Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-150~oA~a GQUt~tTY flF F.3UTTE, ~TATE'4F CALIFORNIA ~iE°solufion i~1o.04-150 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR'['HE CEN'T'RAL CTTICO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT PROJEC'T','I'HE SOUTHEAST CHTCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECrI' AND THE GREA'T'ER CHICO URBAN AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHF,REAS, the Chico Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has proposed Amendments (the "Amendments") to the Redevelopment Plans for the Central Chico Redevelopment Project, the Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project, the Southeast Chico Redevelopment Project and the Greater Chico Urban Area Redevelopment Project (the "Projects") which would (1) fiscally merge the four project areas to form the Chico Amended and Merged Redevelopment Project ("CAMRP"); (2) establish both a single limit on the cumulative amount of tax increment that may be collected and a single limit on the Amount of bonded indebtedness shat can be outstanding at any time for the four project areas; (3) remove the non-statutory annual limit of $6 million on tax increment collection for both the Amended Southeast Chico Project and the Chico Municipal Airport Project; {4) extend the time limit for tax increment collection in the Central Chico Redevelopment Project Area by five years, (5) establish a set of merged redevelopment Goals for the CAMRP that will be added to the existing project specific goals in the Redevelopment Plans far each of the Projects; and (6) amend and restate the text of the existing Redevelopment Plans to conform to the City's General Plan, incorporate language reflecting the proposed fiscal merger and the current Community Redevelopment Law and redevelopment practice; and WHEREAS, the Greater Chico Urban Area Redevelopment Project includes certain areas within the ter-itory of the County of Butte and the County is therefore a "responsible agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seal.) for purposes of the environmental analysis of the proposed Amendments; and WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared to determine whether the proposed Amendments would have a signipicant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, based on the results of the initial study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and submitted to and considered by the Agency in connection with the proposed adoption by the City Council of four separate ordinances adopting the Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Agency has reviewed, considered and determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 C'al. Code Regs. Section 1.50(}0 et secy., hereinafter the "State CEQA Guidelines") and local procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant therero; and WHERI+AS, on May lb, 2004, the Agency and the City Council held a joint public hearin~~ on the proposed Amendments and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Agency has considered all comments and testimony received pertaining thereto; and WI~EREAS, on August 3, 2004, County Bo~~n-d of Supervisors held a public hearing to consider an ordinance approving the proposed Amendment to the Greater Chico Urban Area Redevelopment Project. NOW, 'I'HERI;FORE, 'TI1E BOARD OF SUYERVISORS OF 'TIIE COUNTY OF BU1"TE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to adopting this Resolution. The Board of Supervisors hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as approved by the Agency, including the Conditions for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amendments, including al] mitigation measures, identiCed as summarized in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, incorporated into and made a part of the Amendments. Section 2. Based upon the entire record before it, including without limitation the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Conditions for Mitigated Negative Declaration and all mitigation measures incorporated into the Amendments, and comments and testimony received pertaining thereto, the Board of Supervisors hereby Prods and determines that the proposed mitigation measures are feasible and that them; is no substantial evidence that the proposed Amendments will have a signiCcant effect on the environment. Sectian 3. The Board of Supervisors hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amendments, as presented to the Board members and currently on the with the City Clerk and Executive Director and Secretary of the Agency. Section 4. Upon approval and adoption of the Amendments by the City Council and approval by the Board of Supervisors, the County Clerk is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15075 of the State CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 1~°i day of August 2004 by the following vote; AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Houx, Josiassen, Yamaguchi and Chair Beeler NOES: None ABSEN'T': None NO'T VO'T'ING: None 7~ t~i_ R. ,]. BE LER, Chair ATTI+.ST: PAUL MCINTOSH, Chief Administrative Officer And Clerk of the Board of Supervisors /~ . /~ ,F Deputy MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & CITYIXCHICO INC. IBTI MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CITY OF CHICO PLAM~tING DIVISION Based upon the analysis and findings contained within the attached initial study, a mitigated negative declaration is proposed by the City of Chico Planning Division for the fallowing project: PROJECT NAME AND NUMBER: Chico Amended and Merged Redevelopment Project ("CANIlZP") ER- 04-01 APPLICANT'S NAIVIE: City of Chico Redevelopment Agency PROJECT LOCATION: The Project Area is located in the west-central portion of Butte County within the northern region of the Sacramento Valley and is comprised of urban and rural properties under the jurisdiction of both the City of Chico and the County of Butte and designated far urban development. The northern limit of the Project Area is the Chico Municipal Airport; the eastern boundary line is on both sides of State Highway Route 32 (SHR 32) the City of Chico's easterly jurisdictional limit; the western boundary is west of SHR 32 (Nord) at Lindo Channel; and the southern boundary line is adjacent to State Highway Route 99 at Butte Creek. For more graphic and specific descriptions of the Project Area, see the attached initial study with the "Project Area Map" and the legal description. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment and adoption of a fiscal merger for the Chico Merged and Greater Chico Urban Area Redevelopment Project Area composed of (1) the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Chico Redevelopment Project Chico, California, (2) the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Chico Redevelopment Project, (3) the Amended and Restated Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project, and (4) the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Greater Chico Urban Area Development Project. The amendment will consolidate the existing limitations on the collection of tax increment and bonded indebtedness in the Froject Areas, eliminate the annual cap an collection of tax increment in two of the Froject Areas, extend the time on the effectiveness No new projects are proposed with the CAMRP that were not previously considered under the existing plans. The Merged Redevelopment Program will enable the Chico Redevelopment Agency to implement the identified redevelopment activities in the Redevelopment Plans with more expediency, efficiency and effectiveness. The attached initial study indicates that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project will have a significant effect an the environment if the following mitigation measures are adopted and implemented for each identified impact: S:\pfWegDec merged RDA.wpd N-i MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION & MITIGATI(7N MONITQRING PROGRAM CAI~~'R (ER 04-0I) PAGE 2 IMPACT (Air uality~ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? MITIGATION MEASURE B.1 (Air Quality): To minimize fugitive dust during construction activities and ensure enforcement of General Plan policies pertaining to air quality, the following mitigation measures shall be included in all future construction plans and documents for the redevelopment projects: a. All grading operations shall be suspended when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 20 miles per hour as directed by the AQMI7. b. Provide temporary traffic control during all phases of construction to improve traffic flow (e.g. flag persons) as determined appropriate by the Department of Public Works c. Water active construction sites at least twice daily as directed by the Department of Public Works. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure. d. All .trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials should be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e. minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the trailer in accordance with the requirements of CVC Section 23114. This provision is enforced by local law enforcement agencies. e. Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweeper with reclaimed water). f. Cover inactive storage piles. g. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule 201 & 207 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions) MTTIGATION MONITORING B.1 (Air puality): The Public Works Senior Development Engineer shall confirm that the above dust suppression measures are included on all subdivision improvement plans and grading plans. Construction inspectors from the Department of Public Works will conduct periodic site inspections to verify compliance with fugitive dust control measures. SapflNegDec merged RDA.wpd N-2 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CAMPR {ER 04-OI ) PAGE 3 MITIGATION MEASURE B.2 {Air Quality): All wood burning devices installed in any residence shall be EPA Phase II certified. MITIGATION MONITORING B.2 fAir uality): Prior to issuing any building permits, staff members from the Community Development Department-Building Division will review all building plans to ensure that any proposed wood burning device is EPA phase II certified. With the incorporation of Mitigation B.1 and B.2 above, air quality impacts from construction activities will be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. IlvIPACT (Cultural Resources): Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to PRC Section 15464.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? MTI'IGATION D.1. (Cultural Resources): A note shall be placed an all grading and construction plans which informs the construction contractor thatif any bones, pottery fragments ar other potential cultural resources are encountered during construction, all work shall cease within the area of the find pending an examination of the site and materials by a professional archaeologist. This person will assess the significance of the find and prepare appropriate mitigation measures for review by the Planning Director. All mitigation measures determined by the Planning Director to be appropriate for this project shall be implemented pursuant to the terms of the archaeologist's report. MITIGATION MONITORING D.1. (Cultural Resources): Public Works Department staff will verify that the above wording is included in project grading plans. Should cultural resources be encountered, the supervising inspector shall be responsible for reporting any such findings to the Planning Division, and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to conduct meetings with on-site employees & monitor the referenced mitigation measures. With the incorporation of Mitigation D. 1. Above, cultural resource impacts from construction activities will be reduced to a less than significant level. PROJECT APPLICANT'S INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT: I have reviewed the Initial Study for the Chico Amended and Merged Redevelopment Project ("CAMRP")groject and any mitigation measures identified herein. I hereby modify the project S:\pflNegDec merged RDA.wpd N-3 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DF.CLAItATION & MITIGATION MONITORING PRtwRA.M CAMPR (ER 04-0 I ) PAGE 4 on file wit e City of Chi t Include ~ incorporate all mitigation set forth in this document. ,r i / / ~~ ~~ `~ ~ 'Q u J" Project Appli~~ t Da e Prepared by: L/~'~'"~-- ~~ I ~ v 0~ Pam Figge, P ~ ipal Planner Date Reviewed by: ~a~,v_~~ . ~-- Patrick Murphy, enior Planner Adopted by: City of Chico City Council S:\pflNegDec merged RDA.wpd i 36 'oy Date Date N-4 City of Chico INITIAL STUDY Environmental Coordination and Review ROUTE TO: [X ] City of Chico -Responsible City Department(s) [X ] State Clearinghouse [X ] All Trustee and Responsible Agencies 1. Project Description A. Project Name: Chico Amended and Merged Redevelopment Project ("GAMRP") B. Project Location: The project area is comprised of properties under the jurisdiction of both the City of Chico and the County of Butte. The "Project Area Map" is found an Page 4 of this Initial Study. C. Type of Application(s): 2004 Redevelopment Plan Amendments and Gity of Chico City Council and Butte County Board of Supervisor Ordinances for adoption of Amendments D. Assessor's Parcel Number{s): See "Project Area Map" E. Current Zoning: Various -See Exhibits 1 & 2 (City and County Zoning) General Plan Designation: Various -Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Public, Open Space F. Environmental Setting: The environmental setting includes developed and undeveloped urban and rural properties designated for future urban development. The Project Area is located in the west-central portion of Butte County within the northern region of the Sacramento Valley. A Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) was prepared by the City of Chico prior to the adoption of the 1994 Chico General Plan. The Project Area is wholly within the Chico Planning Area delineated in the MEA. The northern limit of the Project Area is the Chico Municipal Airport; the eastern boundary line is on both sides of State Highway Route 32 (SHR 32) the City of Chico's easterly jurisdictional limit; the western boundary is west of SHR 32 (Nord) at Lindo Channel; and the southern boundary line is adjacent to State Highway Route 99 at Butte Creek. For the purposes of this environmental evaluation, the following terms are used. "Planning Area" refers to the combined City of Chico and County of Butte lands within study area defined by the Chico Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), the Chico General Plan adopted in 1994, and subsequently updated in 1999, and the certified general plan environmental impact report (EIR). "Project Area" refers to the proposed Chico Amended and Merged Redevelopment Project ("GAMRP"} G. Project Description: Amendment and adoption of a fiscal merger for the Chico Merged and Greater Chico Urban Area Redevelopment Project Area composed of (1) the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Chico Redevelopment Project Chico, California, (2) the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Chico Redevetoprnent Project, (3) the Amended and Restated Chico Municipal Airport Redevelopment Project, and (4) the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Greater Chico Urban Area Development Project. The amendment will consolidate the existing limitations on the collection of tax increment and bonded indebtedness in the Project Areas, eliminate the annual cap on collection of tax increment in two of the Project Areas, extend the time on the effectiveness No new projects are proposed with the GAMRP that were not previously considered under the existing plans. The Merged Redevelopment Program will enable the Chico Redevelopment Agency to implement the identified redevelopment activities in the Redevelopment Plans with more expediency, efficiency and effectiveness. N-5 City of Chico Initial Sfudy {CAMPR) Page 2 Each existing Redevelopment Plan was environmentally assessed with an initial study. Adoption of the "CAMPR" is a fiscal action without specific physical impacts on the Project Area. As RDA funding becomes available and budgeted for specific improvement projects, environmental review will be conducted to determine the level of significance of identified impacts and mitigations measures will be recommended to reduce impacts to less than significant. Program and Action Items for the CAMRP include the following categories: Public Infrastructure Improvements (Identified subcategories: Streets, Alternative Modes of Transportation, Streescape, Interchanges, Bridges and Undercrossings, Storm Water Drainage and Management, Sanitary Sewers and Public Facilities); 2. Parks, Landscaping and Open Space Improvements; 3. Public Facilities; 4. Economic Development; 5. Property Acquisition, Site Preparation, and Glean-Up; 6. Public Art; and, Low and Moderate Income Housing. The Program and Action Items are addressed within the appropriate sections of "EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAGTS° starting on page 6 of this Initial Study. N. Public Agency Approvals: Ordinances approving the amendments by vote of the City of Chico City Council and County of Butte Board of Supervisors Applicant: Chico Redevelopment Agency J. Initiated By: Tom Lando, City Manager Prepared By: Pam Figge, Principal Planner and Patrick Murphy, Senior Planner N-6 Gity of Ghico lnifial Study (CAMPR) Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [X] Aesthetics [ ]Air Quality [ ]Biological Resources [~ Cultural Resources [ ]Geology /Soils [ ] Hazards /Hazardous Materials [ ] Hydrology! Water Quality [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Noise [ ] Open Space/ Recreation [ ] Public Services [ ] Population/ Housing [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Utilities PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Signature Date ~~ M ~ ~ ~ ~' For Kim Seidler, Planning Director Printed Name N-7 City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 4 Project Location Map Project Area Boundaries Central Chico Chico Municipal Airport Greater Chico Urban Area ® Southeast Chico Amended m 0 SKYWA N 1 x~E Mile s ~'g Chico Amended and Merged Redevelopment Project City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 5 2. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • Responses to the following questions and related discussion indicate if the proposed project will have or potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved {e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on aproject-specific screening analysis. • All answers must take account of the whole action involved ,including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operation impacts. • Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there is at least one "Potentially Significant Impact" entry when the determination is made an EIR is required. • Negative Declaration: "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact " The initial study will describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 4, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced}. • Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 155063(c}(3)(D)]. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 4 at the end of the checklist. • Initial studies may incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. the general plan or zoning ordinances, etc.}. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion. • The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question: and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. N-9 City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 6 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than A. Aesthetics: Will the project or its related Significant Mitigation Significant No activities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, X including scenic roadways as defined in the General Plan, or a Federal Wild and Scenic River {Big Chico Creek)? 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, X but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3. Affect lands preserved under a scenic easement or X contract? 4. Substantially degrade the existing visual character X or quality of the site and its surroundings including the scenic quality of the foothills as addressed in the General Plan? 5. Create a new source of substantial light or glare X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: Al ~ 4 There are no specific redevelopment projects associated with the project area which would impact scenic vistas or resources. However, some of the redevelopment areas are adjacent to portions of City designated scenic roads such as Vallombrosa, Humboldt Road, Rio Linda Avenue, and Manzanita Avenue. Additionally, portions of the project area are within the foothills region of the City_ The Chico General Plan contains the following policies to project scenic roads and foothill viewsheds: GD-G-10 requires establishing special design guidelines for scenic roads; OS-G-13 and 14 address maintaining hillsides and viable agricultural lands as open space far resource conservation and preservation of trees in addition to existing views of the foothills from roadways; LU-I-62 and 63 mandate establishing special design and development standards for building within the foothills and ensuring that development is not intrusive and is in keeping with the natural character of the site. Any development and/or improvements within the undeveloped grasslands associated with the foothill areas has the potential to permanently alter the visual character. The Gity of Chico General Plan EIR identified the conversion of open space within the entire Planning Area as a significant effect. The City found that the benefits of implementing the General Plan to provide for the population growth outweighed the change in visual character and a statement of ovrriding considerations was adopted by the City Council {Resolution 81-94-95, adopted 11/16/94). A 2 8~ 3 There are no designated state scenic highways within the project area and no lands are preserved under a scenic easement or contract. For a discussion of potential historic resources, see Section D, Cultural Resources. A 5 Some street improvement in the Planning Area may include public lighting to provide a safer and more uniform street design. The Gity has development standards which require all lighting to be shielded and directed downward away from adjacent properties and public right-of-way {Chico Municipal Code Section 19.60.050). The project does not proposed any specific projects which could impact scenic resources or result in a negative aesthetic impact to scenic resources or creative significant light or glare; therefore, aesthetic impacts have been found to be {ess than significant. MITIGATION: None required. N-10 City of Chico Initial Study (GAMPR) Page 7 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than B. Air Quality: Will the project or its related Significant Mitigation Significant No activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans (e.g. Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin 1994 Air Quality X Attainment Plan, Chico Urban Area GO Attainment Plan, and Butte County Air Quality Management District Indirect Source Review Guidelines)? 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase X of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X - concentrations? 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? DISCUSSION: B.1-5. The Project Area is located in the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The pollutants of most concern are ozone and particulate matter (PM,o ). The Chico Urban Area is classified as moderate non- attainment for ozone, and all of Butte County is classified as moderate non-attainment far particulate matter. Air Quality non-attainment is a regional cumulative impact. The CAMPR Public Infrastructure Program contains references for improvements to streets, bicycle, pedestrian, transit and alternative transportation facilities. Improvements are anticipated to have a beneficial effect on air quality by reducing traffic congestion and related vehicular emissions. Some infrastructure projects currently budgeted, have environmental clearance such as the "Widening of Manzanita Avenue, Chico Canyon Road and Bruce Road Between East Avenue and State Highway 32 Environmental Impact Report" certified on June 18, 2002. Chico General Plan goals OS-G-1 mandates that the City meet all state and federal air quality standards (OS-G-1}; reduce the generation of air pollutants by planning for mixed land uses and alternative modes of transportation (OS-G-2): and cooperate with the Butte County Air Quality Management District (OS-G-3}. Construction of future improvements within the merged RDA may cause short-term nuisance dust, or particulate matter. The City's General Plan contains measures to reduce nuisance dust based upon criteria developed by the BGAQMD. Consistent with General Plan these policies the following mitigations are recommended for future improvements that have the potential to generate nuisance dust and particulate matter. MITIGATION MEASURE B.1 tAir Quality): To minimize fugitive dust during construction activities and ensure enforcement of General Plan policies pertaining to air quality, the following mitigation measures shall be included in all future construction plans and documents for the redevelopment projects: a. All grading operations shall be suspended when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 20 miles per hour as directed by the AQMD. N- I 1 ~,ity of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 8 b. Provide temporary traffic control during all phases of construction to improve traffic flow (e.g. flag persons} as determined appropriate by the Department of Public Works c. Water active construction sites at least twice daily as directed by the Department of Public Works. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure. d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials should be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e. minimum vertical distance between tap of the load and the trailer in accordance with the requirements of CVC Section 23114. This provision is enforced by local law enforcement agencies. e. Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweeper with reclaimed water). f. Cover inactive storage piles. g. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the BCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with BCAC2MD Rule 201 & 207 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions) MITIGATION MONITORING B.1 (Air Quality): The Public Works Senior Development Engineer shall confirm that the above dust suppression measures are included on all subdivision improvement plans and grading plans. Construction inspectors from the Department of Public Works will conduct periodic site inspections to verify compliance with fugitive dust control measures. MITIGATION MEASURE B.2 {Air Quality): All wood burning devices installed in any residence shall be EPA Phase II certified. MITIGATION MONITORING B.2 (Air Quality: Prior to issuing any building permits, staff members from the Community Development Department-Building Division will review all building plans to ensure that any proposed wood burning device is EPA phase II certified. With the incorporation of Mitigation B.1 and B.2 above, air quality impacts from construction activities will be reduced to a less than significant level. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than C. Biological Resources: VNill the project ar its Significant Mitigation Significant No related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species as listed and mapped in the MEA or in other local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in the MEA or in other local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. N-l 2 City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 9 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any X native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5. Result in the fragmentation of an existing wildlife X habitat, such as blue oak woodland or riparian, and an increase in the amount of edge with adjacent habitats. 6. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances, X protecting biological resources? DISCUSSION: C.1-6 The Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and General Plan Final EIR prepared for the 1994 Ghico General Plan revision, identified areas that contain biological resources within the following habitat types: annual grassland, oak woodlandslsavannah, emergent wetland, and seasonal wetlandlvemal pool. It is possible that some infrastructure projects such as bridge construction or reconstruction, undercrossings may impact existing waterways, wildlife habitats and/or migratory routes. However, specific improvement projects will be subject to adapted City, State and Federal Permit requirements and mitigation requirements for biological resources. Individual projects will require environmental review and mitigations will be identified to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Some RDA projects such as the wetlands remediation land purchase will have a positive effect and mitigate potential wetland loss. State and federal regulatory agencies require specific protocols for development projects which may impact wetlands or be considered a "take" of protected species. Additionally, the General Plan has identified areas which contain environmental resources, and the City has designated these properties either as a Resource Management Area (RMA) or a Resource Conservation Area {RCA}. The General Plan also sets forth many goals and policies which specifically seek to preserve biological resources or reduce impact to less than significant. Goal OS-G-S directs the City to protect habitats that are sensitive, rare, declining, unique or represent valuable biological resources in the Planning Area. These include RCAs and RMAs: OS-G-6 further directs the City to preserve and protect populations and habitats within the Planning Area that are state or federally-listed as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered, candidate species for listing and other species on officially adopted federal/or state listings, and all California Species of Concern. OS-G-7 and OS-G-8 call for minimizing impacts to sensitive natural habitats and preserving areas that are wildlife corridors. A no net lass of overall wetland acreage is an adapted City goal (or if unavoidable at the project level, mitigation is required that meets the no net loss goal) put forth in OS-G-9. Given the adopted environmental protection goals, policies and implementation measure of the Gity of Chico within the Planning Area, coupled with state and federal regulations, impact to biological resources is consider less than significant. MITIGATION: None required N-13 City of Chico Initial Study {CAMPR) Page 10 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than D. Cultural Resources: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No related activities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 15064.5? 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to PRC Section 15064.5? 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: D.1 It is unknown if any historical resources would be impacted by a future RDA project. However, seismic retrofitting and housing rehabilitation may be accomplished through RDA funding. The City maintains a local Historic Resources Inventory which is reviewed by City Planning staff to ensure historical properties are identified and protected. General Plan implementation measure PP-I-61 directs the City to identify funding sources and develop financial incentives for the structural rehabilitation and reuse of key buildings of historic or architectural significance. Additionally, the City implemented OS-1-52 by adopting a Landmark Overlay District for the review of historic structure prior to remodel or demolition. Finally, through the CEQA process, specific environmental assessment would be necessary for projects that may impact historic resources. D. 2-4 It is possible that during ground-disturbance activities associated with physical improvements to infrastructure or construction of housing, cultural resources may be impacted. General Plan implementation policy OS-I-52 directs the City to require that project applicants with potential archaeological resources on or near their sites, hire a consulting archaeologist. Due to the proliferation of cultural resources within the Chico Urban Area, Mitigation Measure D.1 below is required as a protective measure against potential disturbances of unidentified cultural resources. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure D.1 below, potential impacts relating to the discovery of any cultural resources during future construction activities.will be reduced to a less than significant level. MITIGATION D.1. iCultural Resources): A note shall be placed on ali grading and construction plans which informs the construction contractor that if any bones, pottery fragments or other potential cultural resources are encountered during construction, all work shall cease within the area of the find pending an examination of the site and materials by a professional archaeologist. This person will assess the significance of the find and prepare appropriate mitigation measures far review by the Planning Director. All mitigation measures determined by the Planning Director to be appropriate for this project shall be implemented pursuant to the terms of the archaeologist's report. MITIGATION MONITORING D.1. (Cultural Resources): Public Works Department staff will verify that the above wording is included in project grading plans. Should cultural resources be encountered, the supervising inspector shall be responsible for reporting any such findings to the Planning Division, and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to conduct meetings with on-site employees & monitor the referenced mitigation measures. With the incorporation of Mitigation D. 1. Above, cultural resource impacts from construction activities will be reduced to a less than significant level. N-14 City of Chico initial Study (CAMPR) Page 11 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than E. GeologylSoils: Will the project or its related Significant Mitigation Significant No activities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Exposed people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated X on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b. Strong seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? d. Landslides? X 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsail? 