Ft single family residential unit. [2] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide.

Prepared by EPS 1/512026
Fee per Dwelling Unit
Jurisdiction-Specific
C-1
$25,0~ $30,000
Plan Area
$44,300
$35,400
$35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

f!l!IUl'll:Jfai:tees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.

City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Single-Family Residential (2025$)
Prepared by EPS 11512026 C-2

Figure C-2
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Commercial/Retail Development (2025$)
Sacramento County - North Vineyard Station
City of Sacramento - Panhandle [3]
Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area
Folsom - Folsom Ranch
Rancho Cordova - Rio Del Oro
Placer County - Placer Vineyards
Roseville - Creekview Specific Plan
City of Lincoln • Independence
City of Rocklin • Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65
City of Manteca• Infill Development
City of Lodi - Infill Development
City of Davis - Infill Development
City of Woodland - Spring Lake
City of West Sacramento - Liberty
Yuba County - North Plumas Lake Area
City of Chico - Urban Area
City of Madera - Growth Area
City of Redding - Infill Development
City of Turlock - Morgan Ranch
City of Tulare - Infill Development
Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Commercial/Retail Development [1][2]
$2,800
$18,300
$18,700
$23,300
$20,800
$14,700
$8,300
$3ZOOO
$21,100
$§,400
00 $17,300
$10,200
$40,700
$38,600
$10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide.

Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025
Fee per 1,000 Sq.Ft.

Regional Jurisdiction-specific Plan Area I
C-3
$49,800
$64,800
$50,000 $60,000 $70,000

(llpul'll:lllii:lees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.

PJY SflMulralll'litiy,!l"!llidlllm,pipliB"lrR>d commercial development, so there are no plan area fees shown.

Commercial/Retail Development (2025$)
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-4

Figure C-3
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Office Development (2025$)
Sacramento County - North Vineyard Station
City of Sacramento - Panhandle [3]
Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area
Folsom - Folsom Ranch
Rancho Cordova - Rio Del Oro
Placer County - Placer Vineyards
Roseville - Creekview Specific Plan
City of Lincoln - Independence
City of Rocklin - Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65
City of Manteca - Infill Development
City of Lodi - Infill Development
City of Davis - Infill Development
City of Woodland - Spring Lake [3]
City of West Sacramento - Liberty
Yuba County - North Plumas Lake Area
City of Chico - Urban Area
City of Madera - Growth Area
City of Redding - Infill Development
City of Turlock - Morgan Ranch
Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Office Development [1][2]
1$2,200
$5,200
$6,800
$6,400
$9,500
$10,500
$14,200
$11,400
$18,100
$23,300
$26,400
$21,400
$22,500
$32,400
$42,400
$41,000
City of Tulare - Infill Development ==='--'-$4--'c.:. o_o_o ______________________________ ___, $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000 Fee per 1,000 Sq.Ft.
eg1ona uris I ion- pec1 1c an rea
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [2] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.
[3] Panhandle and Spring Lake do not have planned office development, so there are no plan area fees shown.

Prepared by EPS 12130/2025 C-5

Figure C-4
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Industrial Development (2025$}
Sacramento County - North Vineyard Stat ion
City of Sacramento - Panhandle
Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area
Folsom - Folsom Ranch
Rancho Cordova - Rio Del Oro
Placer County - Placer Vineyards
Roseville - Creekview Specific Plan
City of Lincoln - Independence
City of Rocklin - Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65
City of Manteca - I nfill Development
City of Lodi - Infill Development
City of Davis - Infill Development $500
Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Industrial Development [1][2][3]
_____ $5,600
$7,000
$7,300
$7,200
$5,800
~!D)
$8,200
$11,100
City of Woodland - Spring Lake
City of West Sacramento - Liberty
Yuba County - North Plumas Lake Area
City of Chico - Urban Area
City of Madera - Growth Area
$8]]
City of Redding - Infill Development - $6,100
$22,700
City of Turlock - Morgan Ranch - $'.000
=='--=1r,~300=- ---------------------------------' City of Tulare - I nfill Development $5,000 $10,000 $15,000
• • Fee per 1,000 Sq.Ft.f
Regional Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area [1]
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Most projects do not have planned industrial development, so there are no industrial plan are fees shown for those projects. [2] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [3] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.

Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-4
$20,000 $25,000

Table C·l
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison Single-Family Single-Family Residential (2025$) Si!!9!e-Fanil~ Fee~ Dwelli!J! lnt
Jurisdiction [1] Plan Area Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area Regional [2] Total [3] Sacramento County North Vineyard Station $4,280 $9,520 $13,900 City of Sacramento Panhandle $2,237 $13,975 $1,605 $17,900 City of Elk Grove Southeast Policy Area $16,087 $5,722 $21,900 City of Folsom Folsom Ranch $9,551 $33,105 $1,605 $44,300 City of Rancho Cordova Rio Del Oro $21,879 $1,605 $23,500 Placer County Placer Vineyards $7,299 $15,113 $22,500
City of Roseville Creekview Specific Plan $8,852 $11,992 $20,900 City of Lincoln Independence $5,671 $15,477 $21,200 City of Rocklin VVhitney Ranch/Hwy 65 $3,774 $622 $5,737 $10,200 City of Manteca Infill Development $10,428 $8,017 $18,500 City of Lodi Infill Development $1,048 $8,017 $9,100 City of Davis Infill Development $8,093 $8,100 City of Woodland Spring Lake $10,173 $25,140 $35,400
City of West Sacramento Liberty $17,735 $1,638 $19,400
Yuba County North Plumas Lake Area $7,096 $3,577 $10,700 City of Chico Urban Area $11,784 $3,687 $15,500
City of Madera Growth Area $951 $24,179 $25,200
City of Redding Infill Development $7,319 $1,405 $8,800 City of Turlock Morgan Ranch $11,739 $3,592 $15,400
City ofTulare Infill Development $4,279 $4,300
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] All rates assumes a 2,400 Sq.Ft single family residential unit. [2] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [3] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.

Prepared by EPS 1/512026 C-5

Table C-2
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Commercial/Retail Development (2025$)
Jurisdiction Plan Area
Sacramento County North Vineyard Station
City of Sacramento Panhandle [3]
Elk Grove Southeast Policy Area Folsom Folsom Ranch Rancho Cordova Rio Del Oro Placer County Placer Vineyards Roseville Creekview Specific Plan City of Lincoln Independence City of Rocklin V\lhitney Ranch/Hwy 65 City of Manteca Infill Development City of Lodi Infill Development City of Davis Infill Development City of Woodland Spring Lake City of West Sacramento Liberty Yuba County North Plumas Lake Area
City of Chico Urban Area
City of Madera Growth Area City of Redding Infill Development City ofTurlock Morgan Ranch City ofTulare Infill Development Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.

Commercial/Retail
c.ormudal Fee per 1,000 Bldg. Sq.R.

Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area Regional [1] Total [2]
$38,740 $11,038 $49,800
$340 $2,408 $2,800
$14,481 $3,809 $18,300
$14,440 $47,882 $2,408 $64,800 $16,250 $2,408 $18,700
$8,426 $14,857 $23,300
$11,259 $9,300 $20,600 $25,292 $15,394 $40,700
$6,038 $1,131 $13,591 $20,800 $8,229 $6,457 $14,700 $1,767 $6,457 $8,300 $8,448 $8,500 $12,632 $19,350 $32,000 $19,215 $1,867 $21,100
$4,275 $2,080 $6,400
$22,690 $15,830 $38,600
$254 $22,844 $23,100
$12,003 $1,930 $14,000
$14,799 $2,407 $17,300
$10,170 $10,200
[1] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [2] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred. [3] Panhandle does not have planned commercial development, so there are no plan area fees shown.

Prepared by EPS 12130/2025 C-6

Table C-3
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison Office
• Office Development (2025$)
Office Fee per 1,000 Bldg, Sq.R.

Jurisdiction Plan Area Jurisdiction-Specific Plan Area Regional [1] Total [ 2] Sacramento County North Vineyard Station $0 $22,870 $9,443 $32,400 City of Sacramento Panhandle [3] $330 $1,843 $2,200
Elk Grove Southeast Policy Area $15,260 $2,791 $18,100 Folsom Folsom Ranch $6,360 $34,189 $1,843 $42,400 Rancho Cordova Rio Del Oro $12,350 $1,843 $14,200 Placer County Placer Vineyards $26,245 $14,715 $41,000 Roseville Creekview Specific Plan $13,711 $9,578 $23,300 City of Lincoln Independence $11,115 $15,188 $26,400 City of Rocklin Whitney Ranch/Hwy 65 $6,604 $1,131 $13,572 $21,400 City of Manteca Infill Development $2,739 $6,540 $9,300 City of Lodi Infill Development $1,284 $6,540 $7,900 City of Davis Infill Development $5,192 $5,200 City of Woodland Spring Lake [3] $6,745 $6,800 City of West Sacramento Liberty $19,976 $2,515 $22,500
Yuba County North Plumas Lake Area $4,275 $2,080 $6,400 City of Chico Urban Area $5,270 $4,140 $9,500
City of Madera Growth Area $254 $7,762 $8,100 City of Redding Infill Development $8,197 $2,281 $10,500 City of Turlock Morgan Ranch $7,090 $4,237 $11,400 City of Tulare Infill Development $3,980 $4,000
Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.
[1] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [2] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred. [3] Panhandle and Spring Lake do not have planned office development, so there are no plan area fees shown.

Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-7

Table C-4
City of Yuba City TIF Comparison
Industrial Development (2025$)
Jurisdiction Plan Area
Sacramento County North Vineyard Station
City of Sacramento Panhandle
Elk Grove Southeast Policy Area Folsom Folsom Ranch Rancho Cordova Rio Del Oro Placer County Placer Vineyards
Roseville Creekview Specific Plan
City of Lincoln Independence City of Rocklin Vlnlitney Ranch/Hwy 65 City of Manteca Infill Development City of Lodi Infill Development City of Davis Infill Development City of Woodland Spring Lake City of West Sacramento Liberty Yuba County North Plumas Lake Area
City of Chico Urban Area City of Madera Growth Area City of Redding Infill Development City of Turlock Morgan Ranch City of Tulare Infill Development Sources: Various Jurisdictions; EPS.

Industrial
Industrial Fee per 1,000 Bldg, Sq.ft,
J . d' 1. s .fi Plan Area uns 1c ion- pec1 1c [1] Regional [2] Total [ 3] $5,594 $5,600
$230 $844 $1,100
$5,472 $1,503 $7,000 $6,360 $844 $7,300 $6,280 $844 $7,200 $5,712 $5,800
$6,984 $4,029 $11,100 $3,459 $5,949 $9,500 $3,396 $242 $5,556 $9,200 $1,000 $2,993 $4,000 $653 $2,993 $3,700 $480 $500
$5,197 $5,200
$20,909 $1,753 $22,700
$90 $700 $800
$2,640 $1,900 $4,600
$387 $3,687 $4,100
$6,002 $6,100
$1,932 $2,000
$1,290 $1,300
[1] Most projects do not have planned industrial development, so there are no industrial plan are fees shown for those projects.
[2] Regional transportation fees are applicable county-wide. [3] Total fees are rounded up to the nearest hundred.

Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 C-8

Figure D-1
Figure D-2 Figure D-3
Table C-1 Table C-2 Table C-3 Table C-4
Table C-5
Table C-6
Table C-7 Table C-8 Table C-9
Table C-10 Table C-11
APPENDIX D:

Development Impact Fee Comparisons
Single-Family Residential (2025$) .................................................. D-1 Commercial/Retail Development (2025$) ....................... D-2 Office Development (2025$) ......................................... D-3 Single-Family Residential (2025$) ................................. D-4 Commercial/Retail Development (2025$) ....................... D-5 Office Development (2025$) ......................................... D-6 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-8 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-10 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-12 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-14 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-16 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-18 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-20 Industrial Development (2025$) ................................... D-22

Figure D-1
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Fee Comparison • Single-Family Development (2025$)
$140,000 $120,000
$100,000
::,
; $80,000 "-; "-
0 -.; $60,000
>
C
$40,000 $20,000
$0
Processing Fees Citywide Fees County/Other Agency Fees School District Fees Plan Area Fees Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS D-1
Prepared by EPS 11112026 Z.\.Sl'lltodJ'rCi/-lSAC\2noo0\2221(14 VW,1 Citt Otv1lcpmtnt lmpat1 FH Up,mes'Mo-dtb\:222104 DIF Comparill""-.\J.11.25

Figure D-2
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Fee Comparison - Retail Development (2025$)
$80,000 $70,000
$60,000
rt. $50,000
0"
"' 0
0 $40,000
....
;; $30,000 ·e
E E
0 u $20,000
$10,000
$0
Yuba City. Proposed Yuba City
Sutter County
Processing Fees
Countywlde
Yuba County
II Citywide Fees
Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS Prepared by EPS 1/112026
Elk Grove
Saracramento
Lincoln
Placer County
Chico
Butte County
County/Other Agency Fees School District Fees
D-2
West Sacramento Woodland
Yolo County
Plan Area Fees
Z.\SMr-r<lj1<11\SACl2220001222104 Y..tll C,ty 01'11lopmtnt Impact Fee Upcl11nv.lod<II\Z!2104 OIF ComJ",IIOl\_12.11.2~

Figure D-3
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Fee Comparison - Office Development (2025$)
$70,000 $60,000 $50,000
l $40,000
8 :::-
t
a. $30,000
.l!
$20,000 $10,000
$0
Yuba City - Proposed Yuba Oty
Sutter County
l
_ Processing Fees
Countywlde
Yuba County
Citywide Fees
Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS Prepared by EPS 1/112026
Elk Grove
Saracramento
Llncoln
Placer County
County/Other Agency Fees
D-3
Chico
Butte County
School District Fees
West Sacramento Woodland
Yolo County
Plan Area Fees
Z.\.Sh111'1il',ojtcll\SAC1222000122210ce Yuba Cit/ 0.,,1lo~mtnt lm;:uct FH up::1,~.WO<!ols\222104 CIF Comp.,ilon_ \2.11 .25

Table D·l
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Fee Comparison • Single-Family Development (2025$)
Sutter County
Item [1] Yuba City- Proposed Yuba City Source Table D-5 Table D-5 Processing Fees $8,000 $8,000
Citywide Fees $55,000 $45,500 County/Other Agency Fees $1,500 $1,500 School District Fees $12,500 $12,500
Plan Area Fees
Total Fees $77,000 $67,500
Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS [1] All rates are rounded to the nearest hundred.

