HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-201
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUTTE COUNTY
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE PROPOSED
OROVILLE AREA URBAN GREENING PLAN
And Request For
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
NO FEE DETERMINATION
OCTOBER 2015
I
REQUEST FOR NO EFFECT DETERMINATION
California Department of Fish & Wildlife
No Effect Determination Request Form
Date Submitted:
10-29-2015
Applicant Name:
Butte County
Project Title:
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency:
Butte County
CEQA Document Type:
Negative Declaration
State Clearinghouse Number and/or local agency project/case no.:
Urban Greening Plan
Project Location:
Oroville Urban Area See Figure 1
Project-Description:
The UGP is a program-level policy document which identifies a wide array of
The
potential voluntary greening opportunities and sites; UGP
Oroville community to improve public health and create a more vibrant and enjoyable outdoor environment.
The Plan evaluates multimodal transportation infrastructure, recreational space, and the urban forest;
prioritizes specific opportunities for greening; and includes six sites selected for conceptual site plans and
design concepts to illustrate how greening might be accomplished. Urban greening is a low-cost, multi-
benefit approach to solving certain problems associated with development and the urban environment, by
incorporating naturalistic features that mimic or restore aspects of natural systems. It provides increased
functionality and efficiency to services and infrastructure while providing civic, environmental, public health,
psychological, economic, social, and aesthetic value.
Justification of No Effect Determination
: The project will not have a physical effect on the environment.
No change in the footprint or density of development is proposed as compared to existing standards. The
Urban Greening Plan will be implemented on a voluntary basis, and future projects implementing the UGP
will be subject to subsequent, site-specific environmental review.
II
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Contents
ii
1SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1Project Proposal ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2Findings ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3Determination ........................................................................................................................... 3
2INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1Urban Greening Plan Information ............................................................................................. 4
2.2Purpose of this Document ........................................................................................................ 5
3PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 6
3.1Background .............................................................................................................................. 6
3.2Urban Greening Plan Summary ................................................................................................ 8
4.1Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 13
4.2Parks ..................................................................................................................................... 14
4.3Improvement Standards ......................................................................................................... 19
4.4Erosion Control ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.5Tree Canopy .......................................................................................................................... 26
5.1Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................. 28
5.2Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................... 28
6ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 30
6.1Aesthetics/Visual Resources .................................................................................................. 30
6.1.1Aesthetic/Visual Resources Setting .................................................................................... 30
6.1.2Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 32
6.2Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 34
6.2.1Agricultural Resources Setting ............................................................................................ 34
6.2.2Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 35
6.3Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 36
6.3.1Air Quality Setting ............................................................................................................... 36
6.3.2Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 39
6.4Biological Resources .............................................................................................................. 41
6.4.1Biological Resources Setting .............................................................................................. 42
6.4.2Impact and Mitigation Analysis............................................................................................ 43
iii
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.5Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 47
6.5.1Cultural Resources Setting ................................................................................................. 47
6.6Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 49
6.6.1Geologic and Soils Setting .................................................................................................. 50
6.6.2Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 52
6.7Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 54
6.7.1Greenhouse Gases Setting................................................................................................. 54
6.7.2Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 56
6.8Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................... 59
6.8.1Hazards and Hazardous Materials Setting .......................................................................... 60
6.8.2Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 61
6.9Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 63
6.9.1Hydrology and Water Quality Setting .................................................................................. 64
6.9.2 Impact Analysis. ............................................................................................................. 66
6.10Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 69
6.10.1Land Use Setting ............................................................................................................ 69
6.10.2Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 70
6.11Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................. 75
6.11.1Mineral Resources Setting .............................................................................................. 75
6.11.2Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 75
6.12.1Noise Setting .................................................................................................................. 76
6.12.2Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 78
6.13Population and Housing ......................................................................................................... 80
6.13.1Population and Housing Setting ...................................................................................... 80
6.13.2Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 81
6.14Public Services....................................................................................................................... 82
6.14.1Public Services Setting ................................................................................................... 82
6.14.2Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 82
6.15Recreation.............................................................................................................................. 84
6.15.1Recreation Setting .......................................................................................................... 84
6.15.2Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 85
6.16Transportation/Circulation....................................................................................................... 86
6.16.1Transportation Setting .................................................................................................... 86
iv
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.16.2Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 88
6.17Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................................. 90
6.17.1Utilities and Service Systems Setting .............................................................................. 90
6.17.2Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................. 94
6.18Mandatory Findings of Significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065) ................................... 96
6.18.1Mandatory Findings of Significance Discussion ............................................................... 96
7.ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL ................................................................................ 98
8.CONSULTED AGENCIES, DEPARTMENTS AND GROUPS ........................................................ 100
Figures
Figure 1. Oroville Urban Area
Figure 2: Current Feather River Recreation & Park District SOI, Jurisdictional Boundaries
Figure 3: Oroville Urban Area Parks, Recreational Facilities and Open Space
Figure 4: County Road Standard RS-2 (Typical for Southside Roadways)
Figure 5: County Standard S-1 for Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk
Figure 6: City Road Standards Applicable to South
Figure 7: C
Tables
Table 1 Acreage of Existing Land Uses I Oroville Urban Area
Table 2 Minimum Lighting Intensity
Table 3 Butte County Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status - August 201335
Table 4 Butte County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for Ozone 2010 201236
Table 5 Butte County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for PM2.5 2010 2012 6
Table 6 Butte County Air Quality Management District Thresholds of
Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants of Concern37
Table 7 County 2030 Population38
Table 8 2006 Community Inventory of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission52
Table 9 2006 Government Operat53
Table 10 Population Forecasts 2010 73
Table 11 Housing Forecasts 2010 74
Table 12
Table 13
v
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary of Project Phasing, R-O-W Needs, and Identified Issues
Appendix B: Dam Inundation for the Oroville Urban Area
Appendix C: Water Providers for the Oroville Urban Area
vi
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
1
SUMMARY
1.1 Project Proposal
Oroville community to improve public health and create a more vibrant and enjoyable outdoor environment.
The Plan evaluates multimodal transportation infrastructure, recreational space, and the urban forest;
prioritizes specific opportunities for greening; and includes six sites selected for conceptual site plans and
design concepts to illustrate how greening might be accomplished. Urban greening is a low-cost, multi-
benefit approach to solving certain problems associated with development and the urban environment, by
incorporating naturalistic features that mimic or restore aspects of natural systems. It provides increased
functionality and efficiency to services and infrastructure while providing civic, environmental, public health,
psychological, economic, social, and aesthetic value. However, because urban sites can be complex, with
a wide array of issues demanding solutions, it is important to note that urban greening is not intended to
address all potential issues on urban sites, such as the provision of all necessary utilities or the presence
of toxic contaminants.
The UGP itself is a program-level policy document which identifies a wide array of potential voluntary
greening opportunities and sites; confirms a smaller set of priority greening opportunities based on
community preferences; and presents sample design concepts which could be used to green some of the
opportunity sites. In order to implement the Plan, participating agencies will need to select individual
greening projects for development and construction and prepare more detailed engineering, construction,
and design plans. Consistent with CEQA, those more detailed project-level construction and design plans
will be necessary in order to evaluate the environmental impacts of individual greening projects ultimately
selected for implementation pursuant to the Plan.
The study area for the plan is the Oroville Urban Area, which includes both urbanized and undeveloped
land within incorporated City of Oroville, the Oroville sphere of influence and additional land in
unincorporated Butte County. The Oroville Urban Area encompasses 41 square miles
The Butte County Department of Development Services, City of Oroville Community Development
Department, and the Feather River Recreation & Park District (FRRPD) are joint sponsors of the proposed
project, on behalf of the Oroville area. As realized, the Plan would confer multiple benefits to the greater
Oroville area, including promotion of public health and safety, reduction of stormwater overflows,
enhancement of day-to-day quality of life for residents; and increased livability for all residents. Voluntary
streetscape improvements outlined in the Plan are anticipated to be implemented as part of the City of
ongoing and future site-specific streetscape improvement efforts, as well as
part of proposed private developments that include streetscape changes on a voluntary basis. The UGP
offers alternative street sections and concepts that meet and generally exceed current standards, and could
be used in lieu of traditional improvement standards throughout the urban area in general, and within the
Southside and Thermalito neighborhoods in particular to replace the more traditional requirements found
in City and County improvement standards.
In the UGP, major project concepts related to streetscape and stormwater improvements are grouped under
the following categories:
(i) bicycle and pedestrian systems;
(ii) urban forestry;
(iii) parks and open space;
(iv) stormwater management; and
(v) cleaning and greening streets and alleys.
bicycle and pedestrian systems
The corridors identified in the section as opportunities combine a
number of safety, beautification, and stormwater improvements to reach economic, health, safety, and
environmental goals along key Oroville streets. (See Appendix A to this study). Identified opportunities
also include off-street corridors providing recreational access and commuting opportunities on routes that
1
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
urban forestry
are dedicated to bicycles and pedestrian transportation. The section recommends a
citywide tree canopy coverage target of 21 percent, encourages native and low water-need trees, and
promotes the selection of the right tree for a particular site in order to maximize forest benefits and reduce
parks and open space
infrastructure conflicts. The section focuses on new and existing parks, including
renovating them, providing more shade, improving landscape features and safety elements, and
stormwater management
maintaining them better. The section addresses localized flooding issues
primarily in the Southside neighborhood, and the section identifies opportunities to
clean trash and debris, and plant landscaping for vacant lots and alleys.
Implementation of the above-noted streetscape and pedestrian improvements is dependent upon individual
site characteristics. The Plan itself is a program-level policy document outlining potential, voluntary greening
opportunities, sites, and design concepts, and is not intended to provide environmental review of site-
specific projects for construction. Projects will be subject to future environmental review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Urban Greening Plan Information
Project Name:
Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
Type of Project:
Urban Greening Plan funded via grant administered by California Natural Resources
Agency and the State of Calif
Applicant:
Butte County Department of Development Services, City of Oroville Community Development
Department, and the Feather River Recreation and Parks District (FRRPD) are joint sponsors of the
proposed project, on behalf of the greater Oroville area.
Review Process
: The Butte County Board of Supervisors, City of Oroville City Council and Feather River
Recreation & Park will each consider this Initial Study /Proposed Negative
Declaration prior to adoption of the Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan by their respective jurisdictions.
This programmatic Initial Study/ Negative Declaration will be available for public review and comment
between the dates of October 29 - November 30, 2015. The proposed Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
and this Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be considered for approval by the Butte County Board of
Supervisors, City of Oroville City Council, and Feather River Recreation Board of Directors
in at least one publically noticed hearing pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Comments regarding this
Initial Study/Negative Declaration may be sent to the Plan Representative indicated below.
After approval of the UGP, future facilities to implement the Plan will be subject to site-specific
environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to construction.
Plan Representative:
Claudia Stuart, AICP, Principal Planner (530) 538-7604; cstuart@buttecounty.net
Location of Project Documents:
This Initial Study/Negative Declaration, appendices and reference
documents are available for review at the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County
Center Drive, Oroville, Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (until 3 p.m.
on Wednesdays), and at the following web site by selecting the Urban Greening Plan link:
www.butteorogreen.net.
Plan Location:
The study area for the Urban Greening Plan is the Oroville Urban Area, which includes
both urbanized and undeveloped land within incorporated City of Oroville and unincorporated Butte County.
The Oroville Urban Area encompasses approximately 41 square miles, including the entire incorporated
Figure 1
area of Oroville, as well as unincorporated areas around the City. See Oroville Urban Area.
Project Size:
Because the Plan identifies potential, voluntary future greening opportunities, sites, and
design concepts, proposed projects and designs have not been selected to implement the UGP. However,
Appendix
based on community prioritization of greening opportunities identified in the UGP, summarized in
A
to this study, improvements will be located primarily within existing rights-of-way or on publically-owned
properties. It is anticipated that the Plan-proposed improvements would be included in future site-specific
projects; the Urban Greening Plan itself is a program-level policy document which identifies voluntary
greening opportunities but does not propose site-specific projects.
General Plan and Zoning Designations:
The City of Oroville Zoning Code and General Plan are available
at the Planning Division, 1735 Montgomery Street, Oroville, between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm.
The zoning code, general plan and other documents relevant to the proposed project may also be accessed
at the Planning and Development Services Department web site:
http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=456
, Zoning, and supporting documents are available at the Department of
4
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm, and
at the following web site:
http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Planning/GeneralPlan.aspx
2.2 Purpose of this Document
An initial study is prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063\[a\]).
ines Section 15367), and
a significant effect on the environment
The County was awarded a Strategic Growth Council grant through the Urban Greening Grant Program to
prepare the Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan and will serve as lead agency for acceptance of the UGP.
CEQA requires that the County adopt an appropriate document that reflects its independent review of all
potential adverse impacts to the environment resulting from construction and operation of the proposed
program pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e).
Since the UGP is a program-level document and does not propose site-specific projects, this Initial Study
is a programmatic document. It is anticipated this IS/ND will be utilized for programmatic CEQA analysis
Assessment of potential environmental impacts must be based upon substantial evidence, defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21080(e)(1-2) as follows:
opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated
opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or
economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the
environment.
If an initial study determines there is substantial evidence that a project may cause a significant adverse
effect, or impact, upon the environment, the lead agency must prepare an environmental impact report
(EIR) to further study that impact and to identify any feasible mitigation and project alternatives. If an initial
study demonstrates that there is no possibility that the project would cause a significant environmental
impact, the lead agency can prepare a Negative Declaration. If an initial study finds that an impact on the
environment could be significant, but that changes in the project would reduce all such impacts to a level
that is clearly less than significant, the lead agency may adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
No potential impacts to the environment are identified in this initial study. Therefore, an Initial Study/
Negative Declaration is the appropriate document for the proposed project to comply with CEQA.
While Butte County will serve as lead agency in preparing the UGP and this Initial Study, the City of Oroville
and the Feather River Recreation & Park District will serve as responsible agencies in implementing the
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan. They will also utilize this initial study to adopt, accept or approve
(depending on the preference of the local agency) the UGP and facilitate future implementation. The City
of Oroville has land use jurisdiction over the majority of the future project sites in the Oroville Urban Area,
especially given the 2015 annexation of the Southside neighborhood. The Feather River Recreation & Park
District (FRRPD) has jurisdiction over park and recreation projects within their district boundaries. The
County of Butte maintains land use jurisdiction in the unincorporated County, including the Thermalito
neighborhood. Prior to implementation of subsequent greening projects, the City of Oroville, FRRPD, or
Butte County will perform environmental review for specific improvements to implement the UGP.
Subsequent environmental review can include preparation of a categorical or statutory exemption, negative
declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report, depending on the nature and
scope of proposed improvements.
5
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Background
lush, and beautiful downtown. However, Butte County experiences high summer temperatures and arid air
conditions which make it difficult to enjoy these amenities in the summer. In addition, while the Feather
River snakes through the northern part of Oroville with trails and open spaces, other parts of Oroville lack
recreational access. Particularly in more economically disadvantaged areas, including Southside, low rates
of car ownership and infrequent bus service underscore a demand for improved bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure. Additionally, County residents have above-average rates of high blood pressure and high
cholesterol, so from a public health perspective it is imperative to provide more and better access to outdoor
With the help of the community, the Green Team, and other community stakeholders, the UGP planning
process identified a comprehensive list of over one hundred opportunities for greening in the Oroville Urban
Area. (See Appendix A to the UGP.) To narrow the comprehensive list into a concise list of key priorities,
a matrix was developed that evaluates each opportunity based on the following criteria: technical feasibility,
funding feasibility, community stakeholder interest, ability to achieve multiple plan benefits, magnitude of
need, and cost Based on these evaluation criteria, a list of priority greening opportunities was developed
as listed on page 24 of the Plan. Greening opportunities are mapped and further detailed in subsequent
chapters in the UGP, as summarized in section 3.2 below.
This analysis evaluates the environmental consequences of the recommendations and options in
Chapter 9 Phasing and Implementation. It should be noted that Appendix A to the UGP considers and
Notwithstanding initial discussion of the industrial area, further discussion of cleaning and greening of these
areas is outside the scope of the UGP or this analysis.
6
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Figure 1. Oroville Urban Area
7
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
3.2 Urban Greening Plan Summary
Chapter 3 of the UGP identifies opportunities to improve bicycle and pedestrian systems, through the
ter
management. Many streets in the Oroville Urban Area are missing these elements, particularly in the
Southside neighborhood. Complete streets are proposed, focusing on the Southside neighborhood, to
accommodate additional pedestrian and bicycle use for transportation, including safe routes to school for
children utilizing area roadways.
The plan notes that while many bike routes are planned in the Oroville Urban Area, the bulk of existing
routes consist of recreational trails in the outskirts of town. Trail routes planned by the UGP focus on
connecting existing trails with neighborhoods inside and outside the city, which would allow trails to be used
for transportation as well as for recreation.
Chapter 4 of the UGP identifies a vision and set of goals specific to urban forestry. The stated vision for
greener streets that encourage people to walk and exercise, establishing green buffers from the freeways
that divide the community, and focusing on other multi-benefit greening opportunities. Specific goals for
reaching this vision include:
Increase Citywide Canopy Coverage.
A target of 21 percent for citywide coverage is
recommended for Oroville.
Enhance Forest Structure.
Increase the percentage of trees that are native and have low
water requirements, and work towards building a forest that is diverse with consideration
to species composition and age distribution. In addition, enhance drought-tolerant, low-
water need, and low-maintenance understory and other plantings throughout the city.
Increase Urban Forest Benefits per Tree.
Focus on multi-benefit urban forestry projects
that optimize environmental and community benefits, including but not limited to
stormwater management, air pollution reduction, beautification, and neighborhood
walkability. Ensure selection of the right tree for new locations in order to optimize forest
benefits and to reducing infrastructure conflicts.
The plan envisions that real
benefits associated with the urban forest, thereby enhancing the quality of life and the public health enjoyed
st structure and benefits provided
by the forest contained along public roadways and within public parks in the Oroville Urban Area, as well
canopy coverage for 1 percent of the total area of the city, assuming 2012 boundaries that defined the
inventory and did not include the Southside neighborhood. Appendix C to the UGP includes an ITrees
analysis, Appendix D to the UGP presents a recommended Plant Palette, and Appendix E provides tree
planting and care recommendations.
Chapter 4 also identifies site design standards relative to tree spacing, species diversity, and tree wells (soil
area); as well as design concepts relative to forested vacant lots, a shaded downtown parking lot, creating
walkable streets and buffering highways.
Chapter 5 of the UGP summarizes existing parks and open space within the Plan area and recommends
priority greening opportunities and design solutions for the Nelson Ballfields Complex and one or more
community gardens in and around Thermalito. The UGP identified improvement of existing parks and open
space as priority opportunities in the Urban Area. Through the public input process, community members
expressed that existing parks in Oroville require maintenance, shading, and infrastructure replacement, as
well as new features such as lighting, accessible walkways, BBQ areas, and community gardens.
Chapter 6 of the UGP focuses on stormwater management techniques that reduce flooding, improve water
quality and provide habitat for wildlife, which are also known as low impact design (LID). LIDs attempt to
mimic nature by restoring hydraulic patterns through cleansing, diffusing, and absorbing the water where it
8
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
falls. Additionally, LID stormwater practices that utilize natural processes often involve creating
raingardens, swales, and other attractive drainage plantings.
Chapter 7 of the UGP focuses on cleaning and greening vacant lots, and alleys in the Oroville Urban Area.
It details greening opportunities, priority opportunities, and programs and design solutions which include:
removing trash and other debris, grading the property to manage storm water, adding compost-enriched
topsoil for plantings, planting shade trees, and installing simple fencing around vacant lots. Appendix F
provides a discussion of Clean and Greenacant lots.
Chapter 8 of the UGP includes conceptual designs for six sites that could be used as prototypes and
replicated throughout other areas of the city, other sites, or elsewhere on the same street. The sites selected
for conceptual design illustrations are also those prioritized for greening by the community. (Although
completing the gap in the Brad Freeman Trail under the Green Bridge is an immediate priority, the FRRPD
has already developed a design for the segment, and is preparing an environmental document pursuant to
CEQA.)
The six conceptual site plans and design concepts include the following:
Las Plumas Avenue
shows improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation and
safety, as well as improved stormwater management, through cross-
Clean and Green Alleys and Vacant Lots
fore and after
simulations illustrating potential enhancements of Southside alleyways and the
transformation of a Southside vacant lot into a community garden.
Myers and Wyandotte Intersection and Corridors
depicts potential streetscape
improvements for all modes of transportation.
Levee Trail
demonstrates how the existing trail along the Feather River can be
enhanced for the enjoyment of bicyclists, runners, and walkers.
Oroville Dam Boulevard
illustrates with cross-sections and visual simulations the
existing condition of the roadway and two potential concepts for improving the corridor,
which vary in cost.
Nelson Ballfields Complex
includes an illustrative conceptual diagram and a
detailed site plan showing renovations for the existing ballfields adjacent to the Feather
River and Highway 70.
Chapter 9 details planting design concepts for the Plan. A plant palette, included as Appendix D to the
Urban Greening Plan, was developed specifically for the Oroville Urban Area. It includes a list of trees,
shrubs, grasses, perennials, and groundcovers that are drought-resistant and appropriate for the local
climate.
Chapter 10 Phasing and Implementation provides recommendations and options to help the Oroville
community take advantage of the opportunities and design concepts detailed in the UGP. This
implementation frame
meet its community goals by promoting sustainable development and creating a more livable and vibrant
community.
3.3 Priority Improvement Opportunities
As described in section 3.1 Background, over one hundred greening opportunities were identified through
the UGP process, and were assessed according to technical feasibility and other evaluation criteria. See
Appendix A to the UGP for a complete list of opportunities. Based on the feasibility analysis, seven types
of priority greening opportunities were identified as follows, which are the primary focus of this programmatic
initial study:
1. Recreational Trails
2. Safe Routes to School
9
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
3. Other Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
4. Planting Connections and Sites
5. Parks and Open Spaces
6. Stormwater Management Areas
7.
A spreadsheet of prioritized improvement opportunities from the UGP is provided in Appendix A, including
a summary of right-of-way (R-O-W) needs, and potential issues identified relative to implementation.
3.4 Projects Require Subsequent Environmental Determinations
As a programmatic Initial Study, this document does not authorize site specific projects. Projects
implementing the Urban Greening Plan require subsequent environmental determinations pursuant to
CEQA. Exemptions pursuant to the Public Resources Code, may be utilized for implementing future
projects consistent with the UGP at the discretion of the lead agency processing subsequent projects.
Future project components not meeting the definition of a categorical or statutory exemption will require
subsequent environmental review (Initial Study) to determine if projects implementing the UGP will have an
adverse impact on the environment.
3.4.1 Exempt Plan Components
Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code exempts from the application of CEQA those projects over
which public agencies exercise only ministerial authority. Since ministerial projects are already exempt,
statutes and ordinances. The inclusion of activities which may be ministerial within the classes and
examples contained in this article shall not be construed as a finding by the Secretary for Resources that
such an activity is discretionary.
Sections 15300 to 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines list classes of projects which have been determined not
to have a significant effect on the environment and which are therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
The following classes of exemptions, or other exemptions from the Public Resources Code, may apply to
subsequent projects proposed to implement the Urban Greening Plan. Some implementing projects would
be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents.
15301 Existing Facilities
Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or
minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or
topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at
are not intended to be all inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1.
The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an
existing use. Examples include but are not limited to: (sic)
(c ) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and
1
similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety). (sic)
(h) Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs
(excluding the use of pesticides, as defined in Section 12753, Division 7, Chapter 2, Food
and Agricultural Code);
1
Proposed Updates to the CEQA Guidelines dated August 11, 2015, upon adoption, would add to the end of 15301
parking, bicycle-share facilities and bicycle lanes, pedestrian crossings, and street trees, and other similar
10
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
15304. Minor Alterations to Land
Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or
vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry
or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:
(a) Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be
exempt in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated (by federal, state, or local
government action) scenic area, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard
such as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within an official Seismic Hazard Zone,
as delineated by the State Geologist.
(b) New gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional
landscaping with water efficient or fire resistant landscaping.
(c) Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural
features of the site; (sic)
(f) Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored;
(h) The creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way.
15332. In-Fill Development Projects
Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions
described in this section.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than
five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
3.4.2 Plan Components Requiring Subsequent Environmental Review
For projects implementing the UGP which do not meet the definition for an exemption from the requirements
of CEQA, future lead agencies would perform subsequent environmental review (an Initial Study) before
approving specific greening projects within their jurisdiction. While a tentative recommendation of which
projects will require subsequent environmental review and which are exempt is provided in Appendix A, a
final CEQA determination will be made by the implementing agency prior to approval of specific projects.
11
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
3.5 Plan Goals
The goals of the proposed Plan are to:
Support a coordinated program of urban greening for the Oroville Urban Area
The UGP is consistent with Butte County General Plan Goal LU-11, because the UGP
o
effectively coordinates planning efforts with the City of Oroville and Feather River
Recreation & Park District
The City of Oroville General Plan includes Goal OP-
o
coordinated and cooperative planning efforts between local, regional, and State parks
Assist the State in meeting its environmental and public health goals, including:
Reduce energy consumption
o
Conserve water
o
Improve air and water quality.
Achieve multiple greening goals and benefits identified through the planning process, such as:
Increase public health, community amenities, and quality of life
o
Create new green space
Increase access to existing green space
Provide shading to encourage walking and bicycling
Provide buffers from streets to encourage walking
Increase access to affordable, fresh food
Encourage healthy eating habits through agricultural education
Improve food security with local agriculture
Clean and green vacant lots and alleys
Improve the local economy
o
Increase property values
Increase activity in retail areas
Provide jobs for local residents
Encourage private investment
Improve government operations
o
Reduce infrastructure costs
Improve stormwater management
Promote coordination among agencies
Engage the community
o
Promote long-term stewardship
Support community development and empowerment
Increase positive use of public space, thus reducing crime and vandalism
Educate the community
o
Provide information about the multiple benefits of urban greening
Support environmental and agricultural education
Provide other environmental benefits
o
Restore habitat (creeks)
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Adapt to climate change
Reduce urban summer temperatures.
12
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
4 SETTING
4.1 Land Use
The Plan area is the Oroville Urban Area, as shown in Figure 3.1 of the Plan. The City of Oroville General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance describe and evaluate land uses within, and adjacent to, the City of Oroville
incorporated area and Sphere of Influence. The City of Oroville Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance
can be referenced at http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=456
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide detailed information regarding setting and surrounding land
uses for the Oroville area.
Table 1 Acreage of Existing Land Use in Oroville Urban Area (LU-1 from the Oroville Land Use Element
and also Table 4.8-1 from the City of Oroville General Plan EIR) summarizes land uses in the City of Oroville
and its sphere of influence. About 1,119 acres, or fifteen percent of land in the City, and 224 acres or about
one percent of land the sphere of influence is comprised of public or quasi-public land uses. An additional
497 acres are identified as parks within the city, with 123 acres of parkland identified in the sphere of
influence.
TABLE 1:ACREAGE OF EXISTING LAND USES
City LimitsSphere of Influence
Land Use (Acres) (Acres)
duplex 1,151 5,593
Residential Single-family or
Residential 3 units or greater
251 534
Residential Mobile Home Park 0 62
Commercial 636 535
Industrial 416 336
Public/Quasi-Public 1,119 224
Parks and Recreation 497 123
Other Open Space 214 7,639
Agriculture 17 1,521
Tribal Lands 0 92
Vacant 3,049 5,396
Total 7,350 22,055
Source:
Butte County Assess Data, 2006. (Table 4.8-1 from City of Oroville General Plan
EIR)
13
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Table LU-
DUC per Senate Bill (SB) 244, the criteria for which is three-fold:
1. Inhabited with ten or more homes adjacent or in close proximity to one another; and
2.
for more than 50 years; and
3. The median household income is 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income.
Butte County evaluates and regulates land uses within unincorporated Butte County, including areas not
within the land use jurisdiction of the City of Oroville. The Butte County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
also provide information about the Oroville Urban Area and surrounding land uses. The County Land Use
Element and Zoning Ordinance can be accessed at
http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Planning/GeneralPlan/Chapters.aspx
4.2 Parks
Residents of the Oroville Urban Area have a variety of recreational facilities available to them in and around
the Urban Area including facilities owned and operated by the City, Feather River Recreation and Park
District, the State and the federal government. State recreation areas include boating, fishing, hiking,
seasonal hunting, bird watching, horseback riding, and cycling opportunities around the several thousand
acres of the Lake Oroville State Recreation Area and the Oroville Wildlife Refuge, including the Thermalito
Forebay and Afterbay. Additional recreation opportunities are available elsewhere in Butte County,
including wildlife refuges along the Sacramento River, extensive National Forest lands in the mountains,
and Bidwell Park in Chico.
The Feather River Recreation & Park District (FRRPD or District) and the City of Oroville Department of
Parks and Trees coordinate to manage a number of regional and neighborhood parks in Oroville. The
FRRPD owns and operates eleven park and recreation facilities, including River Bend Park on the Feather
River and Nelson Park and Recreational Center, and neighborhood and community parks.
The population is expected to grow at a rate of 1.2 percent within the City of Oroville and 1.1 percent in the
unincorporated areas of the District. The District has a 10-year capital improvements plan in which capital
improvements are funded through grants, impact fees, a benefit assessment district, and partnerships with
other agencies such as the City of Oroville, Butte County, state agencies, the Oroville Redevelopment
Agency, and local organizations. The District has been developing Riverbend Park in phases since 2005
from a $2.2 million California DWR grant and a $918,000 grant from the California Department of Boating
and Waterways.
Two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents is provided solely by City of Oroville recreation facilities, and an
additional total area of 249.5 acres is provided by the Feather River Recreation and Parks District. Thus
there are roughly 5.4 acres of combined regional and City parkland per 1,000 city residents, which exceeds
City and Feather River Recreation and Parks District standards.
There is an adequate amount of combined park acreage within the City and Sphere of Influence to provide
3 acres per 1,000 residents for projected future populations. However, a significant portion of this parkland
is owned and operated by the FRRPD which focuses on regional, rather than community and neighborhood,
parks. A 2009 Municipal Service Review (MSR), updated in 2014 as part of the Sphere of Influence update,
demand or develop an agreement The 2009 MSR
also concludes that the City uses appropriate mechanisms to fund on-going maintenance of new park
facilities that are required as a condition of new development. City residents contribute to the maintenance
of community and park facilities through the district-wide assessment collected by the Feather River
Recreation and Parks District.
14
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Figure 2:
Current Feather River Recreation & Park District SOI and Jurisdictional Boundaries
15
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
16
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
4.3 Improvement Standards
Development standards for roadways, stormwater facilities, and other improvements vary somewhat
between the City of Oroville (for instance for Southside) and Butte County (for instance for Thermalito).
While roadways in the Southside area do not contain curb, gutter and sidewalks, both City and County
road standards would call for or allow development of a rolled curb directly adjacent to the path of vehicular
travel if proposed currently. County road standard RS-2B is a typical road standard in the Southside
neighborhood and is shown below in Figure 4. The County standard for curb, gutter, and sidewalk is
shown in Figure 5. The County has not adopted development standards for alleys.
The City standard for residential streets is shown as Figure 6. The UGP offers alternative street sections
and concepts that meet and generally exceed these standards, and could be used in lieu of traditional
improvement standards throughout the urban area in general, and within the Southside and Thermalito
neighborhoods in particular to replace the more traditional requirements found in City and County
improvement standards.
Relative to new stormwater improvements, both County and City stormwater regulations effectively limit
stormwater increases from development projects to no net increase in peak flow, which often lead to
stormwater retention or detention facilities for subdivisions and larger developments, and roadway
improvements that include traditional curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The stormwater management
opportunities identified in the UGP focus on potential ROW surface improvements in the existing,
developed Southside area.
19
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Figure 4:
County Road Standard RS-2 (Typical for Southside Roadways)
20
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Figure 5:
County Standard S-1 for Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk
21
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Figure 6:
City Road Standards Applicable to Southside Roadways.
22
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
4.4 Erosion Control
City of Oroville Standards
The City of Oroville has adopted development standards relative to erosion control, landscaping, and water
use which will apply to future projects in the UGP. The Oroville Municipal Code (OMC) 26-13.050
Landscape Standards contain general regulations which protect soils, water quality, and water
conservation on a programmatic level:
General Regulations.
D.
1. Plans and specifications for landscaping, irrigation systems, tree preservation and
slope planting for erosion control shall reflect the use of the following:
a. Plant materials with varied heights, textures and colors.
b. Sound soil preparation and planting practices.
c. Proper irrigation for healthy plant growth and maturation, as well as the avoidance of
unsafe and unnecessary watering of buildings, public ways and pedestrian ways.
2. No more than 10 percent nonliving ground cover such as rock, bark, chips or bricks
may be used as an accent material or for weed control, but not as a total landscaping
theme or in lieu of living plant material.
OMC 26-13.050 also contains landscaping development standards including crime prevention standards
(OMC 26-13.050 E), landscaping in residential areas (OMC 26-13.050 F), landscaping in commercial and
mixed-use districts (OMC 26-13.050 G), landscaping in industrial districts (OMC 26-13.050 H), and
landscaping in parking lots (OMC 26-13.050 I); see http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=456
Butte County Standards
BCC 24-145 contains erosion control measures applicable to urban zones of the County, and BCC13-11
contains erosion control measures applicable to all grading permits.
Urban zones in the County include VLDR (Very Low Density Residential), VLDCR (Very Low Density
Country Residential), LDR (Low Density Residential), MDR (Medium Density Residential), MHDR
(Medium High Density Residential), HDR (High Density Residential), VHDR (Very High Density
Residential), all Commercial zones, all Industrial zones, PB (Public), AIR (Airport), and RBP (Research
and Business Park).
BCC 24-145 - Erosion Control.
The following erosion control standards apply to all
development projects in all urban zones:
A. The smallest area practical of land shall be exposed at any one (1) time during
development;
B. When land is exposed during development, the exposure shall be kept to the
shortest practical period of time;
C. Natural features such as trees, groves, natural terrain, waterways, and other
similar resources shall be preserved where feasible;
D. Temporary vegetation or mulching shall be used to protect critical areas exposed
during development;
E. The permanent final vegetation and structures shall be installed as soon as
practical in the development;
F. Wherever feasible the development shall be fitted to the topography and soils to
create the least erosion potential;
23
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
G. Provisions shall be made to effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused
by changed soil and surface conditions during and after development as specified in
Chapter 50, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control; and
H. Sediment basins (debris basins, desalting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed
and maintained to remove sediment from runoff waters from land undergoing
development where needed.
While BCC 24-145 contains erosion control measures applicable to development projects in urban
zones, BCC13-11 applies to grading permits in all zones:
BCC 13-11 - Grading Standards.
(a) General: When a permit is required pursuant to this article, the grading plan and
erosion and sediment control plan applicable to the project shall conform to the standards
set forth herein.
(b) Erosion and Sediment Control: A SWPPP detailing Best Management Practices shall
be used for erosion and sediment control.
(1) Sediment caused by the grading project shall be retained on the site to the greatest
extent feasible. The rate of erosion after completion of the project should not exceed the
natural erosion rate which occurred prior to the grading project. If erosion exceeds the
natural rate, erosion and sediment control measures shall be immediately implemented
to reduce erosion to allowable levels.
(2) Where practical and feasible, sediment basins, sediment traps, or similar sediment
control measures, temporary or permanent, shall be installed prior to grading operations.
Upon completion of construction and stabilization of soils, all temporary erosion control
facilities shall be removed from the site. All permanent sediment control measures must
be maintained by the parcel owner. Notification of such maintenance must be provided
annually by the owner to the Department of Public Works.
(c) Established Vegetation:
(1) Established vegetation shall be retained and protected, wherever possible, unless
removal is required for public health and safety.
(2) When vegetation must be removed, the method shall be one that will minimize the
erosive effects from the removal.
(3) Exposure of soil to erosion by removing vegetation shall be limited to the area required
for immediate construction operations.
(d) Grading Practices and Setbacks:
(1) Grading operations shall be conducted so as to control sediment production and dust
on the project site and other properties.
(2) The setbacks specified by this section are minimum requirements and may be
increased by the director or by the recommendation of a civil engineer, soils engineer or
engineering geologist, if necessary for safety and stability, or to prevent damage to other
properties, structures, channels, and roadways from deposition or erosion, or provide
access for slope maintenance and drainage. Retaining walls and/or deep foundations may
be used to reduce the required setbacks when approved by the director.
(3) The required setbacks described in subsection (d)(2) above are as follows:
24
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Slope Height Setback From Top of Cut
(H) in Feet or Toe of Fill, in Feet
H Setbacks
010 5
1030 H/2
Over 30 15
Increased setback may be required if interceptor drains are necessary.
(e) Control of Runoff:
(1) Each plan which makes changes in surface water drainage shall be required to:
a. Make provision to handle upstream off-site runoff through the project site, based on
projected storm runoff from the watershed.
b. Provide and install, at the owner's expense, pertinent drainage, erosion and sediment
control structures.
c. Retain sediment being transported by runoff water on site through the use of sediment
basins, silt traps, or similar control structures.
(2) Release of concentrated surface water runoff shall only be directed into existing
drainage facilities, swales or watercourses, at velocities which will not cause the natural
erosion rate to be exceeded.
(f) Slope Construction:
(1) Slopes shall not be steeper than one-to-one (1:1) for cuts and one and one-half-to-one
(1½:1) for fills, unless a steeper slope is determined suitable by geological and soils
engineering analysis. Erosion control measures shall be included in the plans and
specifications.
(2) Slopes shall not be constructed so as to endanger or disturb adjoining property.
(g) Revegetation and Slope Surface Stabilization:
(1) Mulching, seeding, the planting of shrubs and trees, or other suitable stabilization
measures shall be used to protect exposed slopes as necessary to control erosion,
sedimentation and slope stability. Preference shall be given to using locally adapted
grasses, shrubs and woody vegetation.
(2) Earth or paved interceptors and diversions shall be installed at the top of cut or fill
slopes where there is a potential for erosive surface runoff.
(3) Revegetation shall be maintained by the owner until permanent establishment is
achieved.
(h) Grading:
(1) All land within a development site shall be graded to drain and dispose of surface water
without ponding, except as otherwise provided herein.
(2) Where drainage swales are used to divert surface waters, they shall be vegetated or
protected, as required.
(i) Protection of Watercourse:
(1) Fills shall not block or change natural watercourses or constructed channels.
(2) Excavated materials shall not be deposited or stockpiled in or alongside the streams,
lakes or watercourses where the materials may be washed away by high water or storm
runoff.
(j) Disposal of Cleared Vegetation: Vegetation removed during clearing operations shall
be disposed of by one (1) or more of the following methods:
25
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
(1) Chipping all or some of the cleared vegetation for use as mulch or compost on the site.
(2) Burning all or some of the cleared vegetation. Material to be burned shall be piled in a
manner and in such locations as will cause the least fire risk and least damage to adjacent
trees. Burning shall be thorough, so that the materials are reduced to ashes. No logs,
branches or large charred pieces shall be permitted to remain. Burning shall comply with
Butte County Air Pollution Control District and local fire department or district regulations.
(3) Disposing of the balance of the material in a manner and at a location approved by the
director.
(k) Excavated and Fill Materials: Excavated material removed during grading operations
and imported fill material shall be handled in accordance with the following methods:
(1) Stockpiling sufficient topsoil on the site if necessary for use on areas to be revegetated.
(2) Locating stockpiled soil so that it will not become a source for off-site sediment
damage.
(3) Promptly backfilling and compacting stockpiled soil into trenches and pits to reduce
the risk of erosion.
(4) Applying mulch or other protective coverings on stockpiled material which will be
exposed through the winter season.
(5) Excavated material not to be used at the site shall be disposed of in a manner and at
a location approved by the director.
(6) At the discretion of the director, excavated material and imported material placed in
permanent fill may be required to be compacted in accordance with section 19 of the State
of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications dated July 2001.
4.5 Tree Canopy
City of Oroville Standards
Cs standards relative to tree canopy in parking lots are detailed in OMC26-I.2. At least one
tree shall be provided within parking lots for every 10 parking spaces, and at least 50 percent of the paved
surface shall be shaded by tree canopies within 15 years after obtaining an occupancy permit.
Landscaping in Parking Lots.
I. All parking lots with 6 or more spaces shall provide
landscaping as follows: (sic)
2. At least one tree shall be provided within the parking lot for every 10 parking spaces,
with a minimum of one tree. If the required number of trees is a fraction greater than or
equal to 0.50, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
3. Trees within the parking lot shall be planted in tree wells measuring at least 6 feet by 6
feet and shall be evenly dispersed to the extent practicable. (sic)
6. At least 50 percent of the paved surface shall be shaded by tree canopies within 15
years after obtaining an occupancy permit. The trees to be planted to develop such a
canopy shall be
requirements of the Director of Parks and Trees. Plans submitted for development review
shall show the estimated tree canopies after 15 years of growth and the total area in
square feet of the area shaded by tree canopies. To determine the area shaded by
canopies, the following method shall be used:
a. Determine the total area of the parking lot, deducting any areas directly below
structures such as a canopy or the second story of a building.
b. Measure the shaded area as the area projected to be directly under each tree
canopy after 15 years, including both paved areas and landscape planters.
26
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Butte County Standards
Parking and Loading Standards are located in Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance BCC24-
91 through 24-97. Development standards relative to tree canopy include BCC 24-95 B f and h. At least
one tree shall be provided within parking lots for every 4 parking spaces, and at least 50 percent of the
paved surface shall be shaded by tree canopies within 10 years after planting.
f. Shade Trees.
1. Shade trees shall be provided within parking lots so that within ten (10) years
of planting fifty (50) percent of the parking area is shaded at the summer solstice
(June 21).
2. At least one (1) tree shall be provided for every four (4) parking spaces, with
the maximum spacing between trees or clusters of trees not to exceed thirty (30)
feet.
(sic)
h. Rainwater Management. Rainwater shall be managed on-site with designs that
encourage infiltration, evapotranspiration, and water re-use by:
1. Utilizing permeable paving for parking spaces, drive aisles, overflow parking,
and other hard surfaces in the parking lot, where applicable;
2. Planting trees, shrubs, and other permeable landscaping throughout the
parking lot to provide shade and places for water infiltration;
3. Creating bio-retention areas, such as swales, vegetated islands and overflow
ponds; and
4. Incorporating opportunities to harvest rainwater (active or passive) from
rooftops and other hard surfaces for landscape irrigation.
27
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
5
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING
5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by the UGP:
\[ \] 6.1 Aesthetics \[ \] 6.2 Agriculture Resources \[ \] 6.3 Air Quality
\[ \] 6.4 Biological Resources \[ \] 6.5 Cultural Resources \[ \] 6.6 Geologic Processes
\[ \] 6.7 Greenhouse Gases \[ \] 6.8 Hazards/Hazardous Material \[ \] 6.9 Hydrology/Water Quality
\[ \] 6.10 Land Use \[ \] 6.11 Mineral Resources \[ \] 6.12 Noise
\[ \] 6.13 Housing \[ \] 6.14 Public Services \[ \] 6.15 Recreation
\[ \] 6.16 Transportation/Traffic \[ \] 617 Utilities/Service Systems \[ \] 6.18 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
5.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1)
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
qu
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls
explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis.)
2) 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
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
substantial evidence that an effect may be signif
4)
incorporation of mitigation measu
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
-referenced).
5)
program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review.
28
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
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) Mitigatio
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) 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.
29
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
6.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
No
Would the proposal: Potentially Less Than Less Than Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a.
Have a substantial adverse
X
effect on a scenic vista?
b.
Substantially damage scenic
X
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c.
Substantially degrade the
X
existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
d.
Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely X
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
6.1.1 Aesthetic/Visual Resources Setting
as the character of its historic center and dispersed residential neighborhoods.
General Plan would allow on-going growth
the extension of growth on some sites and into some areas that are currently undeveloped.
City of Oroville Scenic Resources
The City of Oroville General Plan Aesthetics Element identifies scenic vistas and resources within the Urban
Area. The Oroville area has multiple prominent land forms that help its citizens to distinguish places and orient
themselves within the city, including Table Mountain and the Foothills. Table Mountain is a large, flat-topped
mountain, just north of Oroville, and is highly visible from many parts of the Plan Area. Some parts of Oroville
also have views towards the foothills, which are located just east of the city. Foothill residents enjoy views of
the City, the Central Valley, Coast Range and Sutter Buttes. There are also vistas of undeveloped or minimally
developed open space from various points within the City. These vistas contribute strongly to the visual
character of the City. There are no State-designated scenic highways that run through Oroville. State Highway
70, which runs in a north-south direction, through the Plan Area is eligible for designation as a State Scenic
Highways, but is not officially designated as such. Neither the City nor the State have identified other scenic
or potentially scenic highways within the Plan Area.
Butte County Scenic Resources
Butte County General Plan Figures COS-7, COS-8, and COS-9 depict identified scenic resources in Butte
County. Significant scenic resources identified by the General Plan are displayed in General Plan Figure
COS-7 and are comprised of land-based resources (Butte Creek Canyon, Sacramento River National Wildlife
Refuge, Table Mountain, and Feather Falls Scenic Area) and water-based resources (Philbrook Reservoir,
30
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Lake Oroville, Thermalito Afterbay, and Lake Wyandotte).
Although there are no officially-designated State Scenic highways in the County, State Route 70 (SR70) north
of the intersection with State Route 149 (SR149) is included in the California Scenic Highway Program and is
considered an eligible State Scenic Highway. SR70 through the Feather River Canyon and a portion of State
Route 32 (SR32) north of Forest Ranch are recognized as County Scenic Highways.
A scenic Highway Overlay Zone is applied to an area extended 350 linear feet from the centerline of scenic
routes identified in COS-9, including portions of SR 32 north of Chico, Portions of SR70 north of the SR149
intersection, the Skyway, southern portions of SR191 and Pentz Road, portions of SR162 along Lake Oroville,
and portions of Forbestown Road and Lumpkin Road.
City of Oroville Outdoor Lighting
Oroville Municipal Code OMC 26-13.010 C. Outdoor Lighting General specifies that all outdoor lighting
on private property shall be downward directed which minimizes light pollution into the night sky and onto
adjacent properties, and streets.
Outdoor Lighting General.
C. All outdoor lighting on private property shall conform to
the following requirements:
1. Light fixtures, excluding illuminated signs, shall have a maximum height of 25 feet
above grade, or the height of the nearest main building on the site, whichever is less.
Additional height shall be allowed where necessary to provide adequate clearance for
to provide this clearance.
2. All light sources, excluding illuminated signs, shall include appropriate shielding to
direct light away from the sky, surrounding properties and streets. Reflections or glare
outside of the subject property shall be minimized.
3. For sites that are within or adjacent to a residential district, or are separated by a street
from a residential district, no light source shall produce an illumination level in the
residential district greater than one-quarter footcandle at any point measured 25 feet
horizontally from the subject property. This requirement shall not apply to illuminated
signs.
Oroville Municipal Code (OMC) 26-13.010 D. also specifies lighting standards for new
non-residential structures for the purpose of crime prevention. Trees and shrubs shall
not interfere with the distribution of lighting as required by this section.
Outdoor Lighting Crime Prevention
D. . The following lighting standards apply to all
new structures, except for single-family homes, accessory structures on single-family lots,
and accessory structures that do not require a building permit.
1. Table 26-13-010-1 shows minimum lighting intensities for certain locations on a site
and within a building.
Table 2: Minimum Lighting Intensity
LocationMinimum Intensity
Exterior building entrances 4 foot candles
Parking areas and pedestrian 1 foot candle
walkways
Elevators, stairwells, and 0.5 foot candle
corridors
31
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
OMC TABLE 26-13-010-1:
Source:
2. Details of exterior lighting shall be provided on all plans submitted for City review and
approval. Photometric calculations shall be based on the "mean" light output per the
provided for exterior lighting shall include point-to-point photometric calculations at
intervals of not more than 10 feet at ground level. 3. Transitional lighting shall be
incorporated in exterior areas going to and from buildings or uses within a site. Transitional
lighting shall be provided for building entrances, recreation/office buildings, swimming
pool areas, laundry and mail rooms, covered breezeways, and similar areas as
determined by the Director of Development Services.
4. Trees and shrubs shall not interfere with the distribution of lighting as required by this
section.
Butte County Outdoor Lighting
The County of Butte Zoning Ordinance contains requirements for outdoor lighting in residential zones
(BCC 24-All outdoor lighting shall be located, adequately shielded, and directed such that
no direct light falls outside the property line, or into the public right-of-way as illustrated in Figure 24-67-1
(Inadequate and Adequate Shielding) and Figure 24-67-2 (Light Source Not Directly Visible Outside
Property Perimeter
6.1.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact.
An impact upon a scenic resource occurs when a change due to development or some
changing land use results in a valued scenic resource being obscured or otherwise degraded.
The Plan may affect recognized scenic vistas by promoting multimodal transportation infrastructure,
recreational space, and the urban forest; identifying priority opportunities for greening; and presenting
conceptual site plans and design concepts for six of the priority greening opportunities, in order to illustrate
how greening might be accomplished at different types of locations. Additionally, the plan includes
numerous opportunities for cleaning and greening the Oroville Urban Area which will serve to improve
aesthetics by removing trash and adding landscaping.
Approval of the UGP will not itself modify land-use standards or approve the implementation of greening
projects. It is anticipated that greening projects such as street tree and other plantings, cleaning and
greening vacant lots, and enhancements to parks and open space would be aesthetically pleasing, in part
due to promotion of regionally appropriate landscaping and an urban forest with a targeted
21% tree canopy. As such, implementation and operation of the proposed Urban Greening Plan would
impact
have no adverse on a scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact.
No trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings within a state scenic highway, or other scenic
resources on or near the Plan area would be disturbed by the UGP, because the UGP is a programmatic,
voluntary document that must be implemented via subsequent project-specific approvals. It is anticipated
that alternative roadway standards will be equal to or more aesthetically pleasing than traditional roadway
standards. Other UGP components such as LID stormwater management and tree canopy coverage
targets are expected to improve aesthetics through landscaping improvements. As such, implementation
impact
and operation of the proposed Urban Greening Plan would have no adverse scenic resources with
construction and operation of the Plan as proposed.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
32
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
surroundings?
No Impact.
Much of the plan area subject to UGP improvements has been developed for decades. As
noted in subsections a) and b) above, the UGP improves aesthetics as compared to existing improvement
no impact
standards. The proposed plan would have a the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant.
The UGP is not intended to promote lighting projects. Rather, the plan focuses
improvements; that is, plantings, urban forestry and stormwater management
improvements that will help clean and green the Oroville Urban Area.
While future projects could entail ancillary lighting for safety and convenience, lighting would be subject to
the code requirements of the City of Oroville and Butte County Article 14 (Outdoor Lighting) which would
effectively minimize light pollution to a less than significant level through existing regulations to direct light
downward and to avoid spillage onto adjacent properties and streets.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
33
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.2 Agricultural Resources
Would the proposal: Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
X
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
X
use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section X
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
X
of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
X
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
6.2.1 Agricultural Resources Setting
The Plan Area (the Oroville Urban Area) is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the Department of
Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Parcels are designated for development by
the City of Oroville General Plan and zoning ordinance. The City zoning designations do not list agriculture
as a primary use in any zoning designation. -
de
Within the Urban Area, five parcels totaling about 200 acres and in common ownership are under
Williamson act contract (aka Miller Holdings); these parcels are located south of Las Plumas Avenue, west
34
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
of Foothill Blvd, and northeast of the Feather Falls Casino. They are not located in proximity to the
Southside or Thermailto neighborhoods which are the focus of much of the UGP. The voluntary UGP will
not impose development standards, rather it proposes alternative improvement standards that will meet
and exceed existing development regulations, and will serve to improve multimodal transportation, water
infiltration, and increased tree canopy throughout the Oroville Urban Area.
No lands are defined as forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned for Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) by the City of Oroville.
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact.
The Oroville Urban Area does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of
statewide Importance as shown on Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps. The UGP will have
no impact
on these resources.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
No Impact.
Within the Oroville Urban Area, there are only five parcels subject toa Williamson Act
Contract. They are located in the southeast portion of the urban area, are under common ownership, and
due to their location will not be affected by the UGP. The UGP focuses on urban opportunity sites and
programmatic solutions identified in Chapter 9 Phasing and Implementation. As a voluntary plan, the UGP
will not adversely affect the Miller holdings which are the only lands in the Oroville Urban Area within a
Williamson Act contract.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact.
The proposed UGP applies to the Oroville Urban area and must be consistent with the zoning
of the City of Oroville, which can be viewed at http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=456 No
lands are defined as forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned for Timberland Production (as
no impact
defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). The UGP will have on these timber production
related lands.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact.Table
The Oroville Urban Area does not include land designated for timber production. See
1.no impact
Greening of the Oroville Urban Area will have in terms of the loss or conversion of forest
land to a non-forest use.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact.
Since there is no prime farmland within the Oroville Urban Area,and the UGP does not
no impact
propose improvement to the Miller Holdings, there will be that could result in conversion of
35
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
6.3 Air Quality
Would the proposal: Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
X
of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected X
air quality violation?
c. 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 X
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
X
pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
X
substantial number of people?
6.3.1 Air Quality Setting
Air quality is a function of a variety of local and regional influences. Butte County is located within the
-mile long Great
Central Valley. The SVAB encompasses approximately 14,994 square miles with a largely flat valley floor
(excepting the Sutter Buttes) about 200 miles long and up to 150 miles wide, bordered on its east, north
and west by the Sierra Nevada, Cascade and Coast mountain ranges, respectively.
The SVAB, containing 11 counties and some two million people, is divided into two air quality planning
areas based on the amount of pollutant transport from one area to the other and the level of emissions
within each. Butte County is within the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB), which is composed
of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, and Yuba Counties.
Emissions from the urbanized portion of the basin (Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, and Placer Counties)
dominate the emission inventory for the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, and on-road motor vehicles are the
36
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
primary source of emissions in the Sacramento metropolitan area. While pollutant concentrations have
generally declined over the years, additional emission reductions will be needed to attain the State and
national ambient air quality standards in the SVAB.
Seasonal weather patterns have a significant effect upon regional and local air quality. The Sacramento
Valley and Butte County have a Mediterranean climate, characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, wet
winters. Winter weather is governed by cyclonic storms from the North Pacific, while summer weather is
typically subject to a high pressure cell that deflects storms from the region.
Table 2 provides the attainment setting for criteria air pollutants in Butte County.
Table 3. Butte County Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status - August, 2013
PollutantState DesignationFederal Designation
1-hour ozoneNonattainment--
8-hour ozoneNonattainmentNonattainment
Carbon monoxideAttainmentAttainment
Nitrogen DioxideAttainmentAttainment
Sulfur DioxideAttainmentAttainment
24-Hour PM10NonattainmentAttainment
24-Hour PM2.5No StandardNonattainment
Annual PM10AttainmentNo Standard
Annual PM2.5AttainmentAttainment
Source: Butte County Air Quality Management District, 2013
Diminished air quality within Butte County largely results from local air pollution sources, transport of
pollutants into the area from the south, the NSVAB topography, and prevailing wind patterns and certain
region, confining pollution within a shallow layer near the ground that leads to photochemical smog and
visibility problems. During winter nights, air near the ground cools while the air above remains relatively
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matters and lead particulate concentrations tend to elevate during
winter inversion conditions when little air movement may persist for weeks.
As a result, high levels of particulate matter (primarily fine particulates or PM) and ground-level ozone
2.5
are the pollutants of most concern to the NSVAB Districts. Ground-level ozone, the principal component
of smog, forms when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) together known as ozone
precursor pollutants react in strong sunlight. Ozone levels tend to be highest in Butte County during late
spring through early fall, when sunlight is strong and constant, and emissions of the precursor pollutants
are highest.
Federal and state standards have been established for six criteria pollutants, including ozone (O), carbon
3
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO), sulfur dioxide (SO), particulates less than 10 and 2.5 microns in
22
diameter (PM and PM), and lead (Pb). California has also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide,
102.5
vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. The nonattainment pollutants of concern for Butte County
are ozone and PM; Tables 3 and 4 summarize recent ozone and PMtrends in Butte County, showing
2.52.5
a need to reduce days exceeding national and state standards.
37
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Table 4. Butte County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for Ozone 2010 - 2012
1-Hour
Observations
Days > Standard8-Hour Averages
1-Hour8-Hour
National Standard
Design Value
YearStateStateNational
MaximumMaximum
201202550.0880.080.077
201101660.0940.0810.077
201001440.0850.0780.079
Source: California Air Resources Board Air Quality Trends Summary: http//wwww.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends2.php
Table 5. Butte County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for PM 2010 - 2012
2.5
AverageHigh 24-Hour Average
Est. Days > Nat'lStateNat'l '06Nat'l '06
Nat'l '06 Ann. Std.AnnualStd. 98th24-Hr Std.
Std.D.V.¹D.V.²PercentileD.V.¹
YearNat'lStateNat'lState
2012
*15
*12.1***28.6123.3
2011
36.514.61546.251.8
12.110.13566
2010
0810.911.518295131.939.8
Source: California Air Resources Board Air Quality Trends Summary: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends2.php
All concentrations expressed in micrograms per cubic meter.
State and federal exceedances are indicated in bold. An exceedance is not necessarily a violation.
State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons:
State statistics are based on California approved samplers, whereas national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or
equivalent methods. State and national statistics may therefore be based on different samplers. State criteria for ensuring that data are
1
D.V. = National Design Value
2
D.V. = State Designation Value
*There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.
Air quality in California is subject to the federal Clean Air Act (administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency) and the more rigorous regulations provided by the California Clean Air Act. The California Air
Resources Board administers the California Clean Air Act and delegates monitoring and regulation to local
Air Quality Management Districts; the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD) is
responsible for attainment and maintenance of air quality standards in Butte County pursuant to federal
and state Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The BCAQMD acts as a commenting agency for local projects subject to CEQA and discretionary approval
by a lead agency. The BCAQMD CEQA Handbook, which was completed on October 23, 2014 and,
provides guidance to lead agencies in regards to evaluating potential air quality and greenhouse gas
impacts that could result from construction and operation of a project. The current Handbook thresholds
for non-attainment criteria air pollutants of concern are provided in Table 5.
38
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Table 6. Butte County Air Quality Management
District Thresholds of Significance for Criteria
Air Pollutants of Concern
CEQA Handbook
PollutantConstruction-RelatedOperational-Related
137 lbs/day, not to
NOx
25 lbs/day
exceed 4.5 tons/year
137 lbs/day, not to
ROG
25 lbs/day
exceed 4.5 tons/year
PM
80 lbs/day80 lbs/day
10
Source: BCAQMD DRAFT CEQA Handbook, April 2014
6.3.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact.
The California Clean Air Act requires preparation of air quality attainment plans for designated
National and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards nonattainment or maintenance areas. In order
to meet these standards, attainment plans first project future emissions based upon growth assumptions
for the jurisdictions within a given plan area. Measures are then promulgated to limit nonattainment
emissions to the required standard. In general, a project subject to CEQA conflicts with or obstructs
implementation of the applicable attainment plan if it would result in or induce growth in population,
employment, land use, or regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that is inconsistent with the growth (and
therefore the emission projection) assumptions in the applicable attainment plan.
The UGP would not result in or induce growth in population, employment, land use, or regional vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) that is inconsistent with the growth (and therefore the emission projection)
assumptions in the applicable attainment plan. Growth projections for the Oroville Urban Area, the plan
area for the UGP, were projected in the City of Oroville General Plan and Butte County General Plan. The
UGP would not change development density, intensity, land use or location as evaluated by the City of
Oroville General Plan and Butte County General Plan. On whole, the UGP is expected to reduce vehicle
miles traveled because it promotes pedestrian and bicycle circulation, with associated reduction in air
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, congestion and capacity issues.
The applicable air quality plan for Butte County is the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2012
Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan (2012 Attainment Plan). Although the 2012 Attainment Plan provides
estimated ROG and NOx emissions from 2006 to 2020 for the entire Northern Sacramento Valley, they
are not apportioned by local air district, county or municipality. Baseline and projected population and
vehicle miles travelled data by County are also not provided by the 2012 Attainment Plan. The Butte
County Association of Governments (BCAG) does provide projections for population, employment and
VMT through 2030 for Butte County. As required by the federal Clean Air Act, BCAG also provides a
conformance analysis that provides estimates for pollutant emissions for the County through 2035 that are
based upon population, employment and VMT estimates. Population, employment, VMT and air pollutant
emissions projections are provided in Table 6.
Since the UGP will reduce VMT, and have no impact on the type or size of development, it therefore would
not exceed growth forecasts on which the BCAG Conformance Analysis is based. The Plan would not
39
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
ctions, and its impact would
no impact
have in regards to implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Table 7. County 2030 Population, VMT and Pollutant
Projections
1
2030 BCAG Projections
VMT
6,439,000
Population
334,842
ROG (lbs/day)
3,410
NOx (lbs/day)
6,140
CO (lbs/day)
22,290
2
PM (lbs/day)
670
Source: Butte County General Plan 2030 EIR, Table 4.3-5
1 2030 Butte County VMT and emissions projections were interpolated
from 2025 and 2035 data presented in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the 2008 RTP and the associated Final Conformity Analysis
and Determination.
2
Emissions represent total PM (PM10 + PM2.5)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Less Than Significant.
Emissions with the potential to affect air quality would occur from equipment and
land clearance necessary to build improvements consistent with the UGP. While operation of facilities
consistent with the UGP will reduce VMT as compared to General Plan estimates as described in sub-
section (a) above, construction activities have the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutants
including NOx, diesel particulate matter and fugitive dust. Construction would involve machinery that burns
fuel or uses electrical energy, and the application of architectural coatings that emit volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), collectively acting as ozone precursors. The Plan would not produce additional
operation emissions as compared to buildout of the Urban Area consistent with the City of Oroville General
Plan and Butte County General Plan, because it would not increase vehicle miles traveled or change the
density, intensity, or location of future development.
In order to minimize construction dust, NOx and PM, future projects will be required to employ a variety of
measures and controls consistent with BCAQMD requirements. With construction of future projects
less than significantimpact
according to BCAQMD standards, the UGP will have a upon any BCAQMD
air quality standard or in regards to contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation.
c) 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)?
Less Than Significant.
As indicated in Table 2, Butte County is in non-attainment for 8-hour ozone and
24-hour PM (federal designations). BCAQMD regulations will reduce construction-related emissions to
2.5
less than significant as discussed in sub-sections (b). Operational emissions with the program are
expected to be less than with existing conditions, because the UGP promotes pedestrian and bicycle
circulation with associated reductions in vehicle miles traveled. The proposed UGP will thus NOT result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
40
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Sensitive receptors are individuals who, by virtue of old or young age or
health status, are especially vulnerable to air pollutant emissions. Typical land uses associated with
sensitive receptors include hospitals, convalescent homes, day care facilities and schools. In this instance,
sensitive receptors include individuals in the surrounding community.
With implementation of BCAQMD standards for construction dust, both operational and construction
emissions are expected to be less than BCAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds.
less than significant impact
Accordingly, there will be a to receptors within the Oroville Urban Area.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Objectionable odors during construction could include diesel fumes from
heavy equipment and fumes from asphalt and architectural coatings (paint, stains and waterproofing), but
these odors would be temporary and dissipate with distance. Given the short time frame for many
construction projects consistent with the UGP, objectionable odors are unlikely to have an impact from
either construction. Once the proposed facility is operating, the UGP would not produce an ongoing source
less than significant
of odors this impact would be .
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
6.4 Biological Resources
Would the proposal: Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
X
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, X
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, X
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means)?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X
41
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Would the proposal: Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy X
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
X
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
6
.4.1 Biological Resources Setting
The biological setting in the Oroville Urban Area, including regulatory context, is described in Section 4.3
The EIR section identifies nine
main types of biological communities in the Planning Area. These nine communities include foothill pine-
blue oak woodlands, riparian woodlands, annual grasslands, chaparral, agricultural lands, and four
wetland types (vernal pools, drainages, freshwater marsh, and reservoir \[i.e., open water\]). The distribution
of biological communities in the Planning Area is closely associated with topography and hydrology. Much
of the flat valley area supports agricultural lands, the hilly portions support most of the remaining grassland
and woodland communities, and stream corridors support riparian communities. A discussion of each
biological community, including associated common and special status plant and wildlife species is
provided din the Biological Resources section of the EIR. The EIR also notes
Within the Project Area, several regional parks and other protected public lands contain sensitive
biological habitats (i.e., riparian, wetlands) and may support state and federally listed species.
Table C-1, located in Appendix C, lists Special Status Plants that are documented or have been
identified as having the potential to occur in the Project Area. Table C-2 lists Special-Status
Wildlife Species that are documented or have been identified as having the potential to occur in
the Project Area. Lands that contain sensitive biological habitats include the Thermalito Afterbay,
Thermalito Forebay, Oroville Wildlife Area, and other natural lands managed by the CDFG,
California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Feather River Recreation and Parks
District.
e public health and create a more vibrant
and enjoyable outdoor environment, such as by increasing shade for pedestrians and bicyclists, usable
open space for outdoor activities, and Low Impact Design (LID) infrastructure for stormwater
management. The Plan evaluates existing multimodal transportation infrastructure, recreational space,
and the urban forest through data analysis, site analysis, and discussion with community members. Based
on this information, the Plan identifies and prioritizes specific opportunities for green interventions. By
42
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
providing best practices, conceptual designs, and suggestions for phasing, funding, and collaboration, the
Plan serves as a guiding document for implementation of greening projects in the greater Oroville
community.As such, it will support water conservation as well as improved air and water quality in the
-tolerant,
native plants suitable for providing micro-habitats for endemic species.
Chapter 4 of the UGP identifies a vision and set of goals specific to urban forestry. The stated vision for
greener streets that encourage people to walk and exercise, establishing green buffers from the freeways
that divide the community, and focusing on other multi-benefit greening opportunities. Specific goals for
reaching this vision include:
Increase Citywide Canopy Coverage.
A target of 21-percent for citywide
coverage is recommended for Oroville.
Enhance Forest Structure.
Increase the percentage of trees that are native and
have low water requirements, and work towards building a forest that is diverse with
consideration to species composition and age distribution. In addition, enhance drought-
tolerant, low-water need, and low-maintenance understory and other plantings throughout
the city.
Increase Urban Forest Benefits per Tree.
Focus on multi-benefit urban forestry
projects that optimize environmental and community benefits, including but not limited to
stormwater management, air pollution reduction, beautification, and neighborhood
walkability. Ensure selection of the right tree for new locations in order to optimize forest
benefits and to reducing infrastructure conflicts.
Chapter 4 provides an overview of the forest structure and benefits provided by the forest contained along
public roadways and within public parks in the Oroville Urban Area, as well as a brief overview of current
currently provides canopy coverage for
1 percent of the total area of the city, utilizing 2012 boundaries that defined the inventory and did not
include the Southside neighborhood. It is important to note that trees on private property and other trees
that are not maintained by the City also provide canopy coverage within Oroville, and that if these trees
were included in the analysis the overall coverage would increase.
Chapter 4 also identified site design standards relative to tree spacing, species diversity, and tree wells
(soil area); as well as design concepts relative to forested vacant lots, a shaded downtown parking lot,
creating walkable streets and buffering highways.
6.4.2 Impact and Mitigation Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
43
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Discussion:
(a d) Less Than Significant.
The UGP presents a vision for greening the Oroville Urban Area by
evaluating multimodal transportation infrastructure, recreational space, and the urban forest; prioritizing
specific opportunities for greening; including six sites selected for conceptual site plans and design
concepts to illustrate how greening might be accomplished. The UGP itself is a program-level policy
document; more detailed project descriptions will be necessary in order to evaluate the environmental
impacts of site-specific projects pursuant to CEQA.
While no projects will be approved through acceptance of the UGP, future greening projects consistent
with the Plan could occur in sensitive habitats, near streams, watercourses, aquatic habitat, or habitats
supporting candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Acceptance of the Urban Greening Plan will
not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species or
habitat identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because
implementation of the UGP will require subsequent review pursuant to CEQA in order to evaluate specific
projects prior to approval.
The City of Oroville General Plan and Butte County General Plan confirmed land use and development
designations within the Oroville Urban Area. Environmental Impact Reports were certified in conjunction
with City and County General Plans that evaluated the environmental impacts associated with projected
buildout of City and County land use designations. The UGP would reduce environmental impacts on a
programmatic level, as compared to impacts evaluated in City and County General Plans because it
promotes use of naturalized stormwater management techniques and pervious surfaces which enhance
habitat value and retain more local precipitation on site, as compared to traditional stormwater
management methods.
Compliance with all federal and state laws regarding water quality (i.e., Clean Water Act (CWA) and state
and federal endangered species acts) will be confirmed prior to approval and construction of projects
implementing the UGP. Thus, if sensitive resources were located on individual project sites, federal and
state regulatory permitting requirements, such as CWA Sections 404 and 401, as well as California
Department of Fish and Game Code Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreements, would require
impacts, if any, to be identified and mitigated at that time. Due to these existing regulations for the
protection of sensitive resources, and the need for subsequent environmental review prior to approval and
implementation of specific projects, the UGP will not result in a potentially significant impact to biological
Less Than Significant
resources. Impacts to habitat values and special status species are .
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a
tree preservation policy ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Although Butte County does not have an adopted oak tree preservation
ordinance, it complies with Public Resources Code Section 21083.4 for the mitigation of impacts to oak
woodlands. Oak woodlands are located within the Oroville Urban Area, especially within the eastern
portion of the Plan area. The Butte County and City of Oroville General Plans have various policies
encouraging avoidance of sensitive natural features such as wetlands, special-status species and
streams.
The City of Oroville has adopted an oak tree loss mitigation ordinance which applies to any native oak tree
on public or private land with a minimum diameter at breast height (dbh) (i.e. 4.5 feet from the ground of:
44
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
ties, including valley oak,
black oak, blue oak, interior live oak, and canyon oak.
Because projects will undergo subsequent environmental review to ensure oak trees are protected, and
a Less than
because the UGP does not propose to take out any oak trees, the proposed Plan will have
significant impact
in regards to a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact:
Althoughthe Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP) is under preparation by the Butte
County Association of Governments (BCAG), it has not yet been adopted. The plan area for the BRCP
overlaps the Oroville Urban Area, as shown in Figure 7, County and City Planned Development Footprints
Inside the Urban Permit Areas (UPAs); Butte Regional Conservation Plan.The Oroville Urban Area, and
thus the UGP, is located within the Urban Permit Area of the BRCP. The BRCP assumes build out of the
Oroville Urban Area consistent with City and County General Plan.
Therefore, the urban nature of street improvements and recreational facilities resulting from the UGP do
not conflict with implementation of the BRCP. As discussed in section 6.4.2 (a-d), the UGP enhances local
habitat values, over current improvement standards because it advances the use of naturalized stormwater
management techniques and pervious surfaces which retain more local precipitation on site and promote
no adverse
vegetation. The anticipated scale and location of the UGP would be expected to have a
impact
upon the BRCP.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
45
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Figure 7: County and City Planned Development Footprints Inside the Urban Permit Areas (UPAs); Butte Regional
st
Conservation Plan (1 Administrative Draft, June 2011)
46
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.5 Cultural Resources
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
ImpactMitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
X
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
X
of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
X
outside of formal cemeteries?
6.5.1 Cultural Resources Setting
Cultural resources in Butte County include archeological resources, historic resources, and cultural resources
related to Native Americans. Over 2,900 archeological sites have been recorded in Butte County; about half
of them are pre-historic archeological resources (e.g. habitation sites, hunting/processing camps, millings
stations, rock art sites, and burial locations) and half of them are historic period sites (e.g. transportation
corridors, and activities associated with historic homesteading, ranching, agriculture, mining, and commerce.)
The overall historic sensitivity of Butte County is generally considered high in those areas where historic
records indicate transportation routes, agricultural settlements, and mining have occurred.
According to the California Office of Historic Preservation, a total of 129 archeological sites are listed or have
been formally recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in Butte County
, and therefore, by default on the California Register of Historic Resources. Of these, 98 are prehistoric
archeological sites, and six are archeological sites that contain both prehistoric and historic period
components. Several hundred properties with historic resources are listed or appear eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources. Additionally, the State of
California has designated nine California Historic Landmarks and 20 California Points of Historic Interest in
Butte County.
The majority of these recorded sites are historic-period resources, twenty-seven of the recorded sites are
prehistoric resources, and six sites contain both historic and prehistoric components. It is likely that more
historic-period resources exist in areas that have not yet been surveyed for cultural resources. Though 16
cultural resources studies have been conducted within the Plan Area, less than 10% of the land has been
examined.
Implementation of Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which went into effect January 1, 2005, set forth new requirements
for local governments (city and county) to consult with Native American tribes to aid in the protection of
traditional tribal cultural places through local land use planning. The intent of SB 18 is to provide California
Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early stage of planning,
for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.
47
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an
unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on nonfederal land. These procedures are
outlined in Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from
disturbance, vandalism and inadvertent destruction; establish procedures to be implemented if Native
American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establish the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such
remains.
Both the City of Oroville and Butte County General Plans contain policies for the protection of cultural
resources consistent with existing state and federal regulations.
Municipal Code address historic buildings and structures within the City limits. The intent of
Municipal Code Chapter 26; Article II Use Districts; Division 3; 26-
establish procedures, regulations, and conditions for the preservation, protection, enhancement,
rehabilitation, perpetuation, and use of improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, sites, and
Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2 specifies the responsibilities of the lead agency to determine
whether a project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If it can be demonstrated that
a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable
efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed
state. The code also details required mitigation measures if unique archaeological resources are not
preserved in place or not left in an undisturbed state.
6.5.3 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5
.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
(a d) Less Than Significant Impact
A substantial adverse change upon a historically significant
resource would be one wherein the resource is demolished or materially altered so that it no longer
conveys its historic or cultural significance in such a way that justifies its inclusion in the California Register
of Historical Resources or such a local register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subd. (b)(2)).
The Oroville Urban Area, including within the Thermalito and Southside neighborhoods, has historic ties
to the gold rush era as well as pre-historic Native American habitation sites. Implementation of future
greening projects involving ground disturbance or disturbance to historic resources would be subject to
project-level CEQA analysis. Nevertheless, ground disturbance necessary to construct proposed facilities
could impact currently unknown subsurface cultural resources. It is possible that with the UGP, site
preparation, landscape planting and other activities could uncover historic or pre-historic resources that
lie below the surface of the ground. Much of the Plan area has in large part been cleared and graded and
48
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
within or near developed urban and suburban neighborhoods for decades. Historical resources as defined
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 are not likely to occur on the ground surface, given extensive ground
disturbance and ongoing residential activities over the past decades. Nevertheless, environmental review
for subsequent projects, including consultation with the Northeast Information Center at Chico State
University (NEIC) will assist in determining whether additional field reconnaissance is required, consistent
with PRC 21083.2.
If human remains are encountered, section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures
to be used on nonfederal land. These procedures are outlined in Public Resources Code Sections 5097
and 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism and inadvertent destruction;
establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during
construction of a project; and establish the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority
to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.
Existing policies and regulations for the protection of cultural resources serve to ensure impacts to historic
Less Than Significant
and pre-historic resources will be less than significant as a result of the UGP.
Impact.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
6.6 Geology and Soils
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant Significant
Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a.Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1.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.
2.Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
3.Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
4.Landslides?
X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
49
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant Significant
Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
X
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks X
to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system
X
where sewers are not available for the disposal or
wastewater?
6.6.1 Geologic and Soils Setting
Seismic and geologic hazards are evaluated in both Section A of the Oroville General Plan Safety Element
and Section III of the Butte County Health and Safety Element. Both Elements and their Geologic and
Seismic Hazards sections are available as indicated in Section 2.1 and are herein incorporated by
reference. Figure HS-3 of Health and Safety Element shows the general location of active,
potentially active and inactive earthquake faults in Butte County. The nearest active fault that is, a fault
that has shown movement within the past 200 (historic) or the past 11,000 years (Holocene) is the
Cleveland Hills fault. The northern terminus of the Cleveland Hills fault is just east of Kelly Ridge (about
7.2 miles to the southeast). The Plan area is not within an Alquist- Priolo special studies zone.
Butte County is within the range of seismic activity caused by the tectonically active Pacific Coast and can
expect future seismic events:
Program, Butte County is considered to be within an area that is predicted to have a 10 percent
probability that a seismic event would produce horizontal ground shaking of 10 to 20 percent within
a 50-year period. This level of ground shaking correlates to a Modified Mercalli intensity of V to
VII, light to strong. As a result of these factors, the California Geological Survey has defined the
-9).
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale measures the intensity of ground shaking on a scale of I to XII, based
(Butte County
2010b, p. 4.69). (The 1975 Cleveland Hills earthquake had an estimated magnitude of 5.7 on the Richter
scale.) As stated by the Butte County General Plan 2030 Draft EIR, the area of Butte County most likely
to be subject to strong ground shaking is along the Cleveland Hills Fault.
In regards to other geologic hazards, surface and subsurface soil characteristics influence the potential
50
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
for landslides, erosion and expansive soils. The Seismic and Geologic Hazards section of the Butte
County General Plan 2030 Health and Safety Element provides several County-wide maps showing the
hazard potential near the Southside neighborhood for erosion (slight), and expansive soils (moderate),
landslides (low to none), and liquefaction (generally low or moderate). These Health and Safety Element
maps also show the hazard potential near the Thermalito neighborhood for erosion (slight), and expansive
soils (moderate), landslides (low to none), and liquefaction (generally low).
Soils in the Southside neighborhood are identified as Thompsonflat and Oroville Series. The Thompsonflat
series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium from metamorphic and
igneous rocks. The Oroville series consists of moderately deep, poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium
from metamorphic and igneous rocks. Site preparation could likely be challenged by rocky soils. Tree
planting en mass as envisioned by the UGP may be facilitated by the availability of equipment such as
backhoes, and augers.
City of Oroville Erosion Control Standard
The City of Oroville has adopted development standards relative to erosion control, landscaping, and water
use OMC 26-13.050 D Landscape
Standards contains general regulations which protect soils, water quality, and water conservation on a
programmatic level.
D. General Regulations.
1. Plans and specifications for landscaping, irrigation systems, tree preservation and
slope planting for erosion control shall reflect the use of the following:
a. Plant materials with varied heights, textures and colors.
b. Sound soil preparation and planting practices.
c. Proper irrigation for healthy plant growth and maturation, as well as the avoidance of
unsafe and unnecessary watering of buildings, public ways and pedestrian ways.
2. No more than 10 percent nonliving ground cover such as rock, bark, chips or bricks
may be used as an accent material or for weed control, but not as a total landscaping
theme or in lieu of living plant material.
Butte County Erosion Control Standard
Butte County Code BCC13-11 contains erosion control measures applicable to grading permits,
and BCC 245-145 contains erosion control measures applicable to urban zones of the County.
Urban zones in the County include VLDR (Very L:ow Density Residential), VLDCR (Very Low
Density County Residential), LDR (Low Density Residential), MDR (Medium Density Residential),
MHDR (Medium High Density Residential), HDR (High Density Residential), VHDR (Very High
Density Residential), all Commercial zones, all Industrial zones, PB (Public), AIR (Airport), and
RBP (Research and Business Park).
24-145 - Erosion control.
The following erosion control standards shall apply to all development projects in all urban
zones:
A. The smallest area practical of land shall be exposed at any one (1) time during
development;
B. When land is exposed during development, the exposure shall be kept to the shortest
practical period of time;
51
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
C. Natural features such as trees, groves, natural terrain, waterways, and other similar
resources shall be preserved where feasible;
D. Temporary vegetation or mulching shall be used to protect critical areas exposed during
development;
E. The permanent final vegetation and structures shall be installed as soon as practical in
the development;
F. Wherever feasible the development shall be fitted to the topography and soils to create
the least erosion potential;
G. Provisions shall be made to effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by
changed soil and surface conditions during and after development as specified in Chapter 50,
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control; and
H. Sediment basins (debris basins, desalting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed and
maintained to remove sediment from runoff waters from land undergoing development where
needed.
Additionally, BCC 13-11 specifies erosion control measures applicable to grading permits. See section
4.4 Erosion Control of the Project Description.
6.6.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 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.
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
4. Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact.
The Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources section of the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report developed for the City of Oroville General Plan update in 2010 summarizes
information on geology, soils and seismic hazards, and mineral resources in the Oroville Urban Area, as
well as potential area-wide geologic hazards and regional seismic characteristics that are relevant to
development within the Plan area. The chapter includes an evaluation of the impacts of adoption and
implementation of the General Plan and ensuing development with regard to these potential hazards and
resources including liquefaction, ground shaking, ground rupture and landslides. Since the UGP is located
within the same project area and will not increase vehicle trips or population, it is consistent with the
analysis in the Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources section of the General Plan Environmental Impact
Report developed for its General Plan update
The Plan area is not in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. An active fault (Cleveland Hills fault) runs
north-south along the eastern portion of the Oroville Urban Area. Strong seismic ground shaking could
occur with potential risk to the proposed facilities and users. Liquefaction is a process in which uniform
sediment subject to infiltration by groundwater temporarily loses cohesion during ground shaking and
behaves as a viscous liquid rather than a solid, sometimes subsiding in discrete areas. Liquefaction and
subsidence occur in level areas with high groundwater levels and deposits of sand and silt.
52
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Any future facilities must be built according to the California Building Code (incorporating the Uniform
Building Code) seismic design standards for buildings and the California Division of Mines and Geology
Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117 (revised
2008), which includes design and construction requirements related to fire and structural safety. Future
less than significant impact
facilities must be built to current seismic codes, there would be a in regards
to a potential for substantial adverse effects to people or structures as a result of ground rupture,
seismically-induced ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact.
Soil erosion is the removal of soil by water and wind. As noted in the
Geologic and Soils Setting, Butte County GIS data developed for its General Plan update in 2010 indicates
the Oroville Urban Area slight. Proposed projects over an acre in size
would be required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit
for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities. The stormwater permit would require
the applicant (City, County, or FRRPD) to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for construction activities over one acre in size, and conduct inspections of the storm water
pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure conformance with the site SWPPP.
less
Compliance with the NPDES permit would ensure that construction-related erosion impacts would be
than significant
. For discussion of erosion potential as it relates to water quality, see Section IX,
Hydrology and Water Quality.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, 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?
Less than Significant Impact.
Subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over saturation
or extensive withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Areas susceptible to subsidence are typically
composed of open textured soils with high silt or clay content which is not consistent with the fine sandy
to gravelly sandy Thompson Flat Oroville soils underlying the Southside neighborhood, for instance.
Any future structure resulting from the UGP would be built in conformance with the California Building
Code There will be no impact in regards to potential lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse
less than significant
and a impact in regards to an off-site landslide.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact.
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in water content to a degree
that can adversely impact building foundations and roads. The extent of shrinking and swelling is related
to the clay content of soils. Clay rich soils are prone to shrinking and swelling while soils dominated by
sand or gravel components experience commensurately less. As noted in the Geologic and Soils Setting,
Butte County GIS data developed for its General Plan update in 2010 indicates some areas within the
UGP have All proposed facilities would be built consistent with
the California Building Code, which contains standards that address risks from shrink/swell soils.
Geotechnical reports may be required to further assess issues identified during project specific CEQA
less than significant impact
review. There would therefore be a with regards to expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal or
wastewater?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Implementation of the proposed UGP will generally not require the
53
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
disposal of wastewater; however, additional bathrooms for existing recreational facilities are a possible
exception. UGP Concepts #3 to Beautify the river levee and #1 to connect Nelson Park to the Themalito
Forebay Picnic Area/Aquatic Center, for instance could include bathroom remodel or new faciliites which
would need to be designed consistent with applicable standards of the Butte County Division of
Environmental Health. Subsequent environmental findings, consistent with CEQA will be undertaken for
less than signifiant impact
these projects, prior to approval and construction. Therefore, there would be
with regard to such wastewater systems.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
6.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant Significant
Impact
Impactwith Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X
greenhouse
gases?
6.7.1 Greenhouse Gases Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) include naturally occurring and anthropogenic gases that absorb and emit
greenhouse gases include water vapor (HO), carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CH), nitrous oxide (NO),
2242
and ozone (O). Anthropogenic greenhouse gases include COemissions from the burning of fossil fuels,
32
and halogenated compounds that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine such as hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), which are generally a product of industrial activities. CO emissions
2
may be further distinguished as biogenic (derived from living cells and generated from biological
decomposition, combustion and numerous other processes) and non-biogenic (derived from fossil fuels,
limestone, and other materials transformed by geologic processes).
The different greenhouse gases have varying effects upon global warming. For example, CH and NO
42
have 21 and 310 times the warming effect of CO, respectively. In order to evaluate greenhouse gases
2
by a common metric, individual gases are converted to a carbon dioxide equivalent (COe) by multiplying
2
their values expressed in metric tons per year (MTCOe) by their global warming potential (GWP). The
2
-trapping characteristics relative to CO, which has a GWP of one (1).
2
While global warming is a world-wide phenomenon, it may result in a variety of effects at the regional and
local scale. For California these may include (among others) changes in precipitation patterns, reduced
snowpack, drought, heat waves and consequent effects upon air quality, agriculture, biological resources,
and the availability of water for consumptive uses (CAPCOA, 2009).
54
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Although the direct greenhouse gases CO, CH, and NO occur naturally in the atmosphere, human
242
activities largely associated with the combustion of carbon-based fuels have increased their atmospheric
concentrations since the start of the industrial age. The state of California has adopted a number of
statutes and regulations to control and reduce the emission of GHGs, reflecting a belief that their
increasing concentration will result in a number of deleterious impacts to public health, safety and the
environment through the effects of global climate change (CalEPA 2010).
In particular, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, sets a goal to reduce
overall GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 while further directing the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) to create a plan which includes market mechanisms and imple
quantifiable, cost-greenhouse gas reductions of
CO
2
emissions level of 596 MMT COe that would occur without the reductions. The AB 32 Scoping Plan,
2
adopted by the California Air Resources Board on December 11, 2008, provides several strategies to
achieve the AB 32 reductions, including energy efficiency measures in buildings such as those included
A Climate Action Plan is a plan adopted by a jurisdiction to establish baseline greenhouse gas emissions
and provide an assortment of measures to reduce the level of greenhouse gases in a manner consistent
with AB 32. Butte County adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on February 25, 2014 that is consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) and AB 32 Scoping Plan requirements for a local jurisdiction to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions ( http://www.buttecap.net). The City of Oroville adopted a Climate
Action Plan on March 31, 2015.
2006 baseline inventory of community GHG emissions by sector provided in Table 11 shows
that agriculture, transportation and residential energy are responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions
in Butte County. For the City of Oroville, on road transportation and building energy comprise by far the
greatest sources of GHG emissions.
Table 11. Butte County 2006 GHG Emissions Inventory
Table 8. 2006 Community Inventory of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
2006 GHG Emissions
Sector*
MTCOe
Percent of Total**
2
Agriculture390,40043%
Transportation265,45029%
Residential energy150,63017%
Nonresidential energy61,4507%
Off-road equipment and vehicles17,3602%
Solid waste13,9802%
Wastewater7,9701%
Water4,390<1%
Total911,630100%
Source: Butte County Climate Action Plan, Table 1
Notes:
*Additional sectors(e.g., forestry) were inventoried but not included due to lack of jurisdictional control.
**Due to rounding, percent of total column may not equal 100%.
55
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Table 12. City of Oroville 2010 GHG Emissions Inventory
Emission Sector Emissions (MTCO2e) Percentage of
Inventory
Onroad Transportation 78,096 47.8%
Building Energy 75,042 46.0%
Offroad Vehicles and Equipment 4,221 2.6%
Solid Waste Management 4,125 2.5%
Wastewater Treatment 1,348 0.8%
Water Management 456 0.3%
Total 2010 Inventory 163,288 100.0%
The CAP identifies current state and local (County) accomplishments in reducing greenhouse gases, and
identifies a remaining gap of 108,330 MTCOe by 2020 to achieve the emissions reduction goal of 774,890
2
MTCOe (15% below 2006 baseline levels). The CAP then identifies a number of measures to achieve
2
that reduction, broadly grouped under six focus areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy (EN),
alternative fuel vehicles and equipment (F), transportation (T), agriculture (AG), solid waste (SW), and
government operations (GO).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(2), a project may be determined to have a less than
significant cumulative impact if it is consistent with the requirements of the applicable CAP. Butte County
employs a checklist to determine if a project is consistent with the applicable greenhouse reduction
measures in its CAP. Those measures are designed to achieve a 15 percent reduction below 2006 levels
by 2020.
The UGP would not result in or induce growth in population, employment, land use, or regional vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) that is inconsistent with the growth (and therefore the emission projection)
assumptions in the CAP. Growth projections for the Oroville Urban Area, the plan area for the UGP, were
projected in the City of Oroville General Plan and Butte County General Plan. The UGP would not change
development density, intensity, land use or location as evaluated by the City of Oroville General Plan and
Butte County General Plan. On whole, the UGP is expected to reduce vehicle miles traveled because it
promotes pedestrian and bicycle circulation, with associated reduction in air pollution, greenhouse gas
emissions, congestion and capacity issues.
6.7.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
No Impact.
Neither Butte County nor the Butte County Air Quality Management District have established a
threshold of significance for the project-level generation of GHG emissions. As discussed in Section 6.7.1,
the Butte County Climate Action Plan is consistent with AB 32 and AB 32 Scoping Plan reduction goals for
local governments to achieve 1990 emission levels by 2020, or a 15% below existing (that is, 2006 baseline)
emissions.
The Oroville Urban Forest canopy of 1% currently sequesters 405 metric tons of CO2 per year, while the
target canopy of 21% would sequester 1,473 metric tons of CO2 per year a net increase of 1,068 metric
56
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
tons per year. From the Oroville 2010 Emissions Inventory, this would be a substantial step toward the
CityGHG goals. Due to the nature of the project to promote pedestrian and bicycle facilities, with no net
increase in vehicle trips, operation of the project would have negligible contribution to GHG emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions due to construction activities would be temporary and negligible as compared
to the 2006 baseline inventory for both community sectors and government operations. The UGP would
have no operational greenhouse gas emissions, as it promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel above the
baseline inventories and improves on the emissions reduction of 108,330 MTCOe by 2020 to meet the
2
adverse impact
goals of the CAP. The UGP would therefore have no upon the environment due to its
greenhouse gas emissions.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact.
As discussed in the Greenhouse Gases Setting, the applicable plan is the Butte County CAP,
which has a number of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the County in a manner
consistent with AB 32 and its scoping plan.
therefore, the UGP, with its intent to promote bicycle and pedestrian circulation, is consistent with the
primary intent of the CAP. The Butte County Department of Development Services, City of Oroville
Community Development Department, and the Feather River Recreation & Park District (FRRPD) are joint
sponsors of the UGP on behalf of the Oroville area. As realized, the Plan would confer multiple benefits
to the greater Oroville area, including designs for improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation, promotion
of public health and safety, reduction of stormwater overflows, and increased shade canopy. Voluntary
streetscape improvements outlined in the Plan are anticipated to be implemented as part of the City of
-specific streetscape improvement efforts. Additionally,
as the City and County adopt alternative improvement standards to allow improvements consistent with
the UGP, in lieu of traditional streetscape and stormwater improvements, private development may also
benefit from the vision of the UGP.
The proposed plan is consistent with and supportive of the following CAP greenhouse reduction
measures:
A3. Anticipate increases in flooding frequency and severity.
Even though overall precipitation levels may decline under future climate conditions, it is likely that
precipitation events that do occur will be more extreme. With foothills in the east draining into a large
valley in the west, Butte County is already vulnerable to flooding. Increases in extreme precipitation
events are l
and may additionally increase erosion in the long term. The actions below can make Butte County
more resilient to increases in flooding frequency and severity.
Actions:
activities for new and existing structures and drainage system maintenance.
Include anticipated flood increase considerations in public outreach activities, including information
about the stormwater management program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), and information related to the maintenance of drainage systems.
Amend development standards to require stormwater management infrastructure in all new
development, including but not limited to impervious pavement lot-coverage maximums, on-site water
retention requirements, grey water storage requirements, and other Low Impact Development (LID)
techniques.
Develop a Lake Oroville flooding evacuation plan that anticipates changing risks from a decrease in
the Sierra snowpack and an increase in more severe rainfall events.
57
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
A4. Prepare and quickly respond to more frequent and intense extreme heat events.
As the climate continues to change, extreme heat events are likely to occur more frequently and last
longer. Heat affects Butte County in multiple ways including effects on agricultural production,
stressors to disadvantaged populations with limited access to reliable cooling, and through the
generation of troposphere ozone in the more urbanized areas of the unincorporated county. The
following actions will help the County respond to and recover quickly from extreme heat events.
Actions:
Incorporate anticipated extreme heat event severity and frequency into annual updates of the Butte
County Emergency Operations Plan Excessive Heat Hazard Appendix.
Work with community organizations to provide cooling centers during extreme heat events.
Support attainment of ambient air quality standards to prevent tropospheric ozone and related public
health problems.
Reduce heat islands in urbanized unincorporated communities using high-albedo pavements, cool
roofs, and tree requirements for public facilities maintenance, capital improvements, and new
development.
Work with partners to prioritize and leverage greening and forestry grants for urbanized
unincorporated communities.
GR2. Work with partners to prepare for climate change.
In coordination with other jurisdictions, agencies, and partners, the County can work more effectively
to identify resources and approaches to respond to climate change. Regional coordination also
supports more informed decision-making that minimizes hazards and protects vulnerable resources.
Actions:
Partner with neighboring jurisdictions and regional entities to create an ongoing monitoring program
that tracks local and regional climate change effects and adaptation efforts and outcomes.
Leverage multi-benefit funding sources such as federal hazard mitigation grants.
Identify partnerships, funding programs, and opportunities for assessing changing risks, such as
partnerships with Chico State Institute for Sustainable Development, Butte College, and local nonprofit
groups.
GO7. Reduce emissions from employee commutes by encouraging alternative travel options and
supporting the use of clean, alternative fuels.
The employee commutes and travel sector was the largest non-landfill contributor to 2006 government
operations emissions (20% of total emissions). This measure identifies opportunities to reduce
commute and travel emissions.
Actions:
departments with the highest percent participation in commuter or public transit programs.
passes to employees that use public transit or participate in carpool or commuter programs.
sources.
58
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
pport and participate in programs
The Butte County General Plan provides a goal and associated policies for greenhouse gases in the
Greenhouse Gases section (Section I) of the Conservation and Open Space Element. The applicable
Greenhouse Gases goal are evaluated in regards to the proposed UGP as follows:
Goal COS-1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
COS-P1.1 Greenhouse gas emission impacts from proposed development projects shall
o
be evaluated as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
COS-P1.2 New development projects shall mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on-site or
o
as close to the site as possible.
COS-P1.4 New development should provide above-ground and natural stormwater
o
facilities and use building designs and materials that promote groundwater recharge.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would be consistent Goal COS-1 because its
GHG emissions are analyzed as required by CEQA in this section. GHG emissions will be mitigated
throughout its life by
particular Measure EN7 (Encourage new nonresidential buildings to meet and exceed CALGreen
standards for energy efficiency, water conservation, and passive design).
To conclude, construction of UGP projects would be consistent with both the CAP and General Plan
less than significant impact
Goal COS-1, resulting in a
greenhouse gas emissions.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant Significant
Impact
Impactwith Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous X
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
X
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
59
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant Significant
Impact
Impactwith Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X
quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X
working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency X
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
6.8.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Setting
Hazardous substances are regulated under the California Health and Safety Code Chapters 6.95, 6.75
and 6.5 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. Under Chapter 6.95 of the Health and
Safety Code, a hazardous material
means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration or physical or chemical, poses
a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if
ot limited
to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering
agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of
persons or harmful to the environment if released
60
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is responsible for regulation, handling use and
disposal of toxic materials in California.
In south Oroville, about 350 feet east of State Route 70 there are no known toxic waste sites. The Oroville
Industrial Area has, at various times, contained three different federal superfund sites (Koppers, Louisiana
Pacific, and Western Pacific), each involved various types of surface and groundwater contamination. All
have been remediated. The Louisiana Pacific site has been removed from the superfund list and is no
longer subject to inspections or land use limitations. The Koppers and Western Pacific sites are still subject
to inspections and restricted to certain land uses that would not involve significant exposure of the public.
industrial area as beyond the scope of the UGP. Notwithstanding initial discussion of the industrial area,
further discussion of cleaning and greening of these areas is outside the scope of the UGP or this analysis.
The western portion of the Oroville Urban Area is within the Local Responsibility for fire and is not within
a Fire Hazard Area. The City of Oroville Fire Department and the El Medio Fire District have primary
responsibility for fire protection in the western portion of the OUA.
The eastern portion of the Oroville Urban Area is within a State Responsibility Area and encompasses
moderate, high, and very high fire hazard areas. CalFire has primary responsibility for fire protection in the
eastern portion of the OUA. The UGP is a programmatic document; additional projectspecific
environmental findings will be required prior to implementation of specific projects.
6.8.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Clean-up of overgrowth and debris in alleys and vacant lots could expose
appear suspicious (55 gallon drums, materials still containing hazardous materials packaging, unlabeled,
CalEPA Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA)
program at Butte County Environmental Health (530-538-7281) and should be remediated by the property
owner. Californians are protected from hazardous waste and materials by a Unified Program that ensures
consistency throughout the state in regard to administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and
enforcement. CalEPA oversees the program as a whole, and certifies 83 local government agencies
known as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) to implement the hazardous waste and materials
standards set by five different state agencies. - See more at:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/#sthash.vlA2wnwA.dpuf
Removal of hazardous materials as a result of the proposed UGP would be consistent with State CUPA
standards as enforced by Butte County, which means the location and removal of hazardous materials
less than significant
would be a impact.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.
As discussed in sub-section (a), the proposed facility would not involve the
less than significant impact
use of hazardous materials. As such, there would be a in regards to hazards
61
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
to the public or the environment.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools?
No Impact.
Schools within the plan area include numerous elementary and secondary schools that could be
affected by Safe Routes to School or complete streets improvements, such as UGP Concept # 6 to improve
streets around La Plumas High School and nearby elementary schools, or UGP priority improvement to link
Thermalito schools with residential areas east of Highway 70. Schools identified in the UGP as needing
improved safe routes to school include the Oakdale Heights Elementary School, Las Plumas High School,
and Nelson Elementary. No emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials should occur
no adverse impact
with implementation of the proposed program and there will be to Oroville Urban Area
schools.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
No Impact.
Cortese sites are located in the Oroville Urban Area; as noted, one has been remediated and is
no longer inspected while the other two have been remediated but are still subject to inspections every five
years. Reuse of these sites is outside the scope of the UGP and this Initial Study. Implementation of the
no impact
proposed program would have in regards to creation of a significant hazard to the public or
environment in relation to a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact.
The nearest airport is the Oroville Airport, located about four miles to the southwest There will
no impact
be in regards to an airport-related safety hazard to people residing or working in the proposed plan
area.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact.
four miles of
the proposed plan site. There would be no impact in regards to a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the plan area in relation to a private airstrip.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The Butte County
that serves as the emergency response plan for the County and the City of Oroville. The scope and location
of proposed improvements consistent with the UGP would enhance existing roadways, but would not
substantially modify circulation patterns without subsequent CEQA review. The proposed UGP would have
less than significant impact
a in regards to impairing or physically interfering with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
62
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
No Impact.
The UGP does not propose significant new structures that would require protection from fire.
Cal-Fire/Butte County Fire and the City of Oroville have in place a mutual aid agreement that allows for the
closest resource to be dispatched to incidents. Removal of trash and debris and installing landscape
consistent with the UGP would assist in reducing fire risk. Four fire hydrants are located along Meyers Street
and other locations surrounding the Southside neighborhood. The headquarters of Butte County/Cal-Fire is
no adverse impact
located at the intersection of County Center Drive and Nelson Avenue. There would be
in regards to the exposure of people or structures to loss, injury or death from wildfire.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
ImpactMitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
X
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of X
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
X
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount X
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
X
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
63
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
ImpactMitigation Impact
Incorporated
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
6
.9.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Setting
Chapter 6 of the UGP focuses on stormwater management techniques that reduce flooding, improve water
quality and provide habitat for wildlife, which are also known as low impact designs (LIDs). LIDs attempt
to mimic nature by restoring hydraulic patterns through cleansing, diffusing, and absorbing the water where
it falls. Additionally, stormwater practices that utilize natural processes often involve creating raingardens,
swales, and other attractive drainage plantings. Other LID strategies include:
Maximizing the tree canopy, which can catch and slow rain fall before it hits the
ground, thus slowing runoff rates and allowing more time for infiltration.
Installing permeable hardscape, allowing runoff to be absorbed into the ground.
Using structural features, such as green roofs, cisterns, and rain barrels, to collect
and use rainwater.
Adding energy dissipaters, such as vegetation, rocks, and fiber rolls, in the path
of water flow to reduce the speed of runoff.
Preserving or replicating natural drainage patterns
Avoiding excessive grading and disturbance of existing vegetation
Concentrating development on portions of the site with less permeable soils to
preserve areas that can promote infiltration
Detaining and retaining runoff throughout the site
Employing small-scale design solutions that direct smaller quantities of runoff into
landscape areas, which spreads out stormwater infiltration areas, allowing for more
stormwater to sink in, thereby reducing infrastructure costs
Erosion Control Measures
64
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
As noted in the project setting, section 4.4 Erosion Control, both the City of Oroville and Butte
County have adopted regulation to minimize erosion and sediment from leaving a project site.
-13.050 Landscape Standards contains general regulations which protect
soils, water quality, and water conservation on a programmatic level.
General Regulations.
D.
1. Plans and specifications for landscaping, irrigation systems, tree preservation and slope
planting for erosion control shall reflect the use of the following:
a. Plant materials with varied heights, textures and colors.
b. Sound soil preparation and planting practices.
c. Proper irrigation for healthy plant growth and maturation, as well as the avoidance of
unsafe and unnecessary watering of buildings, public ways and pedestrian ways.
2. No more than 10 percent nonliving ground cover such as rock, bark, chips or bricks
may be used as an accent material or for weed control, but not as a total landscaping
theme or in lieu of living plant material.
OMC 26-13.050 also contains landscaping development standards including crime prevention standards
(OMC 26-13.050 E), landscaping in residential areas (OMC 26-13.050 F), landscaping in commercial and
mixed-use districts (OMC 26-13.050 G), landscaping in industrial districts (OMC 26-13.050 H), and
landscaping in parking lots (OMC 26-13.050 I); see http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=456
Butte County Code BCC13-11contains erosion control measures applicable to grading permits; and BCC
245-145 contains erosion control measures applicable to urban zones of the County. Urban zones in the
County include VLDR (Very Low Density Residential), VLDCR (Very Low Density Country Residential),
LDR (Low Density Residential), MDR (Medium Density Residential), MHDR (Medium High Density
Residential), HDR (High Density Residential), VHDR (Very High Density Residential), all commercial
zones, all industrial zones, PB (public), AIR (Airport), and RBP (Research and Business Park).
BCC 24-145 - Erosion Control.
The following erosion control standards apply to all
development projects in all urban zones:
A. The smallest area practical of land shall be exposed at any one (1) time during
development;
B. When land is exposed during development, the exposure shall be kept to the shortest
practical period of time;
C. Natural features such as trees, groves, natural terrain, waterways, and other similar
resources shall be preserved where feasible;
D. Temporary vegetation or mulching shall be used to protect critical areas exposed during
development;
E. The permanent final vegetation and structures shall be installed as soon as practical in
the development;
F. Wherever feasible the development shall be fitted to the topography and soils to create
the least erosion potential;
G. Provisions shall be made to effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by
changed soil and surface conditions during and after development as specified in Chapter 50,
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control; and
H. Sediment basins (debris basins, desalting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed and
maintained to remove sediment from runoff waters from land undergoing development where
needed.
Municipal Service Review for Oroville Stormwater
65
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
A 2009 Municipal Service Review for the City of Oroville concluded, relative to stormwater drainage:
last updated in 2003, and the Master Drainage Plan, last updated in 1991. While these
documents indicate the City has the ability to provide adequate stormwater drainage
service to the existing population and policies to address adequate future stormwater
drainage planning, these plans are in need of updating to address current conditions and
ensure consistency with the recently adopted 2030 General Plan.
As the Thermalito area continues to develop, adequate and current drainage plans should
be in place prior to new development being approved in this area by either the City or the
County.
The City will continue to require new development to incorporate stormwater drainage
infrastructure as a condition of approval. Development impact fees will continue to pay for
the system improvements that are necessary to provide stormwater drainage service for
new development.
Plant Selection
Plant have been selected to endure, and thrive in long, harsh
dry summers. Irrigation may be required, but will likely reduce the amount of water used as compared to
traditional street tree and landscape plantings used in the past. During the current statewide extreme
drought, care has been taken to select low-water use and drought tolerant plantings. See Chapter 4
(Urban Forestry) and the Plant Palette of the UGP for detail.
Water Supply
On the local level, the South Feather Water & Power Agency (serving the eastern portion of Oroville) and
Cal Water (serving Southside , downtown and central Oroville) have adequate supply to meet projected
water demand and provide water to irrigate alleys and streets, which is promoted for public health and
safety purposes, and Thermalito Water and Sewer District similarly has adequate capacity to meet
projected water demands including irrigation of the Nelson ballfields, as described in section 6.17 Utilities.
6.9.2 Impact Analysis.
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant Impact.
During construction, proposed project sites would be cleared of the
existing non-native grasses, exposing soil to potential stormwater erosion. As future project sites may or
may not be greater than one acre, a construction general permit from the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board may or may not be required. Nevertheless, the City and County have adopted
erosion control standards to guide implementation of erosion control measures to offset potential water
quality from exposed soils. Additionally, projects will be reviewed to determine whether subsequent
environmental review is necessary in conjunction with future grading permits, if required.
Once projects consistent with the UGP are built and operating, impermeable surfaces will contribute less
stormwater runoff at a slower rate than conventional development, with potential positive benefits to water
quality. For these reasons, the UGP will have a less than significant impact on water quality.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
66
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
No Impact.
The Plan promotes alternative stormwater improvements as compared to traditional curb,
gutter and sidewalk with detention basin. By potentially detaining water longer in naturalized stormwater
facilities, by utilizing pervious materials, and by planting vegetation adopted to the local climate, the low-
impact development (LID) stormwater improvements promoted by the Plan would serve to increase ground
recharge as compared to existing stormwater standards. The UGP would have no adverse impact in
regard to depleting groundwater supplies.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact
Future projects consistent with the UGP may include additional bicycle
paths/lanes, sidewalks, and other improvements which could increase impervious surfaces or alter
drainage patterns. The UGP itself is a program-level policy document; more detailed project descriptions
will be necessary in order to evaluate the environmental impacts of site-specific projects pursuant to
CEQA.
On a programmatic level, the design, implementation and maintenance of LID stormwater management
features will minimize runoff, and the pollutants typically carried in runoff, as compared to traditional
stormwater improvements. LIDs will be used, consistent with UGP, as programmatic mitigation for slight
increases in impervious surfaces and to minimize erosion and siltation. This is a less than significant
impact.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed in sub-section (c), future projects consistent with the UGP
l project-specific environmental review pursuant to
CEQA. On a programmatic level, the use of LIDs would reduce off-site runoff and pollutants by slowing
water as it leaves the site, thereby increasing infiltration and allowing pollutants to settle out. This is a less
than significant impact.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed in sub-section (c), future projects consistent with the UGP
l project-specific environmental review pursuant to
CEQA. Because improvements must demonstrate that there will be no net increase in peak runoff from
the site, in both the City and the County, stormwater improvements promoted by the Plan will not create
or contribute runoff water exceeding the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems. Future
stormwater improvements will be required to meet a performance criterion no net increase in peak flows
leaving the site.
Section 10.01-1. In the City of Oroville, this criteria is found in Oroville Municipal Code section 23-16,
Storm runoff and drainage,
Relative to runoff, as described in section 6.9.1 erosion control, existing erosion control standards also
apply in both the City and County. The UGP promotes the use of LIDs which serve to improve water
quality as further described below in sub-section (f).
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
67
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
No Impact.
The UGP promotes the use of LIDs which serve to improve water quality as compared to
traditional concrete stormwater systems. Traditional systems do not allow stormwater to permeate into
the ground where rain falls, but rather convey stormwater downstream through primarily impervious
surfaces, delivering pollutants directly to creeks and rivers. LID stormwater measures allow water to
infiltrate into the ground through the use of pervious stormwater improvements, thus treating stormwater
and protecting water quality of creeks and rivers.
Disposal of sewage will be handled by septic systems as described in section 6.17 Utilities and Service
Systems of this report, below. Solid waste disposal will be handled by licensed solid waste hauler in a
manner that does not result in pollutants entering the environment. The project will have no adverse
impact on water quality.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. no impact
The UGP does not involve the construction of housing. There would be to housing
or the proposed facility in regards to risk from a 100-year flood.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
No Impact.
As noted in sub-section (c), There would be no housing or businesses proposed by the UGP.
Flood flows would be managed as envisioned in UGP concept #4 to improve Myers Street through the
Southside neighborhood and manage drainage problems at Myers/Wyandotte in order to address and
mitigate existing flooding issues during storm events. As the Plan intends to offset existing flooding issues,
and subsequent environmental review will be required to assess impacts resulting from that effort, the
no adverse impact
UGP would have with regard to impeding or redirecting flood flows.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant.
The UGP is intended to address a number of existing flooding issues as discussed
in sub-section h) above. The Plan would have no adverse effect
involving flooding, or dam failure, which were previously addressed by the City of Oroville General Plan
and General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Inundation mapping for the Plan area is provided by the
Safety Element of the City of Oroville General Plan.
The most likely cause of a failure at Oroville Dam would be one or a series of substantial earthquakes. As
discussed in Section 6.6, active and potentially active faults have been mapped in the Oroville area which
could cause an earthquake. Studies following the 1975 Oroville earthquake indicated that the dam could
withstand a 6.5 magnitude event, which is considered to be the largest credible event projected for the
region (California Department of Water Resources, 1977). However, a 2010 report prepared for the
Federal Regulatory Energy Commission recommended that earthquake safety assessment of Oroville
Dam be conducted. To date, the state Department of Water Resources has declined to conduct the
assessment, stating that the Dam meets current seismic safety criteria (Sacramento Bee, 2013). Relying
upon the judgment of the state Department of Water Resources to date, the potential risk to people or the
less than significant
proposed facility from failure of either Lake Almanor or Oroville Dam is .
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact.
Seiche and tsunami are both are phenomena that occur with substantial storm or seismic
activity in very large lakes or oceans. Mudflows occur on hillsides with sufficiently steep slopes,
precipitation and soil conditions. The UGP does not propose improvements or changes in the Urban Area
68
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
such that there would cause any increase in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Plan would
no impact
have related to these phenomena.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
6.10 Land Use
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant Significant
Impact
Impactwith Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a. Physically divide an established community? X
b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, X
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
X
natural community conservation plan?
6
.10.1 Land Use Setting
Oroville community to improve public health and create a more vibrant and enjoyable outdoor environment.
The Plan evaluates multimodal transportation infrastructure, recreational space, and the urban forest;
prioritizes specific opportunities for greening; and includes six sites selected for conceptual site plans and
design concepts to illustrate how greening might be accomplished. The UGP itself is a program-level
policy document; more detailed project descriptions will be necessary in order to evaluate the
environmental impacts of site-specific projects pursuant to CEQA.
Adoption of the UGP will not itself modify land us
roadway standards as promoted in Chapter 8 of the plan may be implemented on a voluntary basis
throughout the Urban Area, although future projects will require project-specific environmental analysis
and approval.
Chapter 8 of the UGP includes conceptual designs for six sites that could be used as prototypes and
replicated throughout other areas of the city, other sites, or elsewhere on the same street. The projects
selected are also those for which developing design concepts at this time would be the most valuable to
the community. (Although completing the gap in the Brad Freeman Trail under the Green Bridge is an
immediate priority, the FRRPD has already developed a design for the segment, and is preparing an
environmental document pursuant to CEQA.)
The six conceptual site plans and design concepts include the following:
69
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
1. Nelson Ballfields Complexincludes an illustrative conceptual diagram and a detailed site plan
showing renovations for the existing ballfields adjacent to the Feather River and Highway 70.
2.
illustrating potential enhancements of Southside alleyways and the transformation of a Southside
vacant lot into a community garden.
3. Levee Trail demonstrates how the existing trail along the Feather River can be enhanced for the
enjoyment of bicyclists, runners, and walkers.
4. Meyers and Wyandotte intersection and Corridors depict specific streetscape improvements for
stormwater management and all modes of transportation.
5. Oroville Dam Boulevard illustrates with cross-sections and visual simulations the existing condition
of the roadway and two alternatives for improving the corridor, which vary in cost.
6. Las Plumas Avenue shows improved pedestrian circulation and stormwater management through
cross-
6.10.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact.
Approval and implementation of the UGP would not divide an established community, rather
it will provide better pedestrian and bicycle connections within and outside of established communities by
providing complete streets. Enhancement of existing parkland and promotion of landscaping and tree
canopy coverage also will serve to visually enhance and connect the communities I which they are
no adverse impact
implemented. Therefore, the UGP will have in regards to physically dividing an
existing community.
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
A summary of the UGP by chapter is provided in Section 3 Project Description. The UGP is consistent
with numerous City of Oroville and Butte County policies and plans.
Butte County General Plan
Butte County Guiding Principals
The Butte County General Plan contains thirteen Guiding Principles which outline overall objectives of the
As a programmatic document, the UGP assists in implementing the following eight
Guiding Principles. More detailed, General Plan compliance analysis will be provided in the staff report
making recommendations on the UGP.
Cooperative Planning.
Through the Butte County General Plan and the
esses, the County will partner with
municipalities, special districts and unincorporated communities on important
regional planning issues. Furthermore, the County will collaborate with the military
to ensure the land uses within military operating areas (MOAs) are compatible
with the military mission.
The Butte County Department of Development Services, City of Oroville Community Development
Department, and the Feather River Recreation & Park District (FRRPD) are joint sponsors of the
proposed plan on behalf of the Oroville area.
70
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Circulation.
Accommodation of all modes of transportation is an important
element of the General Plan that will be coordinated with all of the transportation
planning agencies.
As realized, the Plan would confer multiple benefits to the greater Oroville area including improved
bicycle and pedestrian systems through the establishment of complete streets with sidewalks,
bicycle paths/lanes, landscaping, shading, and stormwater management. Voluntary streetscape
improvements outlined in the Plan are anticipated to be implemented as part of the City of
-specific streetscape improvement efforts, as
well as part of proposed private developments that include streetscape changes, in lieu of
traditional streetscape improvements.
Natural Resources and Environment.
The General Plan addresses the
protection, enhancement, utilization and management of natural resources and
the environment.
In conjunction with the development of complete streets, the UGP promotes appropriate use and
protection of natural resources in the Oroville Urban Area by reducing vehicle trips and associated
air quality emissions (see section 6.3 Air Quality); by promoting a greater tree canopy, planting
the right tree at the right location (see section 6.4 Biological Resources), and through the use of
low water use plants and low impact design stormwater management techniques (see section 6.9
Hydrology).
Public Health and Safety.
The General Plan promotes the publ
and welfare.
Butte County residents have above average rates of high blood pressure and high cholesterol, so
better access to recreation, bicycle paths/lanes and pedestrian facilities addresses an identified
health concern.
Economic Development.
The General Plan plays a critical role in establishing a
positive environment for economic development.
The UGP establishes a positive environment for economic development by promoting attractive
streetscape improvements, improved circulation, and enhanced recreational opportunities. The
UGP targets improvements in the disadvantaged Southside neighborhood, the Thermalito
neighborhood in particular, and the Oroville Urban Area in general.
Recreational Opportunities and Protection of Cultural Resources.
The
General Plan addresses the need for new parks and recreation opportunities.
and protected.
Implementation of the UGP would involve the improvement of existing parks as well as the conversion
iple public benefits
overall. Since a purpose of the UGP is to create a more vibrant and enjoyable outdoor environment, the
plan may increase the use of parks such as the Nelson ballfields and the Feather River levee adjacent to
downtown, which are recommended for improvement by the UGP. Additionally, through improved
pedestrian and bicycle connections, the plan would better connect residents with existing recreational
opportunities at the Forebay Picnic/Aquatic Center and schools along Las Plumas.
Sustainability.
The General Plan addresses, identifies and promotes ways to
maintain or enhance economic opportunity, viability and community well-being
while protecting and restoring the natural environment.
71
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
As noted above, the UGP promotes economic opportunity, viability and community well-being by
promoting attractive streetscape improvements, improved circulation, and enhanced recreational
opportunities. The UGP targets improvements in the disadvantaged Southside neighborhood, the
Thermalito neighborhood in particular, and the Oroville Urban Area in general.
Water Resources.
The General Plan addresses the protection and management
of water resources.
The UGP conserves water through the selection of a low-water use plant palette for landscaping, which
will save water as compared to historic plant palettes. Additionally, Low Impact Design (LID) stormwater
management techniques increase groundwater infiltration following storm events.
City of Oroville General Plan
Oroville Guiding Principals
The City of Oroville General Plan also contains guiding principles which are a description of how Oroville
intends to grow and develop through the implementation of its General Plan. The UGP would help in
implementing all eight guiding principles.
Livability. Ensure that future development enhances the existing character of our city
as a whole, as well as its individual neighborhoods, and has a positive effect on our
surroundings and quality of life.
It is anticipated that alternative roadway standards would be more aesthetically pleasing than
traditional roadway standards because of its promotion of regionally appropriate landscaping and
an urban forest with a targeted 21% tree canopy.
Enhanced Mobility. Provide an accessible and comprehensive transportation system
that integrates automobile use with other transportation options, including bicycle and
pedestrian networks throughout the city.
As realized, the Plan would confer multiple benefits to the greater Oroville area including improved
bicycle and pedestrian systems through the establishment of complete streets with sidewalks,
bicycle paths/lanes, landscaping, shading, and stormwater management. Voluntary streetscape
improvements outlined in the Plan are anticipated to be implemented as part of the City of
-specific streetscape improvement efforts, as
well as part of proposed private developments that include streetscape changes, in lieu of
traditional streetscape improvements.
A Vibrant Local Economy. Create a sustainable economy that serves all segments of
the population. Engage in economic development to encourage and retain businesses
that provide a variety of job opportunities, quality goods and services, and a dependable
tax base.
The UGP establishes a positive environment for economic development by promoting attractive
streetscape improvements, improved circulation, and enhanced recreational opportunities. The
UGP targets improvements in the disadvantaged Southside neighborhood, the Thermalito
neighborhood in particular, and the Oroville Urban Area in general. The UGP promotes economic
opportunity, viability and community well-being by promoting attractive streetscape improvements,
improved circulation, and enhanced recreational opportunities. The UGP targets improvements
in the disadvantaged the Southside and Thermalito neighborhoods in particular, and the Oroville
Urban Area in general.
72
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Natural Resources and the Environment. Highlight and protect our unique open spaces,
natural resources, underdeveloped areas, specimen trees, riparian zones and wetlands.
In conjunction with the development of complete streets, the UGP promotes appropriate use and
protection of natural resources in the Oroville Urban Area by reducing vehicle trips and associated
air quality emissions (see section 6.3 Air Quality); by promoting a greater tree canopy, planting
the right tree at the right location (see section 6.4 Biological Resources), and through the use of
low water use plants and low impact design stormwater management techniques (see section 6.9
Hydrology).
Recreation. Enhance recreational opportunities and facilities in Oroville for local
residents and visitors.
Implementation of the UGP would involve the improvement of existing parks as well as the conversion
neighborhood amenities with multiple public benefits
overall. Since a purpose of the UGP is to create a more vibrant and enjoyable outdoor environment, the
plan may increase the use of parks such as the Nelson ballfields and the Feather River levee adjacent to
downtown, which are recommended for improvement by the UGP. Additionally, through improved
pedestrian and bicycle connections, the plan would better connect residents with existing recreational
opportunities at the Forebay Picnic/Aquatic Center and schools along Las Plumas.
Community Infrastructure. Improve and maintain our public services and facilities
including water and energy infrastructure, public safety and emergency preparedness
in order to serve existing residents and businesses and to accommodate future
development.
Complete streets, including improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle circulation system and LID
stormwater management techniques, recreational facilities and safe places to gather and socialize are
important components of community infrastructure facilitated by the UGP.
Butte County residents have above average rates of high blood pressure and high cholesterol, so better
access to recreation, bicycle paths/lanes and pedestrian facilities addresses an identified health concern.
An Involved Citizenry. Encourage civic participation in the General Plan Update
well-being.
The UGP planning process is outlined in Chapter 2 of the Plan and was widely inclusive of agencies, staff,
and especially members of the public.
Balanced Mode Circulation Plan
The City of Oroville adopted a Balanced Mode Circulation Plan (BMCP) on March 3, 2015 which guides
the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Oroville.
making Oroville a more pleasant, convenient, and safe place for people to walk and bike. The BMCP
integrates existing City and regional planning and policies related to bicycling, walking, and public transit,
including:
2010 City of Oroville Bicycle Transportation Plan
City of Oroville General Plan (2014 Circulation Element Update)
Butte County General Plan 2030
73
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
By encouraging and supporting walking and bicycling for both recreation and transportation, the BMCP
if accepted, would promote implementation of the BMCP.
Existing Improvement Standards
Relative to the City and County codes and regulations for implementation of General Plan policy, the UGP
is either consistent with or exceeds the minimum standards of many zoning and development standards
in City of Oroville Municipal Code and the Butte County Code.
As noted in the project description, typical improvement standards for roadways, curb, gutter and sidewalk,
in both the City and County are different than the recommendations of the UGP. The County has not
adopted improvement standards for bicycle paths and lanes. This difference is not an inconsistency in
road standards because the adopted road standards are minimum standards that can be exceeded, as
suggested by the UGP. Additionally, the UGP is a voluntary plan, and does not present a conflict in
adopted improvement standards.
Tree Canopy and Urban Forestry
The urban forestry section of the UGP recommends a citywide tree canopy coverage target of 21 percent,
encourages native and low-water trees, and promotes the selection of the right tree for a particular site in
order to maximize forest benefits and to reduce infrastructure conflicts.
As a voluntary plan. the UGP is not in conflict with existing development standards for tree planting.
Existing standards for both City and County call for 50 percent tree canopy over parking lots.
-
I.2. At least one tree shall be provided within the parking lot for every 10 parking spaces,
and at least 50 percent of the paved surface shall be shaded by tree canopies within 15
years after obtaining an occupancy permit.
In Butte County, development standards relative to tree canopy include BCC 24-95 B f
and h. At least one tree shall be provided within parking lots for every 4 parking spaces,
and at least 50 percent of the paved surface shall be shaded by tree canopies within 10
years after planting.
Further consideration of how to achieve the citywide tree canopy coverage goals on private property would
likely be required to achieve the ambitious goal of the UGP for a 21 percent tree canopy. An abundant
supply of public and open space in the Oroville Urban Area, as shown in Table 1: Acreage of Existing Land
Uses, will provide ample opportunities for the planting of additional trees.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
Less Than Significant Impact.
While there is not a Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community
Conservation Plan currently in effect in Butte County, the proposed project would be within the boundaries
of the Butte County Regional Conservation Plan now be prepared by the Butte County Association of
Governments. The Butte Regional Conservation Plan is nearing completion and may be considered for
adoption by the member jurisdictions in 2016. See section 6.4.2 f. or a discussion of the BRCP.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
74
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.11 Mineral Resources
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant Significant
Impact
Impactwith Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X
state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general X
plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
6.11.1 Mineral Resources Setting
The Oroville Urban Area occupies approximately 41 square miles
Aggregate, metal and other mineral resources are present in widely scattered areas throughout Butte
County. Aggregate resources tend to be along the current or pre-historic margins of larger streams and
rivers; metal resources such as gold are generally limited to placer and hard-rock deposits in the foothill
and mountain regions of the County.
There is one designated or known mineral resources within the Oroville Urban Area, near the intersection
of Baggett Palermo Road and Ophir Road in the southern portion of the Urban Area. This active
aggregate mine, in compliance with applicable State licenses is not located in or near the Southside or
Thermalito neighborhoods, or near other Priority Opportunity sites identified by the UGP and Summarized
in Appendix to this study.
6.11.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
No Impact.
There are no designated or known mineral resources (for example, aggregate, precious or
strategic metals) within or near the UGP priority opportunity sites. Anticipated implementation of the UGP
is not expected to be located within proximity to, or impact, Mineral Resources in the Oroville Urban area.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact.
There are no designated or known mineral resources (for example, aggregate, precious or
strategic metals) within or near the plan area that have been delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
75
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.12 Noise
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
X
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the X
project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the X
project area to excessive noise levels?
6.12.1 Noise Setting
As an environmental impact, noise may be defined as unwanted sound that can be a by-product of normal
(day-to-day, regular) or atypical (sporadic, unusual) activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes
with normal activities, causes physical harm, or has adverse effects on health.
Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB) and may be
measured in various ways. The City of Oroville General Plan Noise Element evaluates noise according
to the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure
in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB addition to
nocturnal (10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m.) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn, is essentially
the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is not considered and all occurrences
during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.
Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment, loudspeakers, or
individual motor vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of point sources
(motor vehicles) or a train passing by on a railroad line. Sound generated by a point source typically
diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6.0 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor
76
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
at acousticall
undeveloped landscapes). For example, a 60-dB(A) noise level measured at 50 feet from a point source
at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and 48 dB(A) at 200 feet from
the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at a rate of 3.0 dB(A) and 4.5 dB(A) per
doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively. Human-made or
natural barriers can also attenuate sound levels.
The City of Oroville General Plan and Municipal Code both address noise.
The City of Oroville General Plan includes Goal NOI-
domestic uses, construction,
noise generating construction activities located within 1,000 feet of residential uses to daytime hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and non-
Policy P2.4
City of Oroville
included as requirements at construction sites in order to minimize construction noise impacts:
Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in
good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when
sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area.
-generating equipment where appropriate
technology exists and is feasible.
o would be responsible for responding
to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise coordinator will determine the cause of
the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and will require that reasonable measures
warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The project sponsor shall also post a telephone
number for excessive noise complaints in conspicuous locations in the vicinity of the project site.
Additionally, the project sponsor shall send a notice to neighbors in the project vicinity with information
on the construction schedule and the telephone number for noise complaints
OMC section 13A-8 prohibits loud and unusual noises.
13A-8 Loud and unusual noises prohibited.
Consistent with other provisions of this chapter, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any
person to wilfully make, produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or
device, or any combination of same, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which causes
discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area. (Ord.
No. 1380, § 10.)
13A-9 Standards--Criteria.
The standards which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of
section 13A-8 exists shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following criteria:
(a) The frequency of the noise;
(b) The intensity of the noise;
(c) Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual;
(d) Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural;
(e) The frequency and intensity of the background noise, if any;
(f) The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities;
(g) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates;
(h) The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates;
77
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
(i) The time of the day or night the noise occurs;
(j) The duration of the noise;
(k) Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; and
(l) Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. (Ord. No. 1380, §
11.)
6.12.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant.
The Urban Greening Plan will produce construction and operation noise during
implementation. Construction and operation of subsequent projects may produce noise; in turn, a project
may place people within an area of existing noise. Additionally, the plan proposes to improve recreational
areas that are subject to transportation-related noise.
Noise associated with construction of the Urban Greening Plan will be mitigated consistent with the City
of Orovi policies to limit construction hours and to utilize selected equipment and
less than significant
techniques to minimize construction impacts. The Plan will therefore produce noise
impacts on the surrounding environment from construction noise.
Table NOI-3 from the City of Oroville General Plan demonstrates that many road rights-of way in Oroville
are already experiencing noise levels in excess of the City standards. When specific locations are selected
for implementation of the UGP, recreational projects could be exposed to noise levels in excess of the 70
db standard established by Table NOI-
65 db standard established by Table NOI-7 for non-
standards, a noise analysis/acoustical study, including recommendations for mitigation, may be required
pursuant to Policy P1.3.
Additionally, Oroville General Plan Policy 2.7 requires coordination with Caltrans to attenuate traffic
noise along highways.
P2.7
Work with Caltrans to implement design methods other than sound walls to attenuate
traffic noise along highways in Oroville. Encourage Caltrans to incorporate noise reducing
features, utilizing alternative road surfacing materials that minimize vehicle noise, during
highway improvement projects, when feasible and where consistent with City policies
Future projects will be subject to project-specific environmental findings prior to approval. Impacts must
be identified and mitigated for individual projects consistent with the City of Oroville Noise Element.
Transportation and non-transportation related sources will have no impact.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction of the proposed facility is not expected to involve the use of
any equipment or processes that would generate high levels of ground vibration, such as pile drivers or
blasting. Construction operations may include dozers, loaders, scrapers, augers and trucks. (Note that the
passage of heavy equipment and excavation may generate some ground vibration that would typically be
78
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
a less than significant impact
imperceptible beyond 50 feet.) Thus, the UGP would have with respect to
the exposure or generation of excessive ground-borne noise or vibration levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
No Impact.
As envisioned the proposed Plan is intended to result in additional use of pedestrian, bicycle, and
recreational facilities, which could negligibly increase ambient noise levels. However, a larger proportion of
bike and pedestrian traffic could reduce traffic noise. On balance then the UGP could reduce ambient noise
levels from roadways. This change is not expected to be significant or cause deviation from the City of County
noise ordinances. There may also be an occasional need for emergency services such as paramedics, but
accompanying siren noise would be brief and is not subject to the noise ordinance. Any future increase in
noise in excess of City or County noise standards would be subject to site-specific analysis at the time projects
no adverse impact
implementing the plan are proposed. Operation of the proposed facility would have a
upon a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the plan vicinity above levels existing without
the UGP.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Less than significant impact.
As discussed in sub-section (c), the proposed facility would have a less than
significant impact in regards to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the plan
vicinity above levels existing without the UGP.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact.
The Oroville Urban Area contains the Oroville Airport which is within an airport land use plan.
Priority improvements (shown in Appendix A) are not located within the airport area. Proposed improvements
consistent with the UGP enhance existing roadways through complete street treatments. The UGP will not
introduce new people living or working in the area.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact.
A review of a 2012 aerial photo does not reveal any private airstrips within the Oroville Urban
Area. There would be no impact in regards to the exposure of people residing or working in the plan area to
excessive noise levels.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
79
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.13 Population and Housing
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
ImpactMitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
X
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
6.13.1 Population and Housing Setting
According to the Butte County Association of Governments, as of May 2013 Butte County and the City of
Oroville had total populations of 221,485 and 15,979, respectively. Table 13 summarizes population
forecasts for Butte County and Oroville from 2010 through 2035.
Table 10. Population Forecasts 2010 - 2035
Compound
Annual
Growth
Total Percent
Rate
Increase Increase
(CAGR)
Growth 2010-2010-
2010-
JurisdictionScenario20352035
2035
201020152020202520302035
87
Low14,68716,44219,24922,89525,06924,48612,7992.5
Oroville
103
Middle14,68716,75520,06324,35926,92129,77015,0832.9
118
High14,68717,06020,85625,78628,72631,99517,3083.2
32
Low84,30289,22394,49399,829105,550111,56027,2581.1
Unincorporated
38
Middle84,30290,10296,311102,600109,342116,42432,1221.3
County
44
High84,30290,95898,083105,300113,036121,16336,8611.5
42
Low221,768234,524251,890272,504293,285315,69893,9301.4
Total County
50
Middle221,768236,800257,266281,558306,047332,459110,6911.6
57
High221,768239,018262,503290,379318,481348,790127,0221.8
Source: Butte County Association of Governments Long-Term Regional Growth Forecasts 2010 - 2035
As required by state law, both Butte County and the City of Oroville are required to plan for adequate
amounts of housing to accommodate anticipated increases in population. Table 14 summarizes forecasts
for housing demand in both Butte County and Oroville for the period 2010 through 2035.
80
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Table 11. Housing Forecasts 2010 - 2035
Compound
Annual
Percent
Total Growth
Increase
Increase Rate
2010-
Growth 2010-(CAGR)
2035
JurisdictionScenario20352010-2035
201020152020202520302035
87%
6,3937,1578,3799,96610,91211,9645,5712.5%
Low
103%
Oroville6,3937,2938,73310,60311,71812,9586,5652.9%
Middle
118%
6,3937,4269,07811,22412,50413,9277,5343.2%
High
32%
37,19939,37141,69644,05146,57649,22812,0291.1%
Low
Unincorporated
38%
37,19939,75942,49945,27448,24951,37414,1751.3%
Middle
County
44%
37,19940,13743,28146,46549,87953,46516,2661.5%
High
42%
96,623102,101109,513118,338127,210136,78240,1591.4%
Low
49%
Total County96,623103,078111,813122,213132,668143,94847,3251.6%
Middle
56%
96,623104,030114,054125,988137,986150,93054,3071.8%
High
Source: Butte County Association of Governments Long-Term Regional Growth Forecasts 2010 - 2035
6.13.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure?
No Impact.
As noted in the Project Description and the Land Use section 6.10, the UGP does not propose
new housing or business, but instead responds to the needs of the existing Oroville Urban Area population
for complete streets, parks and open space, trees, stormwater management, and cleaned alleys and
vacant lots. The UGP does not induce direct or indirect population growth, but rather proposes
improvements for meeting existing demand for improved user experiences of the Oroville Urban Area,
compete streets, alternative transportation options, etc. The UGP will have no impact in inducing
population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact.
As noted in sub-section (a), the UGP does not propose new housing or businesses and would
no impact
not demolish or convert existing housing. The Plan would have in regards to a displacement
of substantial numbers of existing housing such that construction of replacement housing elsewhere is
necessary.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Less than significant impact.
UGP conceptual designs envision beautification of the Feather River
Levee, and efforts to clean and green vacant lots and alleys,which could include displacement of persons
living and/or sleeping at or near proposed improvement sites. Since the UGP itself is a program-level
policy document; more detailed project descriptions will be necessary in order to evaluate the
environmental impacts of site-specific projects pursuant to CEQA. Homeless persons face regular
challenges about where to sleep and live in the Oroville Urban Area with or without the proposed Plan and
are beyond the scope of the programmatic UGP. However, site specific displacement of persons must be
considered and mitigated, as needed for consistency with State requirements prior to approval and
less than significant impact
construction of site specific improvements. The Plan will have a in regards
81
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
to a displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
6.14 Public Services
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
ImpactMitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could X
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services?
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police Protection? X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks? X
e. Other public services? X
6.14.1 Public Services Setting
Existing conditions within the Oroville Urban Area relating to police, fire, schools, libraries and parks, as
:
http://buttelafco.org/sites/default/files/resources/Oroville%202030%20GP%20Draft%20EIR%20Part%20
2%20of%202.pdf
6.14.2 Impact Analysis
Would construction and operation of the facility result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services?
a) Fire protection.
Less than significant impact.
The western portion of the Oroville Urban Area is within the Local
Responsibility for fire and is not within a Fire Hazard Area. The City of Oroville Fire Department and the
El Medio Fire District have primary responsibility for fire protection.
82
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
The eastern portion of the Oroville Urban Area is within a State Responsibility Area and is within a
moderate, high, or very high fire hazard area. CalFire has primary responsibility for fire protection. The
UGP is a programmatric document; additional projectspecific environmental findings will be required prior
to implementation of specific projects. The UGP does not propose significant new structures that would
require protection from fire. The proposed facility would have a no impact upon the need for new or
physically altered fire protection facilities that could, in turn, cause a significant environmental impact.
b) Police protection.
No impact.
The UGP is not expected to have any impact on City of Oroville police services. The program
proposed does not introduce more people living and working in the area or new structures that would
require police protection. The UGP seeks to make streets and alleys more usable, thereby introducing
more eyes on the streets and alleys for surveillance.
c) Schools.
Less than significant impact.
There are a variety of elementary through secondary schools within the
Oroville Urban Area. The UGP would not introduce new people living or working in the area, so it would
not increase demand for schools. The Plan promotes safe routes to school and community gardens, and
could affect school grounds with proposals for sidewalks and bicycle paths/lanes around schools, or
community gardens on school sites or nearby properties designed to serve students and their families.
However, implementation of such facilities would have a less than significant impact in regards to
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school
facilities that could, in turn, cause a significant environmental impact.
d) Parks.
No Impact.
See section 6.15 Recreation, below. The UGP promotes and improves recreational
opportunities, including by enhancing and improving parks, trails and open space; it will have no adverse
impact to parks.
e) Other public services.
Less than significant impact.
Other public services potentially affected by the UGP could include
emergency medical services. For emergencies, paramedic services may be provided by CalFire or a
variety of local ambulance companies. Oroville Hospital, located, provides a complete range of
emergency, in and out-patient services. There would be a less than significant impact in regards to the
provision of new or physically altered medical facilities that could, in turn, cause a significant environmental
impact.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
83
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.15 Recreation
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
ImpactMitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
X
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
6.15.1 Recreation Setting
Residents of the Oroville Urban Area have a wide variety of recreational facilities available to them in and
around the City including facilities owned and operated by the City, Feather River Recreation and Park
District, the State and the federal government. State recreation areas include a variety of boating, fishing,
hiking, seasonal hunting, bird watching horseback riding, and cycling opportunities around the several
thousand acres of the Lake Oroville State Recreation Area and the Oroville Wildlife Refuge, including the
Thermalito Forebay and AfterBay. Additional recreation opportunities are available elsewhere in Butte
County, including wildlife refuges along the Sacramento River, extensive national forest lands in the
mountains, and Bidwell Park in Chico.
The Feather River Recreation & Park District (FRRPD, or the District) and the City of Oroville Department
of Parks and Trees coordinate to manage a number of regional and neighborhood parks in Oroville. The
FRRPD owns and operates eleven park and recreation facilities, including River Bend Park on the Feather
River and Nelson Park and Recreational Center, and neighborhood and community parks.
The population is expected to grow at a rate of 1.2 percent within the City of Oroville and 1.1 percent in
the unincorporated areas of the District. The District has a 10-year capital improvements plan in which
capital improvements are funded through grants, impact fees, a benefit assessment district, and
partnerships with other agencies such as the City of Oroville, Butte County, state agencies, the Oroville
Redevelopment Agency, and local organizations. The District has been developing Riverbend Park in
phases since 2005 from a $2.2 million California DWR grant and a $918,000 grant from the California
Department of Boating and Waterways.
Two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents is provided solely by City of Oroville recreation facilities, and
additional 249.5 acres is provided by the Feather River Recreation and Parks District. There are roughly
5.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 city residents, which exceeds City and Feather River Recreation and Parks
District standards.
There is an adequate amount of combined park acreage within the City and Sphere of Influence to provide
3 acres per 1,000 residents for projected future populations. However, a significant portion of this parkland
is owned and operated by the Feather River Recreation and Parks District, which does not focus on
communCity will
need to develop additional community and neighborhood parks to meet future demand or develop an
84
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
agreement with the FRRPD to provide this category of park land.
The 2009 MSR also concludes that the City uses appropriate mechanisms to fund on-going maintenance
of new park facilities that are required as a condition of new development. All City residents contribute to
the maintenance of community and park facilities through the district-wide assessment collected by the
Feather River Recreation and Parks District.
6.15.2 Impact Analysis
Would construction and operation of the proposed facility:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact.
Implementation of the proposed plan would involve the improvement of existing parks as well
multiple public benefits overall.
Since a purpose of the UGP is to create a more vibrant and enjoyable outdoor environment, the plan may
increase the use of parks such as the Nelson ballfields and the Feather River levee adjacent to downtown,
which are recommended for improvement by the UGP. Additionally, through improved pedestrian and
bicycle connections, the Plan would better connect residents with existing recreational opportunities at the
Forebay Picnic/Aquatic Center and schools along Las Plumas. However, the UGP would not introduce
new people living, working or recreating in the area and would not, therefore, increase demand for
recreational facilities. Rather, the UGP will enhance the supply of recreational opportunities throughout
the Oroville Urban Area will, therefore, not result in substantial physical deterioration or the acceleration
of the physical deterioration.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the improvement
and/or expansion of recreational facilities, but those improvements are unlikely to have significant
environmental impacts given the nature of anticipated improvements and their location on primarily
disturbed and/or developed land. Subsequent environmental review for individual projects will ensure that
environmental impacts from construction or expansion of project-specific recreational facilities are properly
evaluated pursuant to CEQA.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
85
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.16 Transportation/Circulation
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant Significant
Impact
Impactwith Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
X
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion X
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results X
in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, X
bicycle racks)?
6.16.1 Transportation Setting
Vehicular Circulation
The Oroville Urban Area in general and the Thermalito and Southside areas in general can be
characterized as having adequate Levels of Service for vehicular traffic. Circulation systems were
evaluated in Chapter 4.12 Transportation and Circulation of the Environmental Impact Report for the City
of Oroville General Plan. http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=456
86
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
The grid street patterns existing in both Thermalito and Southside spread traffic and provide suitable
access and circulation. and Circulation Element of the General Plan
identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major roads, transportation routes,
terminals, and public utilities and facilities. The Transportation and Circulation element is correlated with
the land use element. Table 4.12-3 PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes and Level of
Service, Year 2030 Conditions Without and With Planned Roadway Network references
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The Oroville General Plan reports that
There are distinct differences in the quality and convenience (for users) of the bicycle and
pedestrian transportation system in different areas of Oroville. For example, Downtown
Oroville (generally north of Highway 162) and South Oroville are close to shopping, and
they have grid street networks with relatively short block lengths that are good for walking.
However, much of South Oroville does not have sidewalks, and the streets are narrow,
with onstreet parking that creates an obstacle for pedestrians. Moving east into the
foothills, the terrain becomes steeper, and residential densities decrease. Shopping
opportunities are more distant, which makes bicycling trips more difficult and less
convenient.
Chapter 3 of the UGP identifies opportunities to improve bicycle and pedestrian systems, through the
management, particularly in the Southside neighborhood. Complete streets are proposed, focusing on
the Southside neighborhood, to accommodate additional pedestrian and bicycle use for transportation,
including safe routes to school for children utilizing area roadways.
The Plan notes that while many bike routes have been planned in the Oroville Urban Area, the bulk of
existing routes consist of recreational trails in the outskirts of town. Trail routes planned by the UGP focus
on connecting existing trails with neighborhoods inside and outside the city, which would allow trails to be
used for transportation as well as for recreation.
Transit
Butte Regional Transit (B Line) provides limited public transit service in Butte County. Route 24 encircles
the Thermalito area and Route 27 provides access to Las Plumas High School via Lincoln Blvd and Myers
Street in south Oroville, and is coordinated with Route 20 for transferring to Chico. Transit stops for Route
th
24 are located at the transit center at Mitchell & Spencer, 14 & Grand, and in front of 7 County Center
Dr. Transit stops for Route 27 are located at the transit center at Mitchell & Spencer, Las Plumas High
School, and Myers & D St. Butte Regional Transit also provides paratransit service through B-Line
Paratransit, which offers on-demand shared ride services for seniors and persons with qualifying
disabilities who are not able to use the fixed-route service. The B-Line Paratransit one-way fare is $2.00.
Greyhound provides a limited service bus stop in Oroville at Oroville Chevron, located at 890 Oroville Dam
Boulevard. No Greyhound ticketing or baggage facilities are available at this location. Greyhound provides
connections from Oroville to full-service stations located in the San Francisco Bay Area and the greater
Sacramento area. Commercial bus service is also provided by Amtrak. Amtrak offers daily bus service
between Medford Oregon, Redding, Sacramento, and Stockton. Amtrak stops at the Oroville park-and-
ride facility, on Highway 70 at Grand Avenue
87
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Utility Easements
During implementation of the UGP, greening projects must consider both transportation and utility
easements to inform and coordinate with relevant easement holders regarding proposed future projects
within their easements and to avoid impacts to existing improvements. For example, alleys in the South
Oroville area may be subject to easements for underground utilities which must be considered during
project planning. To this end:
a) Easement holders should be notified of proposed projects within their easements at the earliest
possible phases of future projects, and
b) Utilities must be marked prior to any digging. See http://call811.com/before-you-dig
811 is the federally designated Call Before You Dig number that helps homeowners and professionals
avoid damaging utilities. As the website points out, when property owners make the freecall to 811 a few
days before digging, they help prevent unintended consequences such as injury, damage to property,
utility service outages to the entire neighborhood, and potential fines and repair costs.
6.16.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes
of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less than Significant.
Since recreational features promoted by the UGP would be ancillary to existing
land use patterns and would address current recreational needs, no increase in vehicle trips is anticipated
with implementation of the UGP. On the contrary, complete street improvements are intended to
encourage additional pedestrian and bicycle use, thereby reducing vehicle trips as compared to traditional
vehicle-oriented street layouts. Please see section 4.1 Regulatory Setting for typical residential street
sections for Butte County and the City of Oroville. Complete street standards promoted by the UGP in
Chapter 3 would add class II bike lanes and/or planting strips to roads to improve functionality to traditional
streetscapes in the plan area.
Future alternative improvements for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as could be implemented as a result
of the UGP in most cases will exceed minimum standards. Butte County Code Chapter 20, section 20-4
allows applicants to request exceptions to design standards relative to the design of subdivisions. Or,
exible improvement standards could be adopted in the future, to enable fuller
expression of the UGP. In most cases, the complete streets concepts presented by the UGP will exceed
minimum standards outlined in section 4.1 Regulatory Setting. Specific designs will require review by the
lead agency prior to project approval for consistency with applicable codes.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact.
As discussed in sub-section (a), the proposed plan is not anticipated to generate additional traffic
no impact
trips, as compared to existing conditions. The proposed plan therefore would have in regards to
an individual or cumulative exceedance of a Level of Service C established by the City of Oroville for local
roads. Butte County General Plan policy CIR-
Influence)
88
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact.
The proposed facility has no relation to a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact.no impact
There would be in regards to an increase in hazards due to a design feature because
implementing projects would be based on design concepts in the UGP and because they would be subject to
future review and approval prior to implementation. Specific designs will require review by the lead agency
prior to project approval for consistency with applicable code and design standards.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact
. The Butte County S
that serves as the emergency response plan for the County and the City of Oroville. The scope and location
of proposed improvements consistent with the UGP would enhance existing roadways, but would not
substantially modify circulation patterns without subsequent CEQA review. The proposed plan would have a
less than significant impact in regards to impairing or physically interfering with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Selected easements could be cleaned and greened as a component of the UGP, but only after approval of
implementing projects. As noted in Appendix A, cleaning and greening projects that block or modify access
would require subsequent environmental review. This would typically require that the use of the existing
easements be maintained, or possibly accommodated by relocation of the easement. Subsequent
environmental review could determine the easement is no longer functional or necessary. Since clearing and
greening projects would be subject to future environmental review, and must be consistent with the there
less than significant impact
would be a on emergency access.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact.
Although additional parking is not an objective of the UGP, parking spaces could be proposed as
part of projects to implement the UGP. The UGP does not propose new land uses, or relocate land uses in
a manner such that additional vehicle trips would be generated. Complete street improvements consistent
with the UGP are intended to encourage additional pedestrian and bicycle use, thereby reducing vehicle
trips as compared to traditional vehicle-oriented street layouts. Therefore, the UGP will have no adverse
impact
in regards to inadequate parking capacity.
g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact.
The General Plans for both Oroville and Butte County support alternatives to the private vehicle
for transportation and both have bicycle plans in various levels of development and implementation.
no adverse impact
Construction and operation of the UGP would have upon General Plan policies
supporting, for example, bicycle use.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
89
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
6.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
ImpactMitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
X
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
X
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
X
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are X
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
X
demand in addition
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
X
?
g.
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and
X
regulations related to solid waste?
6.17.1 Utilities and Service Systems Setting
Wastewater
Wastewater is conveyed via the Thermalito Water and Service District for development projects in the
Thermalito area, via the Lake Oroville Public Utility District (LOAPUD) for the Southside neighborhood,
and via the City of Oroville municipal system for the majority of the City of Oroville area. Wasterwater is
treated from all three conveyance systems by the Sewerage Commission--Oroville Regional (SC-OR).
According to its 2009 LAFCo Municipal Services Review, the SC-OR wastewater treatment plant had the
capacity to treat an additional total dry weather flow of 2,743 equivalent dwelling units before reaching its
permitted capacity. An equivalent dwelling unit equals about 260 gallons of wastewater per day; thus, in
2009, the SC-OR treatment plant had an additional capacity of about 713,180 gallons per day (LAFCo,
2009, p. 3-29).
90
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
During peak storm events, inflow and infiltration into the sewer system can result in flows exceeding the
to holding ponds within the treatment plant grounds for later treatment to prevent untreated sewage from
being discharged into downstream water bodies. The holding ponds have capacity for approximately 22
million gallons, which has never been exceeded during a peak storm event. There are no current plans for
capacity expansion of SC- currently being conducted to identify any
potential bottlenecks in the interceptor line, which will be upgraded as necessary to ensure the system
remains adequate to accommodate the wastewater associated with expected growth.
Water
Water is provided to the Thermalito area by the Thermalito Water and Sewer District (TWSD) which has
water rights to 8,200 acre-feet of surface water from Concow Lake. Additional backup is provided by five
wells (LAFCo, 2006). Annual demand is currently 2,800 AF. As TWSDwater supply is sufficient to meet
the demand, the factor
Water is provided to the eastern portion of the Oroville Urban Area by the South Feather Water and Power
agency (SFWPA), which operates two reservoirs (Grass Valley and Sly Creek reservoirs) with capacity of
approximately 160,000 acre feet, associated with four hydro-power plants. Stored water was reported at
114,000 acre feet by SFWP manager Mike Glaze on 5/5/2015 and was estimated at 60,000 acre feet
during winter, 2014. a relatively secure supply, as compared to most other water
sources in the State.
Water is provided to downtown Oroville, the Southside neighborhood and the central portion of the Urban
Area by California Water Service (Cal Water-Oroville) Cal Water Oroville serves approximately 10,000
people in the City of Oroville urban area that are not served by either SFWPA or TID. Cal Water O
infrastructure consists of four wells, a treatment facility, and distribution mains.
A 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for Oroville District reports that the historical record shows that
demand for water can be met by supply. Actual 2010 water deliveries are reported in Table 3.3-2 at 2,565
acre feet for 3,283 accounts. 2030 Water Deliveries are projected at 2,852 acre feet in 2030 serving 3,558
accounts. The target water demand projection includes conservations savings due to both passive and
active demand management, which are described in Section 6 of 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
for Oroville District, as summarized in Table 12: Cal Water Conservation Programs.
Table 12: Cal Water Conservation Programs
Table 6.4-1: Cal Water Conservation Programs
Program NameDescriptionTarget
CORE PROGRAMS
Rebate/Vouchers Provide customer rebates for high-efficiency All customer
toilets, urinals, and clothes washers
for toilets, segments
Residential SurveysProvide residential surveys to low-income All
customers, high-bill customers, and upon
residential
customer request or as pre-screen for market
segments
participation in direct install programs
Residential Provide residential showerhead/water All
Showerhead/Water residential
conservation kits to customers upon request,
Conservation Kit market
as part of residential surveys, and as part of
segments
Distribution
school education curriculum
Pop-Up Nozzle Offer high-efficiency pop-up irrigation All customer
Irrigation System segments
nozzles through customer vouchers or direct
Distribution
install.
91
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Public Information/ Provide conservation messaging via radio, All customer
bill inserts, direct mail, and other appropriate
Educationsegments
methods. Provide schools with age
appropriate educational materials and
activities. Continue sponsorship of Disney
Planet Challenge program.
NON-CORE PROGRAMS
Toilet/Urinal Direct Offer direct installation programs for All customer
replacement of non-HE toilets and urinals
Install segments
Smart Irrigation Offer contractor incentives for installation of All customer
smart irrigation controllers
Controller segments
Large Landscape Expand existing Cal Water Large Landscape Non
Water Use Report Program providing large
Water Use residential
Reportscustomers
landscape customers with monthly water use
reports and budgetswith
significant
Large Landscape Provide surveys and irrigation system Non
Surveys & residential
upgrade financial incentives to large
Irrigation System
landscape customers participating in the customers
Incentiveswith
Large Landscape Water Use Reports
significant
programs and other targeted customers
Food Industry Offer customer/dealer/distributor Food and
rebates/vouchers for high-efficiency
Rebates/Vouchersdrink
establishment
dishwashers, food steamers, ice machines,
s, institutional
and pre-rinse spray valves
Cooling Tower Offer customer/dealer/distributor Non-
rebates/vouchers of cooling tower retrofits
Retrofitsresidential
market
segments
Industrial Process Offer engineering audits/surveys and Non-
financial incentives for process water
Audits and residential
Retrofit Incentives
efficiency improvementmarket
segments
Core and non-core programs were then subjected to a detailed benefit cost analysis, the
results of which were used to inform program portfolio development, which are
summarized in the Table below. Note the pop-up nozzle distribution program is projected
to save 21 acre feet of water annually by 2015.
92
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Table 13: Cal Water Projected Water Savings
Table 6.5-2: Projected Water Savings by Program
ProgramAnnual Water Savings (AF)
20112012201320142015
CORE PROGRAMS
Rebates/Vouchers
Toilets1.53.04.49.514.5
Clothes Washers0.30.60.92.23.5
Urinals0.30.60.80.80.8
Customer Surveys/Audits2.03.75.310.515.2
Conservation Kit Distribution1.42.73.84.85.6
Pop-Up Nozzle Distribution4.28.412.616.821.0
Subtotal Core Programs9.719.027.844.660.5
NON-CORE PROGRAMS
Direct Install Toilets/Urinals0.00.00.011.422.3
Smart Irr. Controller Vendor Incentives0.10.10.22.95.7
Large Landscape Water Use Reports3.73.73.73.73.7
Large Landscape Surveys/Incentives0.40.71.14.17.1
Commercial Kitchen Rebates/Vouchers0.00.00.011.322.7
Cooling Tower/Process Water Retrofit
Incentives0.00.00.00.00.0
Subtotal Non-Core Programs4.14.55.033.461.5
Total Core and Non-Core Program
Savings
13.823.532.878.1122.0
Stormwater
As noted in Chapter 6 Stormwater Management of the Plan, most of the Oroville Urban Area is served by
conventional stormwater management systems. However, portions of the area periodically experience
localized flooding of streets and sidewalks during winter storms. These problems are compounded where
stormwater infrastructure is outdated, poorly maintained, or missing entirely, notably in the Southside and
Thermalito areas. Although portions of the Southside neighborhood are served by a conventional
underground stormwater system, this system is outdated and of limited function. Stormwater in the
Southside neighborhood in fact drains in large part via unimproved channels adjacent to area roadways.
Flooding occurs during large storm events, with water backing up in the unimproved channels. The UGP
identifies the need for stormwater improvements along Myers Street through the Southside neighborhood
and to manage drainage problems at the Myers/Wyandotte intersection. Stormwater in Thermalito is
guided by the Thermalito Master Plan.
In 2013 the City of Oroville became subject to permit requirements for small municipal separate storm
sewer systems (MS4s). The City must manage its stormwater system under permit from the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), consistent with the Clean Water Act.
93
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Solid Waste
Solid waste disposal would be provided by a private service that takes material to the Neal Road Landfill
about 15+miles to the north off State Route 99 at Neal Road.
6.17.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Greening of the Oroville Urban Area would involve project concepts related to streetscape and stormwater
improvements including bicycle and pedestrian safety; parks and open space; urban forestry; stormwater
management; and cleaning and greening streets and alleys. These envisioned activities would not involve
a substantial increase in restroom facilities. The parks and open space section of the UGP focuses
implementation efforts on improving existing parks and open spaces instead of proposing new facilities.
While future implementation actions could include bathroom additions and improvements to existing park
facilities, increases in wastewater, if any, are expected to relatively minor part of any future project.
Despite the known inflow and infiltration issues with sanitary sewer lines carrying effluent to the SC-OR
treatment plant, no additional volume would be added to the system by the UGP and no, or negligible,
additional volume would be added to the system by future projects. Although bathrooms could be
remodeled or expanded in conjunction with future UGP projects, they would be subject to additional
less than significant
environmental findings pursuant to CEQA. This would be a impact in regards to
exceeding wastewater treatment requirements pursuant the SC-
Requirements.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The most recent Municipal Services Review for the Thermalito Water
and Sewer in 2006 (LAFCO, 2006). At that time, the Dis
rights for 8,200 acre-feet per year from Concow Reservoir were determined to be ample for District growth
past 2025.
gallons per day (in 2005) was expected to grow to just almost 5.7 million gallons per day by 2025, well
under the 2010 water treatment plant capacity of 10 million gallons per day.
As noted in section 6.17.1, a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for Oroville District reports, based on
the historical record, demand for water can be met by supply, and that water conservation measures have
(See References for Weblink) Actual
2010 water deliveries are reported in Table 3.3-2 at 2,565 acre feet for 3,283 accounts. 2030 Water
Deliveries are projected at 2,852 acre feet in 2030 serving 3,558 accounts. In this case water demands
target water demand projection includes conservations savings due to both passive and active demand
management, which are described in Section 6 of 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for Oroville
District, as summarized above.
94
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
Also as noted in section 6.17.1, water supplies from the SFWPA are also adequate to serve its planned
service area within the Oroville Urban Area.
The UGP would utilize water consistent with the water projections of the TWSD, Cal Water Oroville, and
SFWPA because the UGP does not propose additional people living or working in the Oroville Urban Area.
Rather the UGP will help to conserve water through appropriate plant selection. The UGP is consistent
with existing water projections, therefore, impacts on water demand would be less than significant.
Subsection a) above describes how impacts to wastewater facilities will be less than significant. Therefore,
less than significant impact
there would be a in regards to a need for new construction of either water
or wastewater treatment facilities.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant.
As discussed in Chapter 6 Stormwater Management of the UGP, the Plan
promotes sustainable stormwater management techniques that have the capacity to reduce flooding,
improve water quality, and provide habitat for wildlife. These techniques are known as low impact design
(LIDs). Future projects consistent with the UGP may include additional bicycle paths/lanes, sidewalks,
hardscape, and other improvements which could marginally increase impervious surfaces.
On a programmatic level, the design, implementation and maintenance of LID stormwater management
features will minimize runoff, and the pollutants typically carried in runoff, as compared to traditional
stormwater improvements. In addition, implementation of the Plan could convert some impervious areas
back to pervious surfaces, thereby increasing infiltration and reducing runoff and the burden on
conventional stormwater drainage facilities. Since LID maximize the use of locally adapted, natural
vegetation and pervious features, they serve as programmatic mitigation for slight increases in impervious
surfaces potentially resulting from the UGP. The UGP itself is a program-level policy document; more
detailed project descriptions will be necessary in order to evaluate the environmental impacts of site-
less than significant i
specific projects pursuant to CEQA. This is a mpact.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact.
As discussed in sub-section (b), the UGP would be consistent with
estimated demand for water consistent with General Plan land uses. Water will be adequate for UGP and
anticipated future water use.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
Less Than Significant Impact.
As discussed in sub-section (a), the SC-OR treatment plant has adequate
capacity for the anticipated increase in wastewater that will result estimated build out of the Oroville
less than significant impact
General Plan. Given the small increase involved with the UGP a with
regards to the providers existing commitments is expected.
f)
solid waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact.
handler of solid waste in Butte County. It is currently permitted to accept 1,500 tons of material per day
95
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
with an estimated closure date of 2033. The proposed facility will receive the same solid waste service
that is provided to the existing jail. The Neal Road Recycling and Waste Facility is expected to
less than
accommodate an incremental increase in solid waste from the proposed program with a
significant impact
upon its permitted capacity.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed facility would be served by a licensed solid waste hauler.
As a County facility, all solid waste handling and disposal would occur consistent with Chapter 31 of Butte
County Code (Solid Waste Collection, Management and Recycling) and the state Integrated Waste
Management Act (AB 939). The proposed facility will not be producing unusual solid waste.
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
6.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Would the proposal:
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact
ImpactMitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
X
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?
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
means that the incremental effects of a project are
X
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X
directly or indirectly?
6.18.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance Discussion
The UGP would not result in or induce growth in population, employment, land use, or regional vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) inconsistent with the growth assumptions in the City or County General Plan. Growth
projections for the Oroville Urban Area, the plan area for the UGP, were projected in the City of Oroville
General Plan and Butte County General Plan. The UGP would not change development density, intensity,
land use or location as evaluated by the City of Oroville General Plan and Butte County General Plan.
96
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
On whole, the UGP is expected to enhance the quality of the environment because it promotes pedestrian
and bicycle circulation, with associated reduction in air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, congestion
and capacity issues. It promotes LID stormwater management techniques which utilize less paving, more
landscaping, thereby increasing groundwater infiltration and improving water quality. It promotes an
increased urban tree canopy and planting the right tree at the right location to maximize values associated
with each tree. Projects implementing the UGP will occur primarily within existing rights of way and
publically-owned land. Subsequent environmental findings must be made prior to approving and
constructing projects consistent with the UGP.
The UGP is not cumulatively considerable as defined by CEQA guidelines section 15065(a)(3).
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects. As supported by the initial study analysis, the UGP does not have the potential
for impacts listed in Guidelines section 15065
Mitigation Measures:
None required with implementation of the plan as described.
97
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
7.
ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL
Butte County Association of Governments. Butte County Long-Term Regional Growth Forecasts
2010 2035. January 26, 2011:
http://www.bcag.org/documents/demographics/pop_emp_projections/Growth_Forecasts_2010-
2035.pdf
Butte County Association of Governments. Preliminary Public Draft Butte Regional Conservation
Plan, appendix A Species Accounts. December 4, 2012. Chico, CA:
http://www.buttehcp.com/BRCP-Documents/Preliminary-Public-Draft-BRCP/index.html
Butte County, 2010a. Butte County General Plan 2030. Available at the Department of
Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA between the hours of 8:00 am and
3:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and at the following web site:
http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/
Butte County, 2010b. Butte County General Plan Draft EIR. Available at the Department of
Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA between the hours of 8:00 am and
3:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and at the following web site:
http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/
Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2009. Municipal Service Review for
Wastewater Service providers Oroville Region:
http://buttelafco.org/resources/municipal-service-reviews-sphere-influence-plans-0
Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission. June 1, 2006. Municipal Service Review
Domestic Water and Wastewater Providers
http://buttelafco.org/sites/default/files/resources/Final%20MSR.pdf
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2014. California Natural Diversity Database Quick
View.:
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2014. Threatened and Endangered Species
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/
Cal EPA. Climate Action Team Report. 2010. California Environmental Protection Agency.
Sacramento.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2007). Wildland Fire Hazard Maps.
California Water Service, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Oroville District (2011)
http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps/CA%20Water%20Service%20Co
%20-%20Oroville/_ORO_UWMP_2010.pdf
City of Oroville General Plan, 2010
City of Oroville, 2008. Oroville 2030 General Plan EIR (SCH#2008022024). Oroville.
http://buttelafco.org/sites/default/files/resources/Oroville%202030%20GP%20Draft%20E
98
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
IR%20Part%201%20of%202.pdf
Butte Local Agency Formation Commission, 2009. Municipal Service Review Update and
Sphere of Influence Plan for the Feather River Recreation and Park District. Accessed July 15,
2015.
City of Oroville, Brownfields Assessment Grant by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014
http://www.cityoforoville.org/index.aspx?page=514
Butte Local Agency Formation Commission, 2009. The City of Oroville Municipal Service Review
Accessed July 15, 2015.
California Water Service Company, 2010. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Oroville District.
National Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Butte Area, California, Parts of Butte
and Plumas Counties. 2006. United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
Accessed April 24, 2014 at:
http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/california/
Accessed May 7, 2014 at:
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/29/5955059/oroville-dam-earthquake-
investigation.html#storylink=cpy
99
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
8. CONSULTED AGENCIES, DEPARTMENTS AND GROUPS
Agencies/Organizations that Provided Feedback or Attended Meetings
City of Oroville Public Works
City of Oroville Department of Parks and Trees
Butte County LAFCO
LOAPUD
California Water Services Company
City of Oroville Cultural Facilities
BCAG
Youth For Change/African American Family and Cultural Center
Hmong Cultural Center
Greater Oroville Homeless Coalition
Las Plumas High School
Oroville High School
Oroville Union High School District Maintenance and Grounds
El Medio Fire Protection District
Sunrise Rotary Club
South Feather Water and Power Agency
cChaos (Collaboratively Creating Health Access, Opportunities and Services a 501.c(3))
Feather River Recreation and Park District
Save Oroville Trees
Butte Environmental Council
Butte County Economic Development
Thermalito Water and Sewer District
Earthshed