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, X or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table X 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Cade {1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the X use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, or is otherwise not consistent with the Chico Nitrate Action Plan or policies for sewer service control? DISCUSSION: E_1 The Planning Area is located in one of the least active seismic regions in California and contains no active faults. However, the potentially active monocline fault threads through the eastern portion of the Planning Area, although there is na evidence it has moved in the last million years. Currently, there are no designated Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones within the Planning Area, nor are there any known or inferred active faults. Thus, the potential for ground rupture within Chico is considered very low. Incorporating Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards into the design and construction of future structures will adequately mitigate potential impacts asspciated with ground-shaking during an earthquake. There is a high potential for liquefaction in the Planning Area along the Sacramento River {not within the Project Area) and a moderate potential from the area east of the river to State Highway Route 99. There is a very low risk of landslides in the Planning Area. Chico General Plan policy S-G-2 and implementation measure S-I-5 reinforce the City priority of protecting lives and property by requiring all new buildings to meet safety standards. E.2-4 The MEA prepared for the General Plan update, classified the soils in the Project Area ranging from Group 1 {deep, nearly level, moderately well to poorly drained) through Group 7 (sandy, gravelly and cobbty). The Chico General Plan EIR noted that some of the soil types within the Planning Area were expansive with high shrink/swell potential; however, General Plan implementation policies S-I-4, 5 and 6 found in the Safety and Safety Services Element, reflect the City's commitment to preventing hazards relative to expansive soils and building construction. The City of Chico's grading ordinance requires site specific, detailed measures to N-15 :.ity of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 12 be incorporated into construction contracts and specifications to control erosion and sedimentation, as well as to minimize impacts on existing land uses. E_5 Approximately 12,000 dwelling units in the Planning Area are located within areas identified in the Nitrate Compliance Plan and are currently served by septic systems. The City has installed two major sewer truck lines within the nitrate areas, and is planning to complete additional lines in the future. The intention is to sewer approximately 7,500 of the 12,000 dwelling units with 6000 of these units within the CAMPR Project Area. This extension of sewer is consistent with the Chico Nitrate Action Plan and the Cit}~s adopted Sewer Master Plan. General Plan policies OS-1-36 and OS-1-37 direct the City to continue working with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Butte County Environmental Heallh Department to implement the Nitrate Action Plan and continue to connect housing to the sanitary sewer system when septic systems have failed. The CAMPR also include capacity improvements for the Water Pollution Control Plant as a logical necessity to providing sewer services in the Project Area. A separate environmental review assessment is currently underway for this project. Based on the above, potential impacts associated with ground rupture, ground shaking and other geologic hazards is considered to be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. F. Hazardsl Hazardous Materials: Will the project or its related activities: 1. Greate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2. Greate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4. Be located an a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No )mpact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X 5. For a project located within the airport land use X plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing ar working in the project area? 7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with X an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of X loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? N-16 City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR} Page 13 DISCUSSION: F.1-4 The Project Area contains the 157-acre Humboldt Burn Dump site that has been identified as a blighted area in the CAMPR. The remediation and eventual re-use of this area is currently under City consideration and is the subject of a Remedial Action Plan and ab Environmental Impact Report is currently underway. Through federal, state and local environmental regulation and mitigation, all potentially hazardous conditions will be addressed. The Chico MEA identified 69 hazardous waste sites (surface and subsurface) within the Planning Area. These sites are being evaluated and are being scheduled for remediation or in the process of remediation as required by state law. General Plan implementation measure OS-I-39 requires the City to maintain an inventory of groundwater and soil contamination within the Planning Area including storage tanks, landfills, septic tanks, agricultural and industrial uses and to prepare annual reports of ground water quality efforts to eliminate groundwater and sail contamination. F.5-6 The Project Area includes the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA} RDA which is a public airport. Safety regulations are in place for any development in or near the CMA through the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. F_7 Both City of Chico and the County of Butte have Emergency Management Plans. CAMPR projects will improve emergency response times making evacuation plans more effective and efficient by improving deteriorated infrastructure (bridges, streets etc.} and providing new facilities as the community grows. Policy S-I-25 mandates the City to design critical public facilities that will remain operative during emergencies. F_8 The Project Area is predominantly within developed urban areas. A portion of the Southeast Chico Amended RDA is adjacent to wildland (California Department of Forestry fire safety jurisdiction}. However, this area has been developed with a network of improved, urban streets. Exposure to wildland fire is not considered significant. Based on the above, potential impacts associated with: exposure to hazardous materials, emissions and/or waste; safety hazards related to proximity of people near airports; interference with adopted emergency plans; and exposure of people or structures to wildland fires is considered to be Tess than significant. Mitigation: None required. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than G. Hydrology/Water Quality: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table X level (e.g. the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which X would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 4. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a mannerwhich would result inflooding on- X or off-site? N- l 7 City of Chica Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 14 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned X stormwater drainage systems ar provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 7. Place real property within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard X Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including X flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10 Inundation by seiche. tsunami. or mudflow? X DISCUSSION: G_1, 3, 4, 5 ~ 6 Infrastructure projects would incrementally increase paved surfaces, and therefore, have the potential to result in additional run-off and potential water quality degradation. However, the City adapted the Storm Drainage Master Plan and associated EIR in 2000. This document sets forth criteria far surface water quantity and quality control for atl development projects based upon adopted standards and accepted Best Management Practices. The standard mitigation measure for all new development ensures that not only shall there be no net increase in the volume and rate of peak storm water flaw, but that the first %2 inch of rainfall for each storm event be intercepted and treated {infiltration trenches, grass filter strips etc.) to ensure water quality is protected. As such, potential water quality impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. There is a potential for short-term impacts on water quality due to erosion and sedimentation from future construction and grading activities in the Project Area. Implementation of standard construction practices set forth in the grading ordinance will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. G_2 There are no proposed projects that affect groundwater supplies or would interfere with groundwater recharge or impact existing or future wells within the Project Area. G. 7-10 Some properties within the Project Area may be within the 100-year flood hazard area; however compliance with the standards of the 2000 Gity of Chico Storm Drainage Master Plan, the Federal Emergency Management Act {FEMA) and the Uniform Building Code {UCB) will prevent exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards. No dam or levee projects are proposed. The Project Area is not located in an area associated with inundation by seiche, tsumami or mudflow. Potential impacts to water quality, groundwater recharge, and stormwater or hazards to persons or structures from flooding are considered to be less than significant. MITIGATION: None required. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than H. Land Use and Planning: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No related activities be inconsistent with: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. General Plan or Specific Plan policies, or zoning X regulations? 2. Physically divide an established community? X 3. Conflict with any applicable Resource Management X or Resource Conservation Plan? N-18 City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 15 4. Result in substantial conflict with the established X character, aesthetics or functioning of the surrounding community? 5. Be a part of a larger project involving a series of X cumulative actions? 6. Result in displacement of people or business X activity? 7. Conversion of viable prime agricultural land and/or land under agricultural contract to non-agricultural use, or substantial conflicts with existing agricultural X operations? (Viable agricultural land is defined as land on Class 1 or Class II agricultural sails of 5 acres or greater, adjacent on no more than one side to existing urban development.} DISCUSSION: H_1-3 The CAMPR is consistent with the Chico General Plan in that many of the plan's goals and policies can be implemented through CMPR budget allocations and project construction. Some brief examples are: the Commercial Rehabilitation (Facade Improvement) program would implement many downtown goals and policies such as: LU-G-13 "Maintain and enhance Downtown's vitality and economic well-being, and its presence as the City's symbolic center." Financing public art is consistent with PP-I-53 °Explore ways of providing financial assistance, whenever feasible, to groups or individuals who provide public arts programming and development to the community." No projects were identified that would be inconsistent with General Plan goals ar policies or with zoning regulations. The project will not physically divide a community. On the contrary, the City of Ghico and the Gounty of Butte have agreed upon a RDA merger including public infrastructure projects that will unify the farm, function and design of improvements in both jurisdictions. The City has identified, designated and zoned properties with special environmental resources as Resource Conservation Areas (RCA) or Resource Management Areas (RMA). The City requires management plans to implement protection of the resources in both a RCA and RMA in order to prevent adverse impact to important biological resources. (See Section C: Biological Resources) H_4 Some of the Project Area is in transition from a rural character to a more urban appearance and function. However, all of the Project Area is within the Chico Urban Area and planned for urban development; therefore, potential impacts to the character, functioning or aesthetics of the area as a result of new improvement and/or development are less than significant. H_5 The project combines existing redevelopment plans into a comprehensive document for fiscal purposes, and is not proposed as a precursor to a larger project with a series of cumulative actions in the future. H_6 The project will not result in displacement of people or businesses; however, there maybe temporary displacement if housing rehabilitation projects or seismic retrofitting construction for unreinforced masonry buildings are undertaken in the Project Area. This temporary impact is considered less than significant. H_7 The project does not contain programs that affect prime agricultural lands located beyond the Project Area boundaries. Urban development within the Project Area boundaries was anticipated and evaluated as part of the adapted City of Chico General Plan and certified EIR. Agricultural lands under the Williamson Act are in the western region of the Planning Area. Both the City of Chico and the County of Butte have adapted policies that require agricultural buffers on properties adjacent to lands within agricultural zoning districts. Implementation measure OS-I-45 of the Chico General Plan directs the City to provide buffers generally of 100 feet wide or narrower buffers maybe approved depending on natural features and relative intensity of proposed urban uses and the adjacent agricultural use. Additionally, the County of Butte has adopted a 300- foot buffer policy in the Butte County General Plan for protection of agricultural lands. Potential project impacts related to land use consistency and compatibility, conflicts within a RCA or RMA, displacement of people or businesses, and conversion of prime agricultural lands are found to be less than significant. N-19 Gity of Ghico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 16 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than I. Noise: Will the project or its related activities Significant .Mitigation Significant No result in: tmpact Incorporated Impact tmpact 1. Exposure of residents in new hotels, motels, X apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single- family dwellings) to interior noise levels (CNEL) higher than 45 dBA in any habitable room with windows closed? 2. Exposure of sensitive receptors (residential, parks, X hospitals, schools) to exterior noise levels of 60 dBA L or higher? 3. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration ar groundborne noise levels? 4. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 5. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 6. For a project located within the airport land use X plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 7. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X would the project expose people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: 1.1-7 According to the Chico General Plan, the most significant noise sources in the Planning Area include State Highway Routes 32 and 99 (and other heavily traveled roadways), the railroad, Chico Municipal Airport, some industrial and commercial facilities and periodically, a recreational speedway. No °noise-generating" projects are contemplated in the redevelopment plans; however, short term noise impacts from construction equipment for infrastructure improvement and/or new housing projects can be anticipated. Chico of Ghico Municipal Code (CMC 9.38) sets forth time restrictions and noise level limits on short term noise sources such as construction activities. City noise policies and standards will mitigate noise created by transportation (on new housing) by requiring compliance with acceptable, maximum noise levels (General Plan Implementation Policy N-I-1 ). Due to noise limitations and maximum acceptable noise levels set forth in the Chico General Plan and implementing ordinance, noise impacts from the project are considered less than significant. Less Than Significant Less Than Potentially with Significant J. Open SpacelRecreation: Wilt the project or its Significant Mitigation Impact No related activities: Impact Incorporated impact 1. Affect lands preserved under an open space X contract or easement? N-20 City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 17 2. Affect an existing or potential community recreation X area? 3. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and X regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 4. Does the project include recreational facilities or X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: J.1 ~ 2 The CAMPR contains an action item that would provide improvement to Teichert Pond (designated and zoned Open Space, OS-1 Primary Open Space). Currently, the improvement plans for Teichert Pond are in the planning stage with separate environmental review underway. No other projects are planned in the Project Area that affect lands under open space designations or easements. The City has zoned areas for preservation as OS-1 Primary Open Space for permanent protection of open space and resources. J.3 ~ 4 The CAMPR contains action items that would improve the existing and build new recreational facilities including, but not limited to: upgrading and improving community and neighborhood parks; constructing new aquatic facilities; acquiring or improving land for habitat restoration; and rehabilitating existing parks such as City Plaza. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared and adopted for the City Plaza restoration project in December 2003. Other projects would also require environmental review and mitigation to ensure that no adverse impacts to would occur to the project site or surrounding properties. Because adoption and implementation of the proposed project (financing of the improvements} will have a positive impact on existing and future recreational facilities, and specific site and project design information will be analyzed through the environmental review process, impacts on Open SpacelRecreation is less than significant. Less Than K. Public Services: Will the project ar its related Significant activities have an effect upon or result in a need Potentially with Less Than for altered governmental services in any of the Significant Mitigation Significant Na following areas: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Fire protection? X 2. Police protection? )C 3. Schools? ~ X 4. Parks and recreation facilities? (See Section J X Open Space/Recreation) 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads, X canals, etc.? 6. Other government services? X DISCUSSION: K.1-6 CAMPR action items include construction of new, and renovation existing fire stations and police facilities. Installation of fire hydrants, solar and telecommunications facilities are also action items. Additionally, improvement to the Chico Municipal Airport {CMA} are proposed for remediating wooden hangers, constructing new hangers, reconstructing the airport terminal entryway and other infrastructure and capital improvements. The Chico General Plan guiding policy for the CMA states that the City should maintain and improve the airport for commercial and general aviation and for special aviation needs, including facilities for propeller, turbo, motorcraft and jet aircraft. An Environmental Impact Report is being prepared for the City of Chico Airport Master Plan. The Chico General Plan contains the following goals and policies related to public safety: S-G-3 Continue to provide high quality, effective and efficient fire protection N-z I City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR} Page 18 services for Chico area residents; S-I-7 Maintain an average response time of four minutes or less for all proposed urban development; S-I-14 Provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times; S-I-24 Design critical public facilities to remain during emergencies. Another Project Area action item includes the construction of a new parking structure in Downtown Chico. This project would be consistent with General Plan goal T-G-22 Expand public parking programs far the Downtown area to alleviate existing and future shortages. A project-level EIR will be prepared for the new parking structure. The CAMPR contains several action items related to improvement in streets including the interchanges with SHR 99. These improvements reflects needed capacity and safety measures for the growing population and will have additional environmental review. Improvements to public facilities are anticipated and planned for in the Chico General Plan as the community continues to grow. Projects which may pose potential adverse environmental impacts will be analyzed prior to implementation; therefore, impact to public services is considered less than significant. Less Than Significant L. Population and Housing: would the project or its Potentially with Less Than related activities: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (far example, by proposing new homes and businesses} or indirectly (for example, X through extension of roads or other infrastructure}? 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? 4. Conflict with General Plan population growth rates X for its planning areas in conjunction with other recently approved development? DISCUSSION: L.1- 4 The CAMPR (and existing RDAs} were formed to finance the needed housing and infrastructure anticipated by the Chico General Plan. The General Plan projected that the Planning Area, at buildout, would accommodate approximately a population of 134,000. The 2000 Census indicated a population of 84,985 in the Chico Sphere of Influence (which includes all of the Project Area}. The action items of the CAMPR include funding assistance for the construction of ownership housing classified as "affordable," assistance in the construction of new housing, including rental housing, senior, special needs and transitional housing and rehabilitation of unsound hauling. These programs are consistent with many General Plan Housing Element goals and policies such as: H-G-5 Provide housing affordable to all economic segments of the community, H-G-6 Promote efficient use of land, public services and facilities which result in reduced development costs and affordable housing; H-G-9 Encourage development incentives that result in production of below-market rate housing; H-G-20 Ensure that an adequate supply of housing is available as jobs increase; H-G-25 Assist in the provision for housing for residents with special needs; H-G-33 Provide programs for identifying and developing adequate sites far emergency shelters and transitional housing; H-G-39 Continue to pursue low- interest loan programs targeted to rehabilitation of older residential structures; H-I-2ti Continue the City's program for rehabilitating substandard owner-occupied residential units occupied by law income households qualifying under Federal guidelines; Consider the feasibility of establishing a program for rehabilitation of rental housing units which will, through agreement with the City, remain affordable to low income households. Program design will begin in 2004 with implementation scheduled to begin in 2005; and H-G-44 Promote homeownership opportunities for all economic sectors of the population. Individual housing projects funded with CAMPR allocations will be analyzed on aproject-by-project basis through an initial study or EIR. Proposed action items, contemplated by the CAMPR, implement many of the goals and programs contained in the Chico General Plan Housing Element (and analyzed in the General Plan EIR} to provide housing for N-22 City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR} Page 19 the entire community and accommodate the expected population growth therefore; the proposed project will have no adverse impact on population and housing. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than M. Transportation/Circulation Factors: Wiil the Significant Mitigation Significant No project or its related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Traffic volumes which exceed established Level of Service (LOS) standards on roadway segments ar at intersections, or which do not meet applicable safety standards? Based on General Plan policies, X significant impacts would generally result if traffic exceeded LOS C on residential streets, LOS D on arterial and collector streetslintersections, and (under specific circumstances) LOS E in built-out areas served by transit. 2. The absence of bikeway facilities in the general X locations identified in the General Plan, consistent with guidelines in the Chico Urban Area Bicycle Plan, ar failure to meet applicable design requirements and safety standards? 3. Travel characteristics which are not consistent with standards established in the Butte County Congestion Management Plan (CMP), or other X General Plan policies related to Transportation Systems Management (TSM)? 4. Substantial impact on existing ar proposed public X transit systems including rail and air traffic? 5. Effects on existing parking facilities ar demand for X new parking not provided for by the project? 6. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles, X pedestrian or other traffic? 7. A change in air traffic patterns, including either an X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? DISCUSSION: M.1,2, 3 & 6. Public improvements are fisted in the CAMPR including, but not limited to: traffic signalization, street widening, new street design and construction, street recanstructian/reconfiguration such as East 8~' Street, intersection improvements, bikeway and pedestrian improvements. Proposed improvements are necessary to meet the General Plan policies to meet specified Level of Services. Improvements are included in the annual Capital Improvement Plan (GIP) which is reviewed annually for general plan consistency, budget allocation and environmental review. General Plan goals and policies addressing the need for improvements include: T-I-28 design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based on LOS standards; T-I-30 Improve intersections as needed to maintain LOS standards and safety on major arterials; T-I-3 Make bikeway improvements a funding priority, and T-l-10 Retrofit existing cul-de-sacs, where feasible, to provide enhanced bike and pedestrian linkages between neighborhoods. The Gity developed a comprehensive plan for the Chico Area Transit Service (CATS} and continues to make improvements to the Transportation System Management programs. M. 4 & 7 The project does not create, ar proposes to create, any substantial impact on the existing transit system, rail service or the current air traffic patterns and safety risk. M. 5 The CAMPR includes an action item to provide a new parking structure for Downtown Chico (see Section K - Public Services of this initial study). N-23 City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR) Page 20 Potential impacts to Level of Services on roadways and intersections, motorist, bicycle and pedestrian safety, rail and air traffic is less than signficant. Less Than N. Utilities: Will the project or its related activities Significant have an effect upon or result in a need for new Potentially with Less Than systems or substantial alterations to the Significant Mitigation Significant No following utilities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. Water for domestic use and fire protection? X 2. Natural gas, electricity, telephone, or other X communications? 3. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X _ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 4. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 5. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 6. Have sufficientwater supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 7. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 8. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 9. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSIQN: N.1-9 As noted above in several sectors, GAMPR action items include improving existing infrastructure and constructing new infrastructure as projected population growth warrants extension of services and facilities. The 1994 General Plan and certified EIR anticipated the provision of additional facilities based on build-out during the timeline of the Plan which includes a comprehensive review every five years. The last review was in 1999. Anew five-year review will be undertaken this year {2Qt)4). Many of the infrastructure projects are predicated on continued growth and/or addressing existing problems such as the expansion of the sanitary sewer lines and enlargement of the Water Pollution Control Plant which is currently in the design phase and subject to the preparation of an EIR. Water supply (through the California Water Company) has been determined to be adequate for the projected growth of the Planning Area. The Cit}~'s and Butte County's Integrated Waste Management Plans comply with state-mandated waste reduction goals. Proposed CAMPR projects will not impact the landfill capacity. Individual projects funded by CAMPR will be analyzed on a project-by-project basis through an initial study or EIR as specific design information and budget allocations are available. N-24 City of Chico Initial Study (CAMPR} Page 21 3. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Pursuant to Section 15382 of the State EIR Guidelines, a project shall be found to have a significant effect on the environment if any of the following are true: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated impact Impact 1. The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, X threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. (cumulatively considerable means X that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current and probable future projects. 3. The environmental effects of a project will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. DISCUSSION: Based on the on the preceding environmental analysis, with the incorporation of measures identified within this initial study into the project, potential impacts related to air quality and cultural resources will ensure that project will nat result in direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings or the environment, nor create cumulative impacts. N-25 City of Chico Initial Study {CAMPR) Page 22 4. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case a discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where it is available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. REFERENCES: • City of Chico. 1994 (as amended February 1999). City of Chico General Plan. • City of Chico. 1994. City of Chico General Plan Master Environmental Assessment. November. • City of Chico. 1994. Final Environmental Jmpact Report for Chico General Plan. Chico, CA. • City of Chico. 1985. Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. • City of Chico. 1992. Final ElR for Adoption of the Ghico Urban Area Draft Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Master Plans, Northwest annexation, and General Plan Amendments North of Lindo Channel. • City of Chico. 2000. Draft Environmental Impact Report far the City of Chico Storrn Drainage Master Plan. • City of Chico. 1992. Final EIR for Adoption of the Chico Urban Area Draft Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Master Plans, Northwest annexation, and General Plan Amendments North of Linda Channel. • California Department of Fish and Game, Califomia Natural Diversity Data Base Map. • Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. 2000. Butte County Airport Land Use Gompatibility Plan. • City of Chico. 1992. Final EIR forAdopfion of the Ghico Urban Area Drag Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Master Plans, Northwest annexation, and General Plan Amendments North of Lmdo Channel. • Butte County Air Quality Management District. 1997. Indirect source review guidelines. Chico, CA. • City of Chico. 1992. Final EIR forAdoption of the Chico Urban Area Draft Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Master Plans, Northwest annexation, and General Plan Amendments North of Lindo Channel. • California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November 1. Nate: The above referenced information is available for public review at the City of Chico Planning Division, 411 Main Street, Chico, California. N-26 City of Chico ZoningiPre-Zoning Districts Within the Project Areas xxw~-a R~~ r rs-a s~b,.tia, nm. .. a ~,~. RI-IStawD~gx~aroa Is~oao ~ynt~t. _' x1-IOLawD~tyx~ae,oallgooosyna~ .. RI Law Damry Resdaroal ~ RZ McduoD®tyRmdrnti~ ~ R3 MnAm~-High Dnaty Rtsdmtial ~ R4 High Doiay Resdi~cal ~ RD Downtown Resdentid ® OROff Amd tid OCIXfi Com~w.nial Cld Nei~bafiaod Cm~nociai ~ C1r Cona~motyCuomoc~l Y~ CL Down t~ MI-LightMzndxnei~g ® MP Ma.,rxaci~pJ63eaial P k ~ MG Gaxral Ma~dseuvg AAipat .:': ACAipon Cantxioal ~ AP Ai~t A31k Fs1tia ^c~ AM Aaput Manfacar6g ~'„~ PMV Ned Maned tlx i®! PQPaGlid~u~1' b6cr~,l;t;os . 061 PrD°aY~ Spas OS25awdayOpv~S~r Oumdc 5.61 town Comnec~al ~ RtyiComny Ckcmlme ® CSSwioes C.mm ~ m.-.a. Qry Sphve dlr~Qocce Bao~ny ~? C 1 I~ka Ceam,eoal . ay t>t~t Lxwo~,v Boo„amy ~ c.~ ~~ ca~~a~1 ~ / / I / ) 1 N [---~ Mile e CRT~QiCO _ 1S~' b4 Chive Amended and Merged Redevelopment Project E~~ 1 B 1T._! N-27 t '\ r _J ti ~~ ~ ~ Butte County Zoning Districts - ~~- Within the Project Areas a.to ay:„t~.c {IO VCam) Nr/oA w.-~cadaacmmcm-o4+m'~~R1Q'Y -[,_-~a+eaop~n.~pln gym:,) (~~'os opa,~ FASO Mid~RO asom) (~Jr~R~udpamr~ amaQee~)SO.~®) Or~pcr+r~P®t„ca~. cy~,~,ree,:,a.y aRapabudRmJmEd POD Pbnoi W6tna.<Jgmmt as~apivn.daa..n~noa~ ~ r®+®trmocavoenswvmm-~+r - ~ G1PetiicdCartmcid ':~: Rl lbmweDeny Rmdvdil ~- G)J01PAaYe1 ••. '-Og~v/IduBmy h- AVCM MvBO~nD IYROdmtid-~avJM"tbmY ~ :~ Ct OmvdC®nod P.3law^D®yAmdmGd ''~; ~~- dualo~dc~e-c3yv,dtm,mery R-)>d<s~.o~dyR_...... ~:.- c-cc~.oyc~~.t R~s~xnuayr~ens;I ~r -_ HLBi~Yyc ii R,7 RmdaedC~sfmmd OfEcc Lll~kdivdaeid R7-12fommL dyRmdv~Gd-LdabScH~ . Kl[i~alvAetai .'-: S}t 93FaboftmdmYd -.-TiSHewyleAm'1d -: 9e-1 SVbe4mRudnbi (l vecdn) ~ `~ _ -.:- Tffi MddcHvoe T~k ~: 9c35ubvte Aesdvbi (J~min) ~' ~ ~ ~ 4 Cy~e Ci~.amlc ~~~ Y ~\ - ~ ay L~fia~ De~e]°PnoG Boml~ey Y ~,~ ~- - P A E« ~~;_ ';i`" ~ Y i 1. - _ ^Y_`:. ~ _ z _ _ r^ r x~~ Y x {~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I-- +~ ~t _= ~ J~ ~~ _ ~ - .~ ,/'~ ~; _ ~ ~'~~ ~~. -sue-:- ~~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ v t.. ~ ~ -. L'.: ~- - Y ;~; rh ~~y ~' v r ?,+- ~ ~~~ xd ~ ..r..~ ~ ~- - - '~6~ .-. cr"`tij~ ~ ~I N ' ~~ Mile E any onoco _ ~~TVS' _~_ ylr~h i I ~ l t Chico Amended and Merged Redevelopment Project E~C~IBIT. ~ ,.. N-28