Prepared by EPS 1/112026
Yuba County
Countywide
Table D-6
$10,500
$0
$70,900
$12,500
$93,900
D-4
Saracramento Placer County Butte County Yolo County
Elk Grove Lincoln Chico West Woodland Sacramento
Table D-7 Table D-8 Table D-9 Table D-10 Table D-11
Fee per Unit
$3,700 $9,500 $6,400 $2,100 $3,600
$28,500 $37,200 $24,900 $43,900 $46,700 $39,300 $18,900 $5,400 $37,400 $5,500 $17,300 $16,300 $12,500 $12,500 $14,800
$34,000 $0 $100 $58,800
$122,800 $81,900 $49,200 $96,000 $129,400
Z.\SMrc,d,J:lrojects\SAC\2220001222104YvbaCrty0eve1opmentlmpadF~Up:latllS'J.IC>do)!l\222104 0IFCompar~oo_12.1125

Table D-2
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Fee Comparison - Retail Development (2025$)
Sutter County
Item [1] Yuba City- Proposed Yuba City
Source Table D-5 Table D-5
Processing Fees $2,800 $2,800
Citywide Fees $30,900 $8,000 County/Other Agency Fees $400 $400 School District Fees $900 $900
Plan Area Fees
Total Fees $35,000 $12,100
Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS [1] All rates are rounded to the nearest hundred.

Prepared by EPS 111/2026
Yuba County Saracramento Placer County Butte County Yolo County Countywide Elk Grove Lincoln Chico West Woodland Sacramento Table D-6 Table D-7 Table D-8 Table D-9 Table D-10 Table D-11 Fee per 1 K Bldg. Sq. Ft.
$500 $400 $1,500 $1,200 $9,700 $1,800
$0 $15,900 $43,500 $29,200 $20,000 $20,300
$13,700 $8,100 $14,000 $15,900 $34,400 $1,300
$1,200 $900 $400 $900 $900 $900
$5,300 $0 $100 $45,000
$15,400 $30,600 $59,400 $47,200 $65,100 $69,300
D-5
Z:\Shared\ProJects\SAC\222000\222104 Yuba City Development Impact Fee Updates\Modefs\222104 OIF Comparison_ 12.11.25

Table D-3
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Fee Comparison - Office Development (2025$)
Sutter County
Item [1] Yuba City - Proposed Yuba City
Source Table 0-5 Table 0-5
Processing Fees $4,300 $4,300
Citywide Fees $21,600 $9,000
County /Other Agency Fees $500 $500
School District Fees $900 $900
Plan Area Fees
Total Fees $27,300 $14,700
Source: City of Yuba; City of Sacramento; other public agencies; EPS [1] All rates are rounded to the nearest hundred.

Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026
Yuba County
Countywide
Table 0-6
$1,000
$0
$18,300
$1,200
$20,500
D-6
Saracramento Placer County Butte County Yolo County
Elk Grove Lincoln Chico West Woodland Sacramento
Table 0-7 Table 0-8 Table 0-9 Table 0-10 Table 0-11
Fee per 1 K Bldg. Sq. Fl.
$900 $2,500 $1,600 $14,800 $2,400
$14,500 $26,700 $9,200 $18,200 $15,200
$11,300 $13,700 $4,200 $26,200 $2,000
$900 $400 $900 $900 $900
$8,000 $0 $100 $45,000
$35,600 $43,300 $15,900 $60,200 $65,500
Z.\Sho1ed.Projects\SAC\2220001;222104 Yuba C!tyOovelOpmentlmpactFeo Up:!at<o\Modeh\222104 OIFCQmpar~oo_l2.1125

Table D-4
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Yuba - Proposed
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg, Sq, Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
Processing Fees
Building Permit Service
Plan Check Fee
Fire Department Plan Review
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee
California Environmental Quality Act [1]
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee (SMIP)
GIS/Technology Fee
Subtotal Processing Fees
City Development Impact Fees
DIF - Parks and Recreation
DIF - Animal Control
DIF - Fire Protection
DIF - Library Services DIF - Police Protection
DIF - Roads (Proposed) [2]
DIF - Civic Center
DIF - Corp. Yard DIF - Adminstration
County General Government Courts & Criminal Justice
Health & Social Service
Air Quality
West Yuba City Sewer Trunk Line [3][4]
Sewer Connection
Water Connection
Water Service Tie-In
Water Meter
Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026
D-7
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$3,971 $1,986
$477
$18
$1,000
$57
$419
$7,928
$4,610
$73
$1,019
$683 $895
$16,299
$386 $609
$711
$1,158 $1,098 $1,340
$15
$2,133 $7,044 $9,331 $5,499
$745
$1,274
$54,922

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000

0.50 118
M
$177.05
$44,262,500
35,000

0.30 11B
B
$268.41
$9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$1,239
$806
$491
$7 $4
$50
$168
$2,765
$158 $139
$28,612
$60
$95
$267 $186 $176 $215
$60 $17
$57
$299
$57 $10
$455
$30,864
$1,879 $1,221
$744
$11
$29 $75
$255
$4,214
$198
$175
$16,657
$265
$251 $307
$60
$122
$408
$2,133
$405
$74
$455
$21,510
Z.ISheredV'rof<'<:.\s,\C\22tCOQ\222104YvbaCil/D,Jvebpmen!lmpactFeeUp<1,,tei'MIXJ.>h\222t04 DIFOomprl.,,,_121125

Table D-4
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Yuba - Proposed
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025) Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
County/Other Agency Fees
Drainage Fee - Gilsizer County Drainage District [5]
Sutter County Drainage Zone Fee - Zone 1
Subtotal Other County/ Agency Fees
Yuba City Unified School District (YCUSD)
Plan Area Fees
TOTAL
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees
Citywide Fees County/Other Agency Fees
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total
Source: Yuba City, Sutter County; YCUSD; EPS.

Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$442 $992
$1,434
$12,408 $76,692
$7,928
$54,922
$1,434
$12,408
$76,692

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000

0.50 118
M
$177.05
$44,262,500
35,000

0.30 118
B
$268.41
$9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$184 $184
446 $24-
$330 $427
$840 $840
$34,798 $26,990
$2,765 $4,214
$30,864 $21,510
$330 $427 $840 $840
$34,798 $26,990
[1] According to the City of Yuba City's FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule, minor development are developments which do not require mitigations or are generally not considered to have any potential significant impacts. [2] The proposed roadway development impact fee includes three different commercial types, each with a different rate. This analysis assumes the rate for a community commercial use. [3] The general boundaries of West Yuba City Sewer Trunk service area are Pease Road to the north, Bogue Road to the south, Township Road to the west and variable locaitons, west of State Route 99, to the east. [4] The West Yuba City Sewer Trunk Line special connection fee is charged in addition to other sewer fees (connection/extension/service). See Yuba City Muni. Code§ 5 Section 6-5.508. [5] Rate shown applies to new impervious area within the Gilsizer Drainage District only. Rates vary by drainage district. As of FY 2025-26, the Sutter County Water Agency has 10 districts, two of which (Districts 1 and 11) are within the Gilsizer Drainage District and have their own fee rates.

D-8
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 Z\S~«ed\Prc>je~h\S4C\222000\222104Yv~CilJDcvebpmcn!lmpa~IF,,eUpd,lesWode/J\222104 OIF~IZ.11~5

Table D-5
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Yuba
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY /COUNTY /OTHER AGENCY FEES
Processing Fees
Building Permit Service
Plan Check Fee
Fire Department Plan Review
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee California Environmental Quality Act [1] Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee (SMIP)
GIS/Technology Fee
Subtotal Processing Fees
City Development Impact Fees
DIF - Parks and Recreation
DIF -Animal Control
DIF - Fire Protection DIF - Library Services
DIF - Police Protection
DIF - Roads DIF - Civic Center
DIF - Corp. Yard DIF - Adminstration
County General Government
Courts & Criminal Justice
Health & Social Service
Air Quality
West Yuba City Sewer Trunk Line [2]13]
Sewer Connection
Water Connection Water Service Tie-In
Water Meter
Sutter Butte Basin Regional Levee Improvement
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025
D-9
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$3,971
$1,986
$477
$18
$1,000
$57
$419
$7,928
$4,610
$73
$1,019
$683 $895
$6,806
$386 $609
$711
$1,158 $1,098
$1,340
$15
$2,133
$7,044
$9,331 $5,499
$745
$1,274
$45,430

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30

IIB IIB
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$1,239
$806
$491
$7
$4
$50
$168
$2,765
$158 $139
$5,720
$60 $95
$267 $186
$176
$215
$60
$17 $57
$299
$57
$10
$455
$7,972
$1,879 $1,221
$744
$11
$29 $75
$255
$4,214
$198 $175
$4,117
$265
$251
$307
$60
$122 $408
$2,133
$405
$74
$455
$8,970

Table D-5
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Yuba
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY /COUNTY /OTHER AGENCY FEES
County/ Other Agency Fees
Drainage Fee - Gilsizer County Drainage District [4]
Sutter County Drainage Zone Fee - Zone 1
Subtotal Other County/ Agency Fees
Yuba City Unified School District (YCUSD}
Plan Area Fees
TOTAL
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees
Citywide Fees County/Other Agency Fees
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total
Source: Yuba City, Sutter County; YCUSD; EPS.

Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$442
$992
$1,434
$12,408
$67,199
$7,928
$45,430
$1,434
$12,408
$67,199

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30

IIB IIB
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$184 $184
$146 $243
$330 $427 $840 $840
$11,906 $14,450
$2,765 $4,214 $7,972 $8,970
$330 $427 $840 $840
$11,906 $14,450
[1] According to the City of Yuba City's FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule, minor development are developments which do not require mitigations or are generally not considered to have any potential significant impacts. [2] The general boundaries of West Yuba City Sewer Trunk service area are Pease Road to the north, Bogue Road to the south, Township Road to the west and variable locaitons, west of State Route 99, to the east. [3] The West Yuba City Sewer Trunk Line special connection fee is charged in addition to other sewer fees (connection/extension/service). See Yuba City Muni. Code§ 5 Section 6-5.508. [4] Rate shown applies to new impervious area within the Gilsizer Drainage District only. Rates vary by drainage district.

As of FY 2025-26, the Sutter County Water Agency has 1 O districts, two of which (Districts 1 and 11) are within the 1 Gilsizer Drainage District and have their own fee rates.

D-10
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 l'.\Sh~cl'I\SAC\222000\222104 Yubil C/lyl>,vebpmen!lmpoclFaa Upo,19,'Nod,#1222104 DIFC-Ompt.,/,,,,,_1211 25

Table D-6
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
Yuba County• Plumas Lake Specific Plan (South)
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY /COUNTY /OTHER AGENCY FEES
Processing Fees
Building Permit Service Fees (1]
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee
Fire Plan Review Fee Fire Safe Planning Fees
CDSA Processing
Planning - Environmental Review
Planning - Planned Development Planning - Permit Review CDSA Support & Tech Surcharge
Public Water System
Sewage Disposal
Public Works
Subtotal Processing Fees
County/Other Agency Fees per Unit
PLSP/NASA Traffic Impact Fee
SYTIA Traffic Impact Fee
Linda Fire Protection District Fire Impact Fee
Olivehurst Public Utility District Fire Impact Fees
Yuba County Wide Development Impact Fee
Reclamation District 784 Drainage Impact Fee
Olivehurst Public Utility District Wide Water Capacity Fee Olivehurst Public Utility District Wide WWTF Capacity Fee PLSP Sewer Collection System Capacity Fee
Three Rivers Levee Fee [2]
PLSP Park Impact Fee
Subtotal County /Other Agency Fees per Unit
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026
D-11
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$10,404
$18
$57
$10,480
$7,144 $3,601 $2,928
$12,096
$4,304
$8,873 $6,820 $3,352
$13,024
$8,695
$70,836

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30

IIB IIB
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$338
$7
$50
$4
$2 $0
$11 $22
$7 $3 $6
$4
$1
$455
$2,080 $1,928
$577
$3,144
$226 $682
$924
$3,571
$530
$13,662
$482
$11 $75 $26
$16
$3
$79
$159
$53
$23
$41 $25
$5
$998
$2,080
$1,928
$823
$5,240
$1,615
$682
$1,539 $3,571
$800
$18,279
Z:\Sh6J"ed\Profeol:i1SACU!22000\2UI04 Y~ba Cil'/ De•~bpm,nr lmpool foo Upchlo•U<>dels\22211)4 DIJ' ~12.11.2$

Table D-6
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
Yuba County - Plumas Lake Specific Plan (South)
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY /COUNTY /OTHER AGENCY FEES
School District Fees
Plumas Lake Elementary School District (PLESD),
Wheatland Union High School District (WUHSD) - South
Subtotal School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
TOTAL
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees
Citywide Fees
County/Other Agency Fees
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total
Source: Yuba County; PLESD, WUHSD, & MJUSD; EPS.

Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
perumt
$7,440
$4,968
$12,408
$93,724
$10,480 $70,836 $12,408
$93,724

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30

IIB IIB
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1, uuu sq. rt.
$840 $840
$340 $340
$1,180 $1,180
$15,297 $20,457
$455 $998
$13,662 $18,279
$1,180 $1,180
$15,297 $20,457
[1] The single family building permit fee shown is the County's estimate of a southern PLSP production home with sprinklers [2] According to the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Levee Impact Fee Nexus Study, the fee will escalate annually by the percentage increase in the average of the San Francisco and 20-Cities CCI as published by ENR.

D-12
Prepared by EPS 1/1/2026 L 1Shore<l'V'rofect,\SAC\222C00\221104 Yuba Cit; De,,,,,bpmenl lmps,t Ffle /Jpdda&'Mo,:!,)1,\222104 0/F Oom{Jli(irori_ 12 11 2S

Table D-7
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area (SEPA)
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY/ COUNTY /SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES
Processing Fees [1]
Building Permit - Production Repeat [2]
Plan Review Fee - Production Repeat [2]
Master Plan Review
General Plan Update Fee
Technology Fee
Construction and Demolition Fee
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee
California Building Standards Commission Fee
Subtotal Processing Fees
City Development Impact Fees
Capital Facilities Fee [3]
Affordable Housing Fee
Cosumnes CSD Fire Fee - Zone 1 Cosumnes CSD Fire Sprinkler System Fee Roadway Fee - Zone 1
Swainson's Hawk Mitigation Fee [4]
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees
County/Other Agency Fees per Unit
SASD Sewer Collection Impact Fee (Expansion)
SASD Sewer Treatment Impact Fee (New Communities)
SASD IT Recovery Fee
Zone 40 Water Development Fee - Pre-Approval Portion [5] Zone 40 Water Development Fee - Building Permit Portion Sacramento County Transportation Mitigation Fee (Measure A) 1-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Fee - District 4 [6] Active Transportation Fee
Subtotal County/Other Agency Fees per Unit
D-13
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$1,233 $1,850
$34
$101 $177 $177
$57
$18
$3,647
$5,614
$6,396
$2,596
$721
$13,113
$28,440
$3,209 $6,479
$100
$3,229
$18,295
$1,631 $4,193 $2,113
$39,249

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30
118 118
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$93 $275 $56 $165
$0 $2
$41 $62 $71 $107 $71 $107
$50 $75
$7 $11
$388 $804
$1,630 $2,040 $1,050 $1,050 $2,190 $2,190
$9 $65
$10,970 $9,120
$15,849 $14,465
$1,031 $1,719
$657 $328
$0 $3
$689 $4,920
$2,447 $1,873 $1,432 $968
$1,770 $1,460
$8,026 $11,271
Z-\ShMto\1'10Jecti\SAC\222000\22,104 Yuba C1fy D<l~elopment Impact Fee UpdS~S\Mo<kls\222104 OIF Compail,;,i'l.12-1125

Table D-7
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of Elk Grove - Southeast Policy Area (SEPA)
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg, Sq, Ft./Nonres. Permit Elk Grove Unified School District (EGUSD) Plan Area Fees per Unit Park Fee
Trail Fee
SEPA/LRSP Phase 3 Drainage Fee (Basin S6) [7]
Recycled Water Fee
Subtotal Plan Area Fees per Unit
TOTAL
Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Costs per Unit
Processing Fees
Citywide Fees County/Other Agency Fees
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total Estimated Infrastructure Costs per Unit
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$17,208
$13,097 $12,066
$4,668
$4,101
$33,931
$122,476
$3,647
$28,440 $39,249 $17,208
$33,931
$122,476
Source: City of Elk Grove; EGUSD; Sacramento County; various agencies; EPS. [1] Processing fees exclude mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other similar review fees.

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30

IIB IIB
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$840
$102 $451
$2,513 $2,190
$5,256
$30,359
$388
$15,849
$8,026
$840
$5,256
$30,359
$840
$170
$1,360 $4,189 $2,190
$7,909
$35,289
$804
$14,465 $11,271
$840
$7,909
$35,289
[2] Major Category Permit Fee is $2,230 plus $62 for each additional 100 sq. ft. or fract No changes plus 10% for 2-story homes, plus $350 + $17.50 per 100 garage square feet over 401 total. [3] Includes facilities for City Administration, Police, Corp Yard, Animal Shelter, Library, and Transit. [4] Analysis assumes the Swainson's Hawk Mitigation Fee, required at improvement plan, has been satisfied. According to the City of Elk Grove, projects may have to pay an impact fee of $12,925 per impacted habitat acreage. [5] SCWA caps the intial payment of 15% to a maximum of $200,000 per subdivision. [6] According to the 2016 Nexus Study for the 1-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program, District 4 is the entire City of Elk Grove.
[7] With the creation of the City's SEPA and LRSP P3 drainage fee program (the "Drainage Fee Program"), the County's Zone 11A fee program is no longer needed. Thus, in 2019, the City of Elk Grove detached SEPA from SCWA's Zone 11A program.

D-14
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z.1.ShartdlProject.\So\C\222000\Zl2l04YuW.CltyOevelol"flent!rnpactfHUpd\lt,,s\Modet;\22210401FOw,)Wlsort,.l2.112S

Table D-8
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of Lincoln - Liberty
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY /COUNTY /SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES
Processing Fees
Building Permit Fee Plan Check Fee - Production Units
Technology Fee
Fire Building Permit Fee
Energy Plan Check Fee
Residential Solar Fee
General Plan Maintenance Fee
Permit Issuance Fee Building Occupancy Fee
Incremental Fee
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee
Subtotal Processing Fees
City Development Impact Fees [1]
City Transportation Fee
City Wastewater Collection City Wastewater Treatment City Water Transmission City Water Storage
City Drainage (South of Auburn Ravine)
City Fire City Police
City Administrative
City Solid Waste City Parks and Trails City Park Recreational Facilities City Water Connection Fee
Water Meter Fee
Park Tax[2]
Refuse Container Fee
Cemetery District Fee
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025
D-15
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$4,042
$758
$162
$3,032
$202 $450
$349
$77
$169
$88
$18 $57
$9,403
$6,642 $4,319 $7,895 $2,025
$1,050 $1,057
$709 $775
$1,132
$699
$5,902
$776
$3,075
$570
$261
$85
$206
$37,181

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30

IIB IIB
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$639 $1,038 $120 $195
$26 $42
$479 $779
$32 $52
$140 $212
$0 $2
$1 $5
$2 $14 $7 $11
$50 $75
$1,495 $2,425
$29,624 $13,019
$2,332 $2,332 $4,263 $4,263
$810 $810 $420 $420
$518 $518
$475 $475 $519 $519 $272 $272
$49 $49
$1,416 $1,416
$186 $186
$98 $703 $15 $108
$2,459 $1,566
$43,458 $26,657
Z.\Share,d\l'rojects\SAC\222000\222104Yub3.Cityt>avolop,1entlmpactFeeUpd•ta11M0dels\22210<t DIFCom~'l.121125

Table D-8
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of Lincoln - Liberty
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY/ COUNTY /SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES
County /Other Agency Development Impact Fees
SPRTA Fee - Lincoln
SPRTA Tier II Fee
PCWA Regulated Capacity & Transmission Charge
Placer County Capital Facilities Impact Fee
Subtotal County/Other Agency Development Impact Fees
Western Placer Unified School District (WPUSD)
Plan Area Fees
TOTAL Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Costs
Processing Fees
Citywide Fees
County/Other Agency Fees
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total Estimated Infrastructure Costs
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$4,006 $8,678
$3,430
$2,788
$18,903 $16,224
$81,711
$9,403
$37,181
$18,903 $16,224
$81,711

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30

IIB IIB
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$5,921 $7,760 $6,958 $4,591
$420 $670 $670 $670
$13,969 $13,691
$340 $340
$59,263 $43,113
$1,495 $2,425
$43,458 $26,657 $13,969 $13,691
$340 $340
$59,263 $43,113
Source: City of Lincoln; Placer County Water Agency; Western Placer Unified School District; EPS. [1] City development impact fees are zone area 1. [2] Assume 0.006 employee per sq. ft. for office and 0.002 employee per Sq.ft. for retail.

D-16
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z.ISharedlP1ojeets\SAC\222000\222104YubaC!)'~el,prn~ntln'lj>llciFHUpd>tes\Mod<l$1222104 Oif'Oompa,IS<ln_121125

Table D-9
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Chico
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg, Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY /COUNTY /OTHER AGENCY FEES
Processing Fees
Plan Check and Inspection [1]
Fire Plan Check Processing Fee
Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPPP) Review and Inspections Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) Review and Inspections California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee
Fire Sprinkler - Plan Review Fire Department - Administrative Processing Fee Fire Department - Basic Inspection Fee Sewer Application Fee
Engineering Fees- Basic Fee
Subtotal Processing Fees
City Development Impact Fees
Park Neighborhood Facility Improvement Park Community Improvement Park Linear/Greenways Acquisition Park - Bidwell Park Land Acquisition Street Facility Improvement Street Maintenance Equipment Bikeway Improvements
Adminstration Building
Fire Protection
Police
Storm Drain Facility - Mud-Sycamore Creek
Water Pollution Control Plant Capacity
Sewer Trunkline
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees
D-17
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025

Residential Non-Residential
Single Family Retail c5ffice
2,400 250,000 35,000
450

7.00 0.50 0.30

0.14 VB 118 IIB
R-3 M B
$170.80 $177.05 $268.41
$69.64
$441,258 $44,262,500 $9,394,350
per unit per 1,000 sq. ft.
$2,279 $1,099 $1,262
$100 $1 $4
$1,382 $6 $39
$996 $4 $28
$18 $7 $11
$57 $50 $75
$693 $8 $57
$106 $0 $3
$186 $1 $5
$245 $1 $7
$305 $1 $9
$6,367 $1,177 $1,500
$1,752 $3,230
$493
$77
$11,488 $22,120 $5,130
$296 $570 $140
$794 $1,530 $350
$59
$458 $850 $760
$524 $2,570 $280
$1,448 $745 $1,241 $1,926 $335 $558
$2,300 $400 $667
$24,844 $29,120 $9,126
Z. \Shared\Pro,'<lcb\s-\C\222000\22211),/ Yuba Cit/ D,)vebpmen/ lmp,,cl ~e Updat,1~\\lod,,!$\222104 DIF ~-12 11.25

Table D-9
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Development Impact Fee Comparison
City of Chico
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit CITY /COUNTY /OTHER AGENCY FEES County/ Other Agency Fees Butte County FP - Criminal Justice [2] Butte County FP - General Government Countywide [2] Butte County FP - Health & Social Services [2] Butte County FP - Library [2] Butte County FP - Jail [2] Butte County FP - CUA Street Improvement [2] Subtotal Other County/ Agency Fees
Chico Unified School District (CUSD)
Plan Area Fees
TOTAL
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees
Citywide Fees County/Other Agency Fees
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total
Sources: City of Chico, Butte County, CUSD; EPS.

Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$300
$580 $110 $230 $465
$3,687
$5,372
$12,408
$48,990
$6,367
$24,844
$5,372
$12,408
$48,990

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30

IIB IIB
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$15,830
$15,830
$840
$46,966
$1,177
$29,120
$15,830
$840
$46,966
$4,140
$4,140
$840
$15,607
$1,500 $9,126 $4,140
$840
$15,607
[1] Master plan or production homes may have building fees reduced by up to 50% when the building is the same size and configuration.
[2] Assume rates for Chico urban area.

D-18
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z.\Shored1Frojecb\SAC\222Q00\222f04 Y~W C~Devebpmon/ fmpec/F-ea Up1h10~WIXI-J/J\2UIC4 OIFComJ>IYl,o'l.121125

Table D-10
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of West Sacramento - Liberty Specific Plan
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dwelling Units/Acre)/FAR Acre per Unit Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres, Permit

CITY/ COUNTY /SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES
Processing Fees [1]
Building Permit Construction Fee
Plan Review Fee
Technology Fee
Planning Site Plan Approval
Encroachment Permit Application Fee
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) Fee
Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee
Fire Prevention Plan Check and Inspection Permit Fees
Engineering Permit and Site Plan Review Fee
Water & Sewer Connection Permit Application Fee [1]
Engineering Application Fee
Engineering Inspection Fee
Subtotal Processing Fees
City Development Impact Fees
Water Capacity Charge [2]
Drainage Fee (Zone NC-10)
Park Impact Fee - Neighborhood Facilities (Zone 1)
Park Impact Fee - Community Facilities (Zone 1)
Fire Sprinklers Protection
Fire Facilities (Zone 1)
Police Facilities (Zone 1)
Corporation Yard Facilities (Zone 1)
City Hall Facilities (Zone 1) Childcare Impact Fee
In-Lieu Flood Protection Fee - Zone 3
Housing Trust Fund Program
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees
Prepared by EPS 12/3012025
D-19
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$515 $335
$68
$150 $250
$0 $0
$95 $85
$250 $160 $132
$2,040
$11,944
$5,534
$2,171
$11,131
$1,577 $1,548
$1,181
$863 $810
$1,265 $5,809
$43,833

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30

IIB IIB
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$5,333 $8,204 $3,466 $5,332
$704 $1,083
$1 $4
$1 $7
$7 $11
$50 $75 $50 $53
$0 $2
$1 $7 $1 $5 $1 $4
$9,614 $14,787
$501 $1,790
$11,944 $5,863
$1,450 $2,040
$48 $341
$956 $1,591
$938 $1,562 $715 $1,191
$523 $871 $607 $810
$2,250 $2,100
$19,932 $18,160
Z.\ShartcN>rQJtcl3\.SAC\222000\l!22104 Yub.1 OtyD..,elopment lrnpactFeeUpdatn\Moclels\222104 OIF Compa<bon_\211 25

Table D-10
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
City of West Sacramento - Liberty Specific Plan
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dwelling Units/Acre)/FAR Acre per Unit Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./ Non res, Permit CITY /COUNTY /SPECIAL DISTRICT FEES County/ Other Agency Fees SASD Sewer Collection Impact Fee (Expansion)
SASD Sewer Treatment Impact Fee (New Communities)
Traffic Fee - Zone 1 B (Southport District 1)
1-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation In-Lieu Fee (District 2) County Facilities and Services Authorization
Yolo County Facilities Fee
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Fee [3]
Subtotal Other County/Agency Fees
Washington Unified School District (WUSD)
Southport Framework Plan Fee
TOTAL
Summary of Estimated Infrastructure Costs
Processing Fees
Citywide Fees
County/Other Agency Fees
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total Estimated Infrastructure Costs
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$3,209 $6,479
$17,735
$1,867
$3,613 $4,407
$37,310 $12,408
$81
$95,672
$2,040
$43,833
$37,310 $12,408
$81
$95,672

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30
118 118
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$1,031 $1,719
$657 $328
$28,744 $19,976
$3,544 $3,505
$334 $666
$34,310 $26,194
$840 $840
$26 $43
$64,722 $60,025
$9,614 $14,787
$19,932 $18,160 $34,310 $26,194
$840 $840
$26 $43
$64,722 $60,025
Source: City of West Sacramento Book of Fees; Yolo County; Washington Unified School District; EPS. [1] Assumes one application for both water and sewer connection per unit. [2] Assume 2 2" meter for commercial and 1 2" meter for office. [3] Analysis assumes the Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Fee, has been satisfied. Per the Yolo Habitat Conservancy, projects may be required to pay $16,672 per acre of converted habitat lands. Additional charges may apply for wetlands.

D-20
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 Z.\Share<!\Proje,b\S'\C\Z1200012l2104YubaOty0ov•lol""•nl1mpoctfoUpdP~IModm1222tD4 DIFCQmp..;rb;irt.,12.1125

Table D-11
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
Spring Lake Specific Plan • City of Woodland
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg. Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit

CITY/COUNTY/OTHER AGENCY FEES
Processing Fees
Building Inspection and Plan Review Fee - Production Homes [1] Building Inspection Fees Building Plan Review Building Permit Processing Charge/Application
Green Building Plan Review Green Building Plan Inspection Seismic/Strong Motion (SMIP)
California Building Standards Commission Fee
Electrical Permit Processing
Electrical Inspection Plumbing Permit Processing
Pluming Inspection
Mechanical Permit Processing Mechanical Inspection
Solar Energy Permit Fees - SP Plan Review and Inspection Energy Compliance Inspections
Fire Sprinklers Plan Check and Review
Subtotal Processing Fees
City Development Impact Fees
Roads
Wastewater
General City
Fire
Police
Library
Water
Parks & Recreation
Administration Agricultural Mitigation [2]
Fiscal Deficit Fee [3]
Fire Operations & Maintenance Fund (due at final map) [3] Habitat Education (due at final map) [3]
Offsite Affordable Housing Fee (due at final map) [3]
Public Transit Fee (due at final map) [3]
Subtotal City Development Impact Fees
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025
D-21
Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
per unit
$1,696
$8
$138 $276
$57
$18
$58
$200
$58
$400
$58
$200 $280
$85 $36
$3,568
$10,264
$7,789
$1,040 $3,526
$852 $650
$6,683 $9,606
$303
$2,143
$1,553
$798
$58
$1,139
$252
$46,656

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000 35,000

0.50 0.30
118 118
M B
$177.05 $268.41
$44,262,500 $9,394,350
per 1,000 sq. ft.
$785 $1,050 $510 $683
$0 $2
$1 $1
$1 $1
$50 $75
$7 $11 $0 $0
$126 $126
$0 $0
$123 $123
$0 $2
$123 $123
$2 $17
$39 $53
$6 $41
$1,774 $2,307
$12,746 $6,806
$3,179 $1,907
$695 $868
$2,056 $2,350
$567 $708
$171 $1,222
$144 $95
$689 $1,148
$20,247 $15,104
Z-\.Shared\Project.l\S,\C\222000\l22104 Yuba CII/ Devebpm&nl /mµ,c/ F<Ja Upde!IJ~Wod!JIJ\222104 DIF Comp«kon •. ,12 fl 25

Table D-11
-City of 'tuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
Spring Lake Specific Plan - City of Woodland
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025

D-22
Z-\.Shar'1d\Projec!$1SA.C\222000\222f04 Y~b.! C1/'fO,,V<1bpmont lmp,olFee U{1001-J3W<Xk~\222104 DIFComp(n,;,;t>_/211.25

Table D-11
City of Yuba City DIF Comparison
Single Family Residential Development
Spring Lake Specific Plan - City of Woodland
Item
Assumptions
Unit Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Garage Size (Bldg. Sq. Ft.)
Average Density (Dweling Units/Acre)/FAR
Acre per Unit
Building Valuation
Construction Type
Building Valuation Group
Valuation per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Valuation per Garage Sq. Ft. (Aug. 2025)
Building Valuation per Unit Bldg, Sq. Ft./Nonres. Permit County/Other Agency Fees
County Facilities and Services Authorization (effective 9/13/16) Yolo County HCP Fee (effective 3/27/23)
Subtotal Other County/ Agency Fees
Woodland Joint Unified School District {WJUSD)
SLIF Plan Area Fees
Roadway
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Fire Station
Parks
On-going Admin Costs
Public Transit Fee (due at final map)
Subtotal SLIF Plan Area Fees
TOTAL
Building Permit Fee Summary
Processing Fees
Citywide Fees
County/Other Agency Fees
School District Fees
Plan Area Fees
Total
Source: City of Woodland; Yolo County; WJUSD; EPS
[1] Applies to ICC R-3 single family residential production homes only.

Residential
Single Family
2,400
450

7.00 0.14
VB
R-3
$170.80
$69.64
$441,258
$3,118 $2,315
$5,433
$14,712
$25,366
$2,875 $3,705
$13,149
$1,057
$10,439
$1,896
$252
$58,739
$129,108
$3,568
$46,656
$5,433
$14,712 $58,739
$129,108

Non-Residential
Retail Office
250,000

0.50 IIB
M
$177.05
$44,262,500
$500 $744
$1,244
$840
$20,000
$2,000
$3,000
$10,000
$1,000 $8,000
$1,000
$45,000
$69,104
$1,774
$20,247
$1,244
$840
$45,000
$69,104
35,000

0.30 IIB
B
$268.41
$9,394,350
$666
$1,240
$1,906
$840
$20,000
$2,000 $3,000
$10,000
$1,000 $8,000
$1,000
$45,000 $65,157
$2,307
$15,104
$1,906
$840
$45,000
$65,157
[2] Estimated amount. Different requirements for different development and mitigation land. [3] Based on Spring Lake Specific Plan fees.

D-23
Prepared by EPS 12/30/2025 l.\Sha~c:S\SAC\222000\222104YubaC1~D<1vebpmMllmpWF,JeUJ}(Joh,3V,f,;,,J,,/J\222104DIFComp&tro,,_12.ll.2$

Agenda Item 7

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: August 18, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works Department
Presentation By: Joshua Wolffe, Public Works Director
Summary
Subject: Public Works Crafco Patcher 4 Equipment Capital Acquisition Award Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution awarding a purchasing contract to Crafco, Inc of Phoenix, Arizona for the purchase of one (1) Crafco, Inc Patcher 4 Mastic Melter and Applicator with accessories in the not to exceed amount of $125,398.80, including tax and freight, plus $9,000.00 contingency for a total of $134,398.80, by piggybacking on Sourcewell Open Contract #050625-CFC. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City Fiscal Impact: $134,398.80 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund Acct. No. 6610-69415 Purpose:

Purchase road maintenance equipment, which was approved and authorized in the Fiscal Year 2026- 27 Operating Budget, for the Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division.

Council’s Strategic Focus Area:

This item addresses the City Council's Strategic Focus Areas of Infrastructure and Fiscal Responsibility by providing the Street Maintenance Division with modern maintenance equipment, allowing them to maintain roadway infrastructure in a cost-effective manner.

Background:

The City’s Street Maintenance Division (Division) is responsible for maintaining over 250 miles of roadway within City limits. The City's roadway system contains numerous roadways with wide cracks.

These wide cracks are dangerous to road users, and can be difficult to properly fix. Crafco, Inc. produces a hot-mix material which flows into these wide cracks, providing a flexible and structurallysound repair. To apply this material, the use of a mastic melter and applicator is required. Over the past summer, the Division rented a Crafco, Inc Patcher 4 Mastic Melter and Applicator (Mastic Melter) to repair a significant amount of wide cracks that had formed on Gray Avenue, Butte House Road, and other locations. Through use of the machine, the Division found that the Patcher could efficiently remediate the wide cracks, installing over 35 tons of mastic material in a matter of weeks. Additionally, the Mastic Melter could be used to address other pavement distresses that are common in the City's roadway system, such as rutting, and alligator cracking.

Based upon the efficiencies experienced through the repairs completed this summer, and the potential to address other prevalent pavement distresses in the City's roadway network, staff recommended purchasing a Mastic Melter instead of renting this equipment, offering a cost-effective and operationally reliable solution within existing budget constraints. This strategy supports ongoing street repair demands while reducing short-term rental expenses.

Analysis:

The Public Works Department recommends the purchase of a new Crafco, Inc Patcher 4 Mastic Melter and Applicator pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-6.14. This policy allows Council to waive competitive bidding requirements when it determines it is in the best interest of the City to do so in favor of cooperative purchasing. Crafco, Inc of Phoenix, Arizona has been awarded a contract under the Sourcewell Cooperative Program (Sourcewell) for the Crafco, Inc Patcher 4. Staff recommends piggybacking on the cooperative Sourcewell Open Contract #050625-CFC for this procurement process.

Staff now have extensive operational experience with this equipment, and its specific configuration, performance capabilities, and safety features are critical to the Division’s efficiency.

Sourcewell gathers nationwide bids for products and services resulting in time and cost efficiencies throughout the procurement process and better purchasing leverage due to a nationwide scope. The City has utilized Sourcewell on numerous occasions in recent years for equipment purchases with great results. Some of these include: JCB417 Wheel Loader for the Corporation Yard and a CAT Compact Track Loader and Trailer for Streets Division.

Fiscal Impact:

The Fiscal Year 26/27 operating budget approved by Council includes $135,000.00 in the Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF) for the purchase of a Crafco, Inc Patcher 4. The total cost of the Crafco, Inc Patcher 4 and accessories, from Crafco, Inc of Phoenix, Arizona, meeting the City’s specifications is $115,150.40 plus estimated tax and freight of $10,248.40 and a $9,000.00 contingency, for a total of $134,398.80. Public Works recommends a $9,000.00 contingency in the event of unanticipated freight costs or other costs in the interim. Any remaining funds approved by Council can be transferred back to the VRF funds once the purchase is complete.

Alternatives:

1. Advise staff to submit the purchase for formal bids and return to council with bid results.

2. Advise staff to continue renting the equipment, which would result in higher costs and lower flexibility to effect road repairs on a regular schedule.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution awarding a purchasing contract to Crafco, Inc of Phoenix, Arizona for the purchase of one (1) Crafco, Inc Patcher 4 Mastic Melter and Applicator with accessories in the not to exceed amount of $125,398.80, including tax and freight, plus $9,000.00 contingency for a total of $134,398.80, by piggybacking on Sourcewell Open Contract #050625-CFC. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney, with the finding that it is in the best interest of the City.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

2. Exhibit 1A - Crafco Patcher 4 Quote

3. Exhibit 1B - Sourcewell Contract #050625-CFC
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Tami Omand
Public Works Administrative Analyst
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

PURCHASING CONTRACT TO CRAFCO, INC OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) CRAFCO, INC PATCHER 4 MASTIC MELTER AND

APPLICATOR WITH ACCESSORIES AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE THE CONTRACT SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS TO LEGAL

FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City Public Works Department identified the need for a critical equipment acquisition to support maintenance and operational reliability: one (1) mastic melter and applicator; and
WHEREAS, Crafco, Inc has been awarded a contract under the Sourcewell Cooperative Program (Sourcewell) and is an authorized distributor of the specific equipment and operational capabilities required by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has met the requirements to purchase the equipment pursuant to the Municipal Code Section 2-6.14; and
WHEREAS, the negotiated prices for the mastic melter and applicator are reasonable and on par with similar proprietary equipment; and
WHEREAS, this purchase is consistent with the Fiscal Year 26/27 Capital Improvement Program budget approved by the City Council, and funding is available within the respective accounts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to authorize the purchase of Crafco, Inc Patcher 4 from Crafco, Inc.

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

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

2. The City Council finds that a piggyback cooperative contract award is appropriate on grounds including that Crafco, Inc is an authorized distributor of the Crafco, Inc Patcher 4 in the region, that acquisition of this equipment is the only financially and operationally practical option in light of the City’s current operating systems, safety requirements, and performance needs, and that the negotiated purchase price is fair, reasonable, and comparable to similar proprietary equipment. Given this, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to make a piggyback cooperative contract award to Crafco, Inc for the purchase for one (1) Crafco, Inc Patcher 4. As such, the City Council of City of Yuba City awards the purchase of one (1) Crafco, Inc Patcher 4 to Crafco, Inc of Phoenix, Arizona in the not to exceed amount of $125,398.80 plus the contingency amount of $9,000.00 for a total of $134,398.80.

3. The City Council of the City of Yuba City authorizes the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, subject to review and approval as to legal form by the City Attorney.

4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

The foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August, 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Marc Boomgaarden, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR YUBA CITY:

Shannon Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibit(s):
1A. Crafco Patcher 4 Quote
1B. Sourcewell Contract #050625-CFC

Agenda Item 8

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: August 18, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council;
From: Public Works Department
Presentation By: Joshua Wolffe, Public Works Director
Summary
Subject: Annexation of Eight (8) Subdivisions into Community Facilities District 2021-1 Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution annexing certain areas within the City Limits into an existing Community Facilities District (CFD No. 2021-1) to fund municipal services, and authorizing filing said Resolutions, along with their associated Amendments to the Notice of Special Tax Lien, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Sutter
Fiscal Impact: This CFD annexation will provide $526.14 per single family unit annually, with provisions for inflation
Purpose:

To include new residential developments in a Community Facilities District (CFD) to pay for impacts to City Services.

Council’s Strategic Focus Areas:

This item addresses several of Council’s Strategic Focus Areas by providing funding for numerous municipal services in a fiscally responsible and responsive manner.

Background:

The City's adopted policy and Project Conditions of Approval for new residential development include a requirement that the development pay for its share of operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs. The subsequent eight (8) subdivisions are in various stages of recording final maps and are requesting annexation into the City's Community Facilities District 2021-1 (Municipal Services) (CFD 2021-1) to fulfill this requirement.

On March 23, 2023, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Map SM 22-08, Thiara Estates Subdivision, to subdivide 8.19 acres into 31 residential parcels located on Elmer Road approximately 2,100 feet north of Butte House Road. Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 44 contains the requirement to pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs.

On November 13, 2024, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Map SM 24-04, Brownstone Estates Subdivision, to subdivide 7.84 acres into 54 residential parcels located on North Colusa

Frontage Road between Hooper Road and El Margarita Road. Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 36 contains the requirement to pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs.

On September 24, 2025, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Map SM 25-01, The Ridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision, to subdivide 10.24 acres into 68 residential parcels located on El Margarita Road approximately 1,850 feet south of State Route 20. Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 45 contains the requirement to pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs.

On September 24, 2025, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Map SM 25-01, The Ridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision, to subdivide 10.20 acres into 73 residential parcels located on El Margarita Road approximately 1,850 feet south of State Route 20. Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 45 contains the requirement to pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs.

On September 24, 2025, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Map SM 24-05, Elmer Ranch West Subdivision, to subdivide 10.13 acres into 55 residential parcels located on Elmer Road approximately 1,730 feet north of Butte House Road. Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 37 contains the requirement to pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs.

On November 13, 2019, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Map SM 14-07, Newkom Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision, to subdivide 32.45 acres into 119 residential parcels located on Bogue Road between State Route 99 and Railroad Avenue. Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 51 contains the requirement to pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs.

On November 13, 2019, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Map SM 14-07, Newkom Ranch Unit 2 Subdivision, to subdivide 9.98 acres into 51 residential parcels located on Bogue Road between State Route 99 and Railroad Avenue. Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 51 contains the requirement to pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs.

On September 27, 2023, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Map SM 22-02, Sohal Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision, to subdivide 15.73 acres into 70 residential parcels located at the southeast corner of South George Washington Blvd. and Lincoln Road. Planning Commission Condition of Approval No. 44 contains the requirement to pay for operations and/or maintenance for police, fire, parks, drainage, and ongoing street maintenance costs.

The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Act) provides a mechanism for cities to form CFDs in order to finance the provision of certain municipal services. The types of services that may be provided by a CFD are as follows:

1. Police

2. Fire

3. Recreation and Library

4. Maintenance of parks, parkways and open space

5. Maintenance of Roadways

6. Flood and storm protection services

7. Hazardous substance removal or remediation
On May 18, 2021, Council adopted Resolution 21-047 establishing policies related to CFDs for

services. At this same meeting, Council adopted Resolution 21-048 stating its intention to establish CFD 2021-1, authorize the levy of a special tax within the district, and authorize the annexation of future territory into the future annexation area by unanimous written approval.

On July 6, 2021, Council voted the Initial Property (Dunn Ranch Estates – Unit 1 Subdivision [56 residential lots] at the southeast corner of Royo Ranchero Drive and Monroe Drive) to be part of CFD 2021-1 and subject to the special taxes therein. Council also voted to include a Future Annexation Area. The Future Annexation Area consists of several undeveloped, residential zoned properties generally in the western and southern Yuba City Urbanized Area. The Future Annexation Area allows new property owners to annex to the district by unanimous written consent, which streamlines the CFD annexation process.

Analysis:

The Developer of each of the Subdivisions has executed an Unanimous Approval of Annexation to a Community Facilities District (CFD 2021-1) to satisfy this condition. The following Subdivisions will be the next properties to annex to CFD 2021-1, and will be subject to the special taxes therein:

Thiara Estates Subdivision (Annexation #13)
Brownstone Estates Subdivsion (Annexation #14)
The Ridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision (Annexation #15)
The Ridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision (Annexation #16)
Elmer Ranch West Subdivision (Annexation #17)
Newkom Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision (Annexation #18)
Newkom Ranch Unit 2 Subdivision (Annexation #19)
Sohal Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision (Annexation #20)
In Resolution 21-048, Council directed the preparation of the Report for CFD 2021-1 to show the services to be provided in CFD 2021-1. The Hearing Report for CFD 2021-1 follows the same methodology used in the formation of CFD 2017-1, which initially established a maximum levy of $425 annually per single family residential unit with an escalation factor equal to the percentage escalation of the City’s combined Police and Fire Department budgets, up to a maximum escalation of 4 percent.

The current levy in fiscal year 2025/2026 is $526.14 annually per single family residential unit and $383.77 annually per multi-family residential unit, which will be subject to future escalation in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax.

A Notice of Special Tax Lein is to be recorded concurrently with the boundary map of each Annexation in the Office of the County Recorder for the County of Sutter, State of California. The lien of the Special Tax is a continuing lien which shall secure each annual levy of the Special Tax within the area of each Annexation.

Fiscal Impact:

Following is a list of the total current annual levy of each Subdivision based on fiscal year 2026/2027 rates:

Subdivision No. of Units Current Annual
Levy Annual Revenue
Thiara Estates 31 $526.14 $16,310.34
Brownstone Estates 54 $526.14 $28,411.56
The Ridge Estates Unit 1 68 $526.14 $35,777.52
The Ridge Estates Unit 2 73 $526.14 $38,408.22
Elmer Ranch West 55 $526.14 $28,937.70
Newkom Ranch Unit 1 119 $526.14 $62,610.66
Newkom Ranch Unit 2 51 $526.14 $26,833.14
Sohal Ranch Unit 1 69 $526.14 $36,303.66
$273,592.80
The Developer is responsible for covering the costs of annexing their respective subdivision to the CFD.

Alternatives:

Do not adopt a resolution annexing the Subdivisions into CFD No. 2021-1 to fund Municipal Services, and direct staff on other acceptable means of assuring these developments contribute their fair share of impacts to services.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution annexing certain areas within the City Limits into an existing Community Facilities District (CFD No. 2021-1) to fund municipal services, and authorizing filing said Resolutions, along with their associated Amendments to the Notice of Special Tax Lien, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Sutter.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution approving Annexations to CFD 2021-1

2. Attachment 2 - Exhibit A to the Resolution

3. Attachment 3 - Exhibit B to the Resolution

4. Attachment 4 - Amendments to Notice of Special Tax Lien Prepared By: Submitted By:

Kevin Bradford
Deputy Public Works Director – Engineering
Robert Bendorf
City Manager

01248.0008/729597.1 AL 1
ATTACHMENT 1

2 RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

YUBA CITY IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF

THE CITY OF YUBA CITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
NO. 2021-1 (MUNICIPAL SERVICES) APPROVING
ANNEXATIONS NOS 13 THROUGH 20 TO SAID DISTRICT:

Thiara Estates Subdivision, Brownstone Estates
Subdivision, The Ridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision, The
Ridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision, Elmer Ranch West
Subdivision, Newkom Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision, Newkom
Ranch Unit 2 Subdivision, Sohal Ranch Unit 1
Subdivision
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2021, this City Council adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Yuba City Declaring Its Intention To Establish Yuba City Community Facilities District No. 2021-1 (Municipal Services), To Authorize The Levy Of A Special Tax Therein To Finance Certain Services And To Authorize The Annexation Of Future Territory In The Future Annexation Area To The District By Unanimous Written Approval” (the “Resolution of Intention”), stating its intention to form Yuba City Community Facilities District No. 2021-1 (Municipal Services) (the “CFD”), pursuant to Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, commencing with Section 53311, of the California Government Code (the “Act”) and a future annexation area to the CFD (“Future Annexation Area”);
WHEREAS, the Resolution of Intention, setting forth a description of the proposed boundaries of the CFD and Future Annexation Area, services to be financed by the CFD (“Services”) and Future Annexation Area, including incidental expenses, and the rate and method of apportionment (the “Rate and Method”) of the special tax (the “Special Tax”) to be levied within the CFD to pay for the Services, is on file with the City Clerk and the provisions thereof are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein; WHEREAS, the Resolution of Intention set July 6, 2021, as the date for the joint public hearing on the establishment of the CFD, the extent of the CFD, the Future Annexation Area, the furnishing of the Services within the CFD, and the proposed Rate and Method; WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing to be held on July 6, 2021 was published in accordance with the Act;
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, this Council held noticed joint public hearing as required by the Act and the Resolution of Intention relative to the proposed formation of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area;
WHEREAS, at the hearing all interested persons desiring to be heard for or against the establishment of the CFD, the extent of the CFD, the furnishing of the Services and the Rate and Method and the Future Annexation Area were heard and a full and fair hearing was held; WHEREAS, at the hearing evidence was presented to this Council on such matters before it, including a special report (the “Hearing Report”) as to the Services to be provided through the CFD and the costs;

3 WHEREAS, following the close of the hearing, written protests with respect to the formation of the CFD, the furnishing of specified types of services and the Rate and Method had not been filed with the City Clerk by fifty percent (50%) or more of the registered voters residing within the territory of the CFD or property owners of one-half (1/2) or more of the area of land within the CFD and not exempt from the proposed special taxes; and WHEREAS, following the close of the hearing, written protests with respect to the Future Annexation Area, the furnishing of specified types of services and the Rate and Method had not been filed with the City Clerk by fifty percent (50%) or more of the registered voters residing within the territory of the CFD or Future Annexation Area or property owners of one-half (1/2) or more of the area of land within the CFD or Future Annexation Area and not exempt from the proposed special taxes; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-094, which is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference, that ordered the formation of the CFD and Future Annexation Area, defined the public services (the “Services”) to be provided by the CFD, authorized the levy of a special tax on property within the CFD, preliminarily established an appropriations limit for the CFD, and approved future qualifying projects the ability to voluntarily annex into the Future Annexation Area by unanimous approval of the property owners, all pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-095 that called a special election for July 6, 2021, at which the questions of levying a special tax and establishing an appropriations limit with respect to the CFD were submitted to the qualified electors within the CFD; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-096, that declared the results of the special election and finding that more than two-thirds (2/3) of all votes cast at the special election were in favor of the issue presented, and such measure passed; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2021 a notice of special tax lien was recorded with the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Sutter, as Document No. 2021-0012518 the “Notice of Special Tax Lien”), thereby giving notice that the lien to secure payment of the special tax was imposed on the land in the CFD; and
WHEREAS, the owner (the “Property Owner”) of the parcels listed in Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, located within the Future Annexation Area (the “Property”) has agreed to mitigate certain impacts of the proposed development of the Property by paying for the Services financed by the CFD; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Property Owner has executed a unanimous approval, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Unanimous Approval”), constituting the Property Owner’s unanimous approval and unanimous vote in favor of the annexation of the Property to the CFD and the levy of special taxes on the Property; and WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to approve this Annexation Nos. 13 through 20 of the Property pursuant to the simplified process for annexations under Sections 53328.1, 53339.7 and/or 53339.8 of the Act and add Annexation Nos. 13 through 20 (Thiara Estates Subdivision, Brownstone Estates Subdivision, The Ridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision, The Ridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision, Elmer Ranch West Subdivision, Newkom Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision, Newkom Ranch Unit 2 Subdivision, Sohal Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision) as part of the CFD.

4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY, ACTING AS LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2021-1 (MUNICIPAL SERVICES) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Recitals. The City Council finds and determines that all the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.

2. Unanimous Approval. The City Council hereby receives and files the Unanimous Approval as Annexation Nos. 13 through 20 (Thiara Estates Subdivision, Brownstone Estates Subdivision, The Ridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision, The Ridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision, Elmer Ranch West Subdivision, Newkom Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision, Newkom Ranch Unit 2 Subdivision, Sohal Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision) to the CFD, and hereby further authorizes and directs the officers of the City to do any and all things to execute and delivery all documents they may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the transaction described herein and to effectuate the purpose of this Resolution.

3. Approval of Annexation. The City Council hereby determines that the Property is added to and part of the CFD with full effect and the City Council approves and confirms the Rate and Method of Apportionment of the Special Tax attached to the Unanimous Approval this reference incorporated herein. The City Council hereby finds that the Property Owner’s unanimous written approval is equivalent to an election pursuant to Government Code Section 53339.7(a) of the Act. The Property is added to and part of the existing CFD with full legal effect, and the City Council shall levy any special tax within the annexed territory as specified in the Ordinance No. 005-021 adopted with respect to the CFD pursuant to Government Code Section 53340, any resolution related thereto and, as specified in the Resolution of Intention, and as specified in any other Ordinance, if any, adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 53340.

4. Consolidation of Annexed Map. The City Council hereby determines that the territory described in Exhibit B hereto, and further defined in the maps entitled “Proposed Boundry Map of CFD 2021-1 Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision)”; “Proposed Boundry Map of CFD 2021-1 Annexation No. 14 (Brownstone Estates Subdivision)”;
“Proposed Boundry Map of CFD 2021-1 Annexation No. 15 (The Ridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision)”;
“Proposed Boundry Map of CFD 2021-1 Annexation No. 16 (The Ridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision)”;
“Proposed Boundry Map of CFD 2021-1 Annexation No. 17 (Elmer Ranch West Subdivision)”;
“Proposed Boundry Map of CFD 2021-1 Annexation No. 18 (Newkom Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision)”;
“Proposed Boundry Map of CFD 2021-1 Annexation No. 19 (Newkom Ranch Unit 2 Subdivision)”;
“Proposed Boundry Map of CFD 2021-1 Annexation No. 20 (Sohal Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision)”;
which are on file with the City Clerk, are added to and part of the CFD with full effect. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to endorse the certificates set forth on the maps and to record the maps in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3111, 3113 and 3113.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.

5 5. Validity of Procedures. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all prior proceedings and actions taken by the City Council pursuant to the Act in connection with the formation, voluntary annexation area and annexation of territory to the CFD, including these Annexations.

6. Amendment to Notice of Special Tax Lien. The City Clerk, or designee, is hereby directed to complete, execute and cause to be recorded in the office of County Recorder of the County of Sutter, an amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3114.5 and 3117.5 of California Streets and Highways Code of the State of California within fifteen (15) days of the adoption of this Resolution, evidencing that the Property is added to the CFD.

7. Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Marc Boomgaarden, Mayor
ATTEST

Ciara Wakefield, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Shannon L. Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Exhibits:

A. Assessor Parcel Numbers and Owners of Land
B. Unanimous Approval
Thiara Estates Subdivision (Annexation #13)
Brownstone Estates Subdivsion (Annexation #14)
The Ridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision (Annexation #15)
The Ridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision (Annexation #16)
Elmer Ranch West Subdivision (Annexation #17)
Newkom Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision (Annexation #18)
Newkom Ranch Unit 2 Subdivision (Annexation #19)
Sohal Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision (Annexation #20)

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF YUBA CITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2021-1
(MUNICIPAL SERVICES)
ANNEXATION NOS 13 THROUGH 20
Thiara Estates Subdivision, Brownstone Estates Subdivision, The Ridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision, The Ridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision, Elmer Ranch West Subdivision, Newkom Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision, Newkom Ranch Unit 2 Subdivision, Sohal Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS AND OWNERS OF LAND
ANNEXATION NO. 13 (THIARA ESTATES SUBDIVISION)
That will become 31 lots
ANNEXATION NO. 14 (BROWNSTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION)
That will become 54 lots
Assessor Parcel No(s) Name of Property Owner
059-630-040
059-630-041
Nancy Tiff, Trustee of the Scott Family Trust
executed on 11/6/2000
Assessor Parcel No(s) Name of Property Owner
062-082-019
062-082-020
062-082-021
YC Hooper Ventures, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company

ANNEXATION NO. 15 (THE RIDGE UNIT 1 SUBDIVISION)
That will become 68 lots
ANNEXATION NO. 16 (THE RIDGE UNIT 2 SUBDIVISION)
That will become 73 lots
ANNEXATION NO. 17 (ELMER RANCH WEST SUBDIVISION)
That will become 55 lots
ANNEXATION NO. 18 (NEWKOM RANCH UNIT 1 SUBDIVISION)
That will become 119 lots
Assessor Parcel No(s) Name of Property Owner
062-010-136
062-010-137
YC Hooper Ventures, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company
Assessor Parcel No(s) Name of Property Owner
062-010-136
062-010-137
YC Hooper Ventures, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company
Assessor Parcel No(s) Name of Property Owner
017-065-008 Nancy Tiff, Trustee of the Scott Family Trust executed on 11/6/2000
Assessor Parcel No(s) Name of Property Owner
55-240-027 Lennar Homes of California, LLC

ANNEXATION NO. 19 (NEWKOM RANCH UNIT 2 SUBDIVISION)
That will become 51 lots
ANNEXATION NO. 20 (SOHAL RANCH UNIT 1 SUBDIVISION)
That will become 69 lots
Assessor Parcel No(s) Name of Property Owner
55-240-027 Lennar Homes of California, LLC
Assessor Parcel No(s) Name of Property Owner
Por 65-010-005
Por 65-010-006
Lennar Homes of California, LLC

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF YUBA CITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2021-1
(MUNICIPAL SERVICES)
ANNEXATION NOS 13 THROUGH 20
Thiara Estates Subdivision, Brownstone Estates Subdivision, The Ridge Estates Unit 1 Subdivision, The Ridge Estates Unit 2 Subdivision, Elmer Ranch West Subdivision, Newkom Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision, Newkom Ranch Unit 2 Subdivision, Sohal Ranch Unit 1 Subdivision

UNANIMOUS APPROVAL

Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision)

UNANIMOUS APPROVAL
of Annexation to a Community Facilities District and Related Matters City of Yuba City
Community Facilities District No. 2021-1
(Municipal Services)
Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision)
To the Honorable City Council
City of Yuba City, as legislative body of
Community Facilities District No. 2021-1
(Municipal Services)
1201 Civic Center Boulevard,
Yuba City, California 95993
Members of the City Council:

This constitutes the Unanimous Approval (the “Unanimous Approval”) of FOR California Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company the record owner(s) (the “Property Owner”) of the fee title to the real property identified below (the “Property”) contemplated by Sections 53328.1 and/or 53339.3 et seq. of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the “Act”), to the annexation of the Property to the "City of Yuba City Community Facilities District No. 2021-1 (Municipal Services)” (the “CFD”) and approval of the special taxes to be levied against the Property, and the undersigned hereby states, certifies, agrees and declares under penalty of perjury, as follows:

1. Property Owner. This Unanimous Approval is submitted by the Property Owner as the record owner(s) of fee title to the Property. The Property Owner has supplied to the City current evidence of its ownership of fee title to the Property. No parties are residing on the Property and therefore there are no registered voters on the Property.

2. Approval of Annexation. This Unanimous Approval constitutes the unanimous approval and unanimous vote by the Property Owner in favor of the annexation of the Property to the CFD. The CFD was formed to finance the municipal services, which are incorporated herein by this reference (the “Services”) described in Exhibit A hereto and made a part hereof. In such connection Property Owner has reviewed the list of the Services and hereby agrees, consents and approves to the Services and the Annexation of the Property to the CFD for the benefit of the City and the CFD.

3. Approval of Special Tax and the Services. This Unanimous Approval constitutes the unanimous approval and unanimous vote by the Property Owner in favor of the levy of special taxes (the “Special Taxes”) on the Property to finance the Services. The Special Taxes will be levied according to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for the CFD attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof (the "Rate and Method"). In such connection property owner consents and approves of the Rate and Method and understands that such taxes shall be levied against the Property.

4. Approval of the Appropriations Limit. This Unanimous Approval constitutes the unanimous approval and unanimous vote by the Property Owner in favor of the appropriations limit

Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision)
established for the CFD. The Property Owner hereby approves, consents and agrees to the appropriations limit for the CFD of $1,700,000, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, as adjusted for changes in the cost of living and changes in the population.

5. Waivers and Vote. Resolution No. 21-048 adopted by the City Council on May 18, 2021 and Resolution No. 21-094 adopted by the City Council on July 6, 2021 and Sections 53328.1 and 53339.3 of the Act provide an alternate and independent procedure for annexation to a community facilities district that simplifies the annexation process. Under such process, the Property Owner acknowledges and agrees that by executing this Unanimous Approval, the Property Owner is voluntarily waiving any and all right to an election held in accordance with Sections 53326, 53327, 53327.5, 53328, 53339.7, 53339.8 and other relevant provisions of the Act. The Property Owner hereby confirms that this Unanimous Approval constitutes its unanimous approval and unanimous vote as described herein and as contemplated by Section 53339.3 et seq. of the Act and for purposes of the California Constitution Article XIII A and XIII C. In lieu of an approval by public hearing, ballot and election, if any, the Property Owner intends for this Unanimous Approval to constitute its ballot and election and waiver of a public hearing.

Further, the Property Owner hereby waives all other rights with respect to the annexation of the Property, the levy of the Special Taxes on the Property in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment and the other matters covered in this Unanimous Approval.

6. Recordation of Amendment to Notice of Special Tax Lien. The Notice of Special Tax Lien for the CFD was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Sutter, State of California on July 12, 2021, as Document No. 2021-0012518.

The Property Owner hereby understands and agrees, consents and approves to the City Clerk, or City designee, to execute and cause to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Sutter an amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien for the CFD as required by Section 3117.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien shall include the Rate and Method as an exhibit thereto.

7. Authority Warranted. The Property Owner warrants to the City that the presentation of this Unanimous Approval, any votes, consents or waivers contained herein, and other actions for the annexation of the Property to the CFD and the levy of special taxes within the area of the Property shall not constitute events of default or delinquencies under any existing or proposed financing documents entered into or to be entered into by the Property Owner for the Property, including any “due-onencumbrance” clauses under any existing security instruments secured by the Property.

8. Due Diligence and Disclosures. The Property Owner agrees to cooperate with the City and its attorneys and consultants and to provide all information and disclosures required by the City and/or the Act about the Special Taxes to purchasers of the Property or any part of it.

9. Agreements. The Property Owner further agrees to execute such additional or supplemental agreements as may be required by the City to provide for any of the actions and conditions described in this Unanimous Approval, including any cash deposit required to pay for the City’s costs in annexing the Property to the CFD.

Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision)

10. The Property. The Property is identified below, and such Property Owner approves, consents and agrees that Property will be subject to the CFD upon recordation of the amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien. The Property is located in the Future Annexation Area of the CFD and the map is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Assessor’s Parcel Number(s):

APN Acreage Anticipated Units Property Owner
59-630-040 &
59-630-041

8.19 31 residential parcels
Nancy Tiff, Trustee of the
Scott Family Trust
executed on 11/6/2000
Acres: _8.19 _
By executing this Unanimous Approval, the Property Owner agrees, consents, declares and certifies to all of the above.

Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision)
Property Owner
By: Scott Family Trust executed on 11/6/2000
By:

Print Name: Nancy Tiff, Trustee of the Scott
Family Trust executed on 11/6/2000
Notice Address
Nancy Tiff
Interwest Homes
950 Tharp Road #1402
Yuba City, CA 95993

Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision)

EXHIBIT A
City of Yuba City
Community Facilities District No. 2021-1
(Municipal Services)

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
The Services to be funded by the CFD include the following services and all incidental expenses related to such services, all of which are authorized by the Act:

PUBLIC SERVICES
(a) Police protection services;
(b) Fire protection and suppression services, ambulance and paramedic services; (c) maintenance of parks, parkways, streets, roads, and open space; (d) flood and storm protection services, including but not limited to the maintenance of storm drainage systems and sandstorm protection systems, (e) Services with respect to the removal or remedial action for the cleanup of any hazardous substance released or threatened to be released into the environment, subject to the limitations contained in Section 53313 of the Act;
(f) Maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the local agency or by another local agency pursuant to an agreement entered into under Section 53316.2; and (g) costs incurred by the City and or County in formation of the district, annexation and annual contract administration.

In accordance with Section 53313 of the Act, the additional services may not supplant services available within the territory when the district was created or annexed.

The same types of services which are authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2021-1 are the types of services to be provided in the Future Annexation Area, as properties are annexed.

The services include operational and maintenance costs associated with providing such services.

Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision)

EXHIBIT B
City of Yuba City
Community Facilities District No. 2021-1
(Municipal Services)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The Special Tax shall be levied in Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision) in accordance with the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for City of Yuba City Community Facilities District No. 2021-1 (Municipal Services) pursuant to the rate set forth in the attachment hereto.

01248.0008/694321.2 1 of 4

CITY OF YUBA CITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2021‐1
(MUNICIPAL SERVICES)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
A Special Tax applicable to each Assessor's Parcel in Community Facilities District No. 2021-1 (Municipal Services) [herein "CFD No. 2021-1"] shall be levied and collected according to the tax liability determined by the City Council, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of CFD No. 2021-1, through the application of the appropriate Special Tax rate, as described below. All of the property in CFD No. 2021-1, unless exempted by law or by the provisions of Section E below, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided.

A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
"Acreage" or "Acre" means the land area making up an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area shown on the applicable final subdivision map or other parcel map recorded at the County Recorder's Office.
"Administrative Expenses" means the costs incurred by the City to determine, levy and collect the Special Tax, including salaries of City employees and fees of consultants and the costs of collecting installments of the Special Taxes upon the general tax rolls; preparation of required reports, and any other costs required to administer the CFD No. 2021-1 as determined by the Finance Director. "Administrator" means the person or firm designated by the City to administer the Special Taxes according to this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax. “Annual Tax Escalation Factor” means an annual increase in the Maximum Special Tax following the Base Year in an amount not to exceed four percent (4%). The Annual Tax Escalation Factor shall be based on the budgeted escalation of the City of Yuba City’s combined Police and Fire Departments from the previous fiscal year.
"Assessor's Parcel" or "Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Parcel number.
"Assessor’s Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessor designating parcels by Assessor's Parcel number.
"Authorized Services" means the public services authorized to be funded by CFD No. 2021-1 as set forth in the documents adopted by the City Council when the CFD No. 2021-1 was formed. "Base Year" means Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
"City" means the City of Yuba City.

01248.0008/694321.2 2 of 4
"City Council" means the City Council of the City of Yuba City, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2021-1.
"County" means Sutter County, California.
"Developed Residential Property" means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Taxable Property for which a use permit or building permit for new construction of a residential structure was issued prior to June 30 of the preceding Fiscal Year.
"Finance Director" means the Finance Director for the City or his or her designee or successor. "Fiscal Year" means the period starting on July 1 and ending on the following June 30. "Maximum Special Tax" means the maximum Special Tax determined in accordance with Section C below that can be levied on Taxable Property in any Fiscal Year. “Multi-Family Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all units in CFD No. 2021-1 for which a building permit was issued or may be issued for construction of a residential structure with multiple units that share common walls, all of which are offered for rent to the general public. "Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2021-1 that is owned by the federal government, State of California, County, City, or other public agency. “Residential Unit(s)” means an individual lot of land for which a building permit could be issued to construct one or more residential dwelling units.
“Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Property for which a map has been recorded designating individual Residential Units.
“Non-Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2021-1 for which a map has been recorded designating the Assessor’s Parcel as a lot for which a building permit could be issued and the Assessor’s Parcel cannot be classified as a Residential Property.
"Special Tax" means any tax levied to pay for Authorized Services and Administrative Expenses. “Single Family Property” means buildings containing one dwelling unit located on a single lot that are individually owned, including attached or detached residences (i.e., townhome unit and/or condominium units).
"Taxable Property" means all Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2021-1 designated as Developed Residential Property.
“Undeveloped Residential Property” means all Parcels of Residential Property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2021-1 that are not Developed Residential Property, as determined by the Administrator.
"Unit" means an individual single family detached unit or an individual residential unit within a duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhome, condominium, or apartment structure.

01248.0008/694321.2 3 of 4

CATEGORIZING PARCELS FOR ANNUAL TAX LEVY
Each Fiscal Year, the Administrator shall identify the current Assessor's Parcel numbers for all Parcels within CFD No. 2021-1, and each parcel shall be classified as Developed Residential Property, NonResidential Property, Public Property, or Undeveloped Residential Property, and shall be subject to the levy of annual Special Taxes determined pursuant to Sections C and D below.

B. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE
All Taxable Property within the CFD No. 2021-1 shall be subject to a Maximum Special Tax that will be levied each Fiscal Year to pay for Authorized Services. As discussed above, the Administrator shall rely first on the Land Use Designation for a Parcel to determine the appropriate Maximum Special Tax in Table 1, below, but, in the absence of an assigned Land Use Designation, the Administrator shall refer to the Zoning Designation and land use to be built on the Parcel. The following Maximum Special Tax rates apply to all Parcels of Developed Property within CFD No. 2021-1:

Each Residential Unit is subject to the Maximum Special Tax shown in Table 1, below.

Non- Residential Property, Undeveloped Property, and Public Property is not subject to the Maximum Special Tax.

Table 1
Property Land Use Fiscal Year 2020/21 Maximum Special Tax Amount *
Single Family Property $467.10 per Single Family Residential Unit Multi-Family Property $340.70 per Multi-Family Residential Unit Undeveloped Residential Property $0 per Assessor’s Parcel * Beginning July 1, 2021 and each July 1 thereafter, all of the Maximum Special Taxes shown in Table 1 above shall be adjusted by applying the Annual Tax Escalation Factor.

C. METHOD OF LEVY AND COLLECTION OF SPECIAL
TAX
Each Fiscal Year, the Administrator shall levy the Maximum Special Tax on each Parcel of Developed Property in CFD No. 2021-1. The Special Tax for CFD No. 2021-1 shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes provided, however, that CFD No. 2021-1 may (under the authority of Government Code Section 53340) in any particular case bill the taxes directly to the property owner off the County tax roll, and the Special Tax will be equally subject to foreclosure if delinquent.

D. LIMITATIONS
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, no Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property, Non-Residential Property, or Undeveloped Residential Property.

01248.0008/694321.2 4 of 4
E. FUTURE ANNEXATIONS
It is anticipated that additional properties will be annexed to CFD No. 2021‐1 from time to time.

The property to be annexed will be assigned to the appropriate Maximum Special Tax rate for the Tract or Tracts when annexed, as pursuant to California Government Code section 53339 et seq.

In certain cases, it may be determined that a potential property to be annexed may require a higher cost to provide City services than other areas of the City (e.g., if it possesses a large quantity of City- owned infrastructure that requires maintenance). As each annexation is proposed, the City may elect to prepare an analysis to determine the annual cost for providing Services, and may incorporate unique zones with varying Maximum Special Tax rates. Such zones may be referred to by reference to a letter or number on the boundary map, and adjust the rates in Table 1 of such annexation to reflect the applicable rates.

The City may adopt a future annexation area in the future and allow for annexation by unanimous written consent.

F. INTERPRETATION OF SPECIAL TAX FORMULA
The City reserves the right to make minor administrative and technical changes to this document that do not materially affect the rate and method of apportioning the Special Tax. In addition, the interpretation and application of any section of this document shall be left to the City's discretion. Interpretations may be made by the City by ordinance or resolution for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity in this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax.

G. TERM
The Special Tax shall be collected in perpetuity.

H. APPEALS
Any property owner claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct may file a written notice of appeal with the Administrator not later than twelve months after having paid the first installment of the Special Tax that is disputed. The Administrator shall promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the property owner, consider written and oral evidence regarding the amount of the Special Tax, and rule on the appeal. If the decision of the Administrator requires that the Special Tax for an Assessor’s Parcel be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, a cash refund shall not be made but an adjustment shall be made to the Special Tax on that Assessor’s Parcel in the subsequent Fiscal Year(s) to compensate for the overpayment of the Special Tax.

Annexation No. 13 (Thiara Estates Subdivision)

EXHIBIT C
City of Yuba City
Community Facilities District No. 2021-1
(Municipal Services)
ANNEXATION MAP NO. 13 (THIARA ESTATES SUBDIVISION) OF YUBA CITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2021-1
(MUNICIPAL SERVICES), CITY OF YUBA CITY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA [see attached]

Proposed Boundary Map of CFD No. 2021-1 Annexation No. 13 City of Yuba City, Sutter County, California

BLEV NI RD
ELMER
AVE

HEIDI WAY

TULY PKW
Y

CASE CT

NINA WAY
M
AI LP

NICK CT

KR SI T NI A

MILLER DR

BRADLEY ESTATES DR

JANICE WAY

COBBLESTONE CT
DO
M
A NI W
AY

BETTY CT
1 .
inch = 300 feet
Legend
Thiara Estates
Existing City Limit Boundaries
Thiara Estates Subdivision

Annexation No. 14 (Brownstone Estates Subdivision)

UNANIMOUS APPROVAL
of Annexation to a Community Facilities District and Related Matters City of Yuba City
Community Facilities District No. 2021-1
(Municipal Services)
Annexation No. 14 (Brownstone Estates Subdivision)
To the Honorable City Council
City of Yuba City, as legislative body of
Community Facilities District No. 2021-1
(Municipal Services)
1201 Civic Center Boulevard,
Yuba City, California 95993
Members of the City Council:

This constitutes the Unanimous Approval (the “Unanimous Approval”) of FOR California Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company the record owner(s) (the “Property Owner”) of the fee title to the real property identified below (the “Property”) contemplated by Sections 53328.1 and/or 53339.3 et seq. of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the “Act”), to the annexation of the Property to the "City of Yuba City Community Facilities District No. 2021-1 (Municipal Services)” (the “CFD”) and approval of the special taxes to be levied against the Property, and the undersigned hereby states, certifies, agrees and declares under penalty of perjury, as follows:

1. Property Owner. This Unanimous Approval is submitted by the Property Owner as the record owner(s) of fee title to the Property. The Property Owner has supplied to the City current evidence of its ownership of fee title to the Property. No parties are residing on the Property and therefore there are no registered voters on the Property.

2. Approval of Annexation. This Unanimous Approval constitutes the unanimous approval and unanimous vote by the Property Owner in favor of the annexation of the Property to the CFD. The CFD was formed to finance the municipal services, which are incorporated herein by this reference (the “Services”) described in Exhibit A hereto and made a part hereof. In such connection Property Owner has reviewed the list of the Services and hereby agrees, consents and approves to the Services and the Annexation of the Property to the CFD for the benefit of the City and the CFD.

3. Approval of Special Tax and the Services. This Unanimous Approval constitutes the unanimous approval and unanimous vote by the Property Owner in favor of the levy of special taxes (the “Special Taxes”) on the Property to finance the Services. The Special Taxes will be levied according to the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for the CFD attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof (the "Rate and Method"). In such connection property owner consents and approves of the Rate and Method and understands that such taxes shall be levied against the Property.

4. Approval of the Appropriations Limit. This Unanimous Approval constitutes the unanimous approval and unanimous vote by the Property Owner in favor of the appropriations limit

Annexation No. 14 (Brownstone Estates Subdivision)
established for the CFD. The Property Owner hereby approves, consents and agrees to the appropriations limit for the CFD of $1,700,000, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, as adjusted for changes in the cost of living and changes in the population.

5. Waivers and Vote. Resolution No. 21-048 adopted by the City Council on May 18, 2021 and Resolution No. 21-094 adopted by the City Council on July 6, 2021 and Sections 53328.1 and 53339.3 of the Act provide an alternate and independent procedure for annexation to a community facilities district that simplifies the annexation process. Under such process, the Property Owner acknowledges and agrees that by executing this Unanimous Approval, the Property Owner is voluntarily waiving any and all right to an election held in accordance with Sections 53326, 53327, 53327.5, 53328, 53339.7, 53339.8 and other relevant provisions of the Act. The Property Owner hereby confirms that this Unanimous Approval constitutes its unanimous approval and unanimous vote as described herein and as contemplated by Section 53339.3 et seq. of the Act and for purposes of the California Constitution Article XIII A and XIII C. In lieu of an approval by public hearing, ballot and election, if any, the Property Owner intends for this Unanimous Approval to constitute its ballot and election and waiver of a public hearing.

Further, the Property Owner hereby waives all other rights with respect to the annexation of the Property, the levy of the Special Taxes on the Property in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment and the other matters covered in this Unanimous Approval.

6. Recordation of Amendment to Notice of Special Tax Lien. The Notice of Special Tax Lien for the CFD was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Sutter, State of California on July 12, 2021, as Document No. 2021-0012518.

The Property Owner hereby understands and agrees, consents and approves to the City Clerk, or City designee, to execute and cause to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Sutter an amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien for the CFD as required by Section 3117.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien shall include the Rate and Method as an exhibit thereto.

7. Authority Warranted. The Property Owner warrants to the City that the presentation of this Unanimous Approval, any votes, consents or waivers contained herein, and other actions for the annexation of the Property to the CFD and the levy of special taxes within the area of the Property shall not constitute events of default or delinquencies under any existing or proposed financing documents entered into or to be entered into by the Property Owner for the Property, including any “due-onencumbrance” clauses under any existing security instruments secured by the Property.

8. Due Diligence and Disclosures. The Property Owner agrees to cooperate with the City and its attorneys and consultants and to provide all information and disclosures required by the City and/or the Act about the Special Taxes to purchasers of the Property or any part of it.

9. Agreements. The Property Owner further agrees to execute such additional or supplemental agreements as may be required by the City to provide for any of the actions and conditions described in this Unanimous Approval, including any cash deposit required to pay for the City’s costs in annexing the Property to the CFD.

Annexation No. 14 (Brownstone Estates Subdivision)

10. The Property. The Property is identified below, and such Property Owner approves, consents and agrees that Property will be subject to the CFD upon recordation of the amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien. The Property is located in the Future Annexation Area of the CFD and the map is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Assessor’s Parcel Number(s):

APN Acreage Anticipated Units Property Owner
62-082-019,
62-082-020, &
62-082-021

7.84 54 residential parcels
YC Hooper Ventures, LLC,
a California Limited
Liability Company
Acres: _7.84 _
By executing this Unanimous Approval, the Property Owner agrees, consents, declares and certifies to all of the above.

Annexation No. 14 (Brownstone Estates Subdivision)
<< Signatures on following page >>

Annexation No. 14 (Brownstone Estates Subdivision)

EXHIBIT A
City of Yuba City
Community Facilities District No. 2021-1
(Municipal Services)

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
The Services to be funded by the CFD include the following services and all incidental expenses related to such services, all of which are authorized by the Act:

PUBLIC SERVICES
(a) Police protection services;
(b) Fire protection and suppression services, ambulance and paramedic services; (c) maintenance of parks, parkways, streets, roads, and open space; (d) flood and storm protection services, including but not limited to the maintenance of storm drainage systems and sandstorm protection systems, (e) Services with respect to the removal or remedial action for the cleanup of any hazardous substance released or threatened to be released into the environment, subject to the limitations contained in Section 53313 of the Act;
(f) Maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the local agency or by another local agency pursuant to an agreement entered into under Section 53316.2; and (g) costs incurred by the City and or County in formation of the district, annexation and annual contract administration.

In accordance with Section 53313 of the Act, the additional services may not supplant services available within the territory when the district was created or annexed.

The same types of services which are authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2021-1 are the types of services to be provided in the Future Annexation Area, as properties are annexed.

The services include operational and maintenance costs associated with providing such services.

Annexation No. 14 (Brownstone Estates Subdivision)

EXHIBIT B
City of Yuba City
Community Facilities District No. 2021-1
(Municipal Services)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The Special Tax shall be levied in Annexation No. 14 (Brownstone Estates Subdivision) in accordance with the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for City of Yuba City Community Facilities District No. 2021-1 (Municipal Services) pursuant to the rate set forth in the attachment hereto.

01248.0008/694321.2 1 of 4

CITY OF YUBA CITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2021‐1
(MUNICIPAL SERVICES)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
A Special Tax applicable to each Assessor's Parcel in Community Facilities District No. 2021-1 (Municipal Services) [herein "CFD No. 2021-1"] shall be levied and collected according to the tax liability determined by the City Council, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of CFD No. 2021-1, through the application of the appropriate Special Tax rate, as described below. All of the property in CFD No. 2021-1, unless exempted by law or by the provisions of Section E below, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided.

A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
"Acreage" or "Acre" means the land area making up an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area shown on the applicable final subdivision map or other parcel map recorded at the County Recorder's Office.
"Administrative Expenses" means the costs incurred by the City to determine, levy and collect the Special Tax, including salaries of City employees and fees of consultants and the costs of collecting installments of the Special Taxes upon the general tax rolls; preparation of required reports, and any other costs required to administer the CFD No. 2021-1 as determined by the Finance Director. "Administrator" means the person or firm designated by the City to administer the Special Taxes according to this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax. “Annual Tax Escalation Factor” means an annual increase in the Maximum Special Tax following the Base Year in an amount not to exceed four percent (4%). The Annual Tax Escalation Factor shall be based on the budgeted escalation of the City of Yuba City’s combined Police and Fire Departments from the previous fiscal year.
"Assessor's Parcel" or "Parcel" means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Parcel number.
"Assessor’s Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessor designating parcels by Assessor's Parcel number.
"Authorized Services" means the public services authorized to be funded by CFD No. 2021-1 as set forth in the documents adopted by the City Council when the CFD No. 2021-1 was formed. "Base Year" means Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
"City" means the City of Yuba City.

01248.0008/694321.2 2 of 4
"City Council" means the City Council of the City of Yuba City, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2021-1.
"County" means Sutter County, California.
"Developed Residential Property" means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels of Taxable Property for which a use permit or building permit for new construction of a residential structure was issued prior to June 30 of the preceding Fiscal Year.
"Finance Director" means the Finance Director for the City or his or her designee or successor. "Fiscal Year" means the period starting on July 1 and ending on the following June 30. "Maximum Special Tax" means the maximum Special Tax determined in accordance with Section C below that can be levied on Taxable Property in any Fiscal Year. “Multi-Family Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all units in CFD No. 2021-1 for which a building permit was issued or may be issued for construction of a residential structure with multiple units that share common walls, all of which are offered for rent to the general public. "Public Property" means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2021-1 that is owned by the federal government, State of California, County, City, or other public agency. “Residential Unit(s)” means an individual lot of land for which a building permit could be issued to construct one or more residential dwelling units.
“Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Property for which a map has been recorded designating individual Residential Units.
“Non-Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2021-1 for which a map has been recorded designating the Assessor’s Parcel as a lot for which a building permit could be issued and the Assessor’s Parcel cannot be classified as a Residential Property.
"Special Tax" means any tax levied to pay for Authorized Services and Administrative Expenses. “Single Family Property” means buildings containing one dwelling unit located on a single lot that are individually owned, including attached or detached residences (i.e., townhome unit and/or condominium units).
"Taxable Property" means all Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2021-1 designated as Developed Residential Property.
“Undeveloped Residential Property” means all Parcels of Residential Property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2021-1 that are not Developed Residential Property, as determined by the Administrator.
"Unit" means an individual single family detached unit or an individual residential unit within a duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhome, condominium, or apartment structure.

01248.0008/694321.2 3 of 4

CATEGORIZING PARCELS FOR ANNUAL TAX LEVY
Each Fiscal Year, the Administrator shall identify the current Assessor's Parcel numbers for all Parcels within CFD No. 2021-1, and each parcel shall be classified as Developed Residential Property, NonResidential Property, Public Property, or Undeveloped Residential Property, and shall be subject to the levy of annual Special Taxes determined pursuant to Sections C and D below.

B. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE
All Taxable Property within the CFD No. 2021-1 shall be subject to a Maximum Special Tax that will be levied each Fiscal Year to pay for Authorized Services. As discussed above, the Administrator shall rely first on the Land Use Designation for a Parcel to determine the appropriate Maximum Special Tax in Table 1, below, but, in the absence of an assigned Land Use Designation, the Administrator shall refer to the Zoning Designation and land use to be built on the Parcel. The following Maximum Special Tax rates apply to all Parcels of Developed Property within CFD No. 2021-1:

Each Residential Unit is subject to the Maximum Special Tax shown in Table 1, below.

Non- Residential Property, Undeveloped Property, and Public Property is not subject to the Maximum Special Tax.

Table 1
Property Land Use Fiscal Year 2020/21 Maximum Special Tax Amount *
Single Family Property $467.10 per Single Family Residential Unit Multi-Family Property $340.70 per Multi-Family Residential Unit Undeveloped Residential Property $0 per Assessor’s Parcel * Beginning July 1, 2021 and each July 1 thereafter, all of the Maximum Special Taxes shown in Table 1 above shall be adjusted by applying the Annual Tax Escalation Factor.

C. METHOD OF LEVY AND COLLECTION OF SPECIAL
TAX
Each Fiscal Year, the Administrator shall levy the Maximum Special Tax on each Parcel of Developed Property in CFD No. 2021-1. The Special Tax for CFD No. 2021-1 shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes provided, however, that CFD No. 2021-1 may (under the authority of Government Code Section 53340) in any particular case bill the taxes directly to the property owner off the County tax roll, and the Special Tax will be equally subject to foreclosure if delinquent.

D. LIMITATIONS
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, no Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property, Non-Residential Property, or Undeveloped Residential Property.

01248.0008/694321.2 4 of 4
E. FUTURE ANNEXATIONS
It is anticipated that additional properties will be annexed to CFD No. 2021‐1 from time to time.

The property to be annexed will be assigned to the appropriate Maximum Special Tax rate for the Tract or Tracts when annexed, as pursuant to California Government Code section 53339 et seq.

In certain cases, it may be determined that a potential property to be annexed may require a higher cost to provide City services than other areas of the City (e.g., if it possesses a large quantity of City- owned infrastructure that requires maintenance). As each annexation is proposed, the City may elect to prepare an analysis to determine the annual cost for providing Services, and may incorporate unique zones with varying Maximum Special Tax rates. Such zones may be referred to by reference to a letter or number on the boundary map, and adjust the rates in Table 1 of such annexation to reflect the applicable rates.

The City may adopt a future annexation area in the future and allow for annexation by unanimous written consent.

F. INTERPRETATION OF SPECIAL TAX FORMULA
The City reserves the right to make minor administrative and technical changes to this document that do not materially affect the rate and method of apportioning the Special Tax. In addition, the interpretation and application of any section of this document shall be left to the City's discretion. Interpretations may be made by the City by ordinance or resolution for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity in this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax.

G. TERM
The Special Tax shall be collected in perpetuity.

H. APPEALS
Any property owner claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct may file a written notice of appeal with the Administrator not later than twelve months after having paid the first installment of the Special Tax that is disputed. The Administrator shall promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the property owner, consider written and oral evidence regarding the amount of the Special Tax, and rule on the appeal. If the decision of the Administrator requires that the Special Tax for an Assessor’s Parcel be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, a cash refund shall not be made but an adjustment shall be made to the Special Tax on that Assessor’s Parcel in the subsequent Fiscal Year(s) to compensate for the overpayment of the Special Tax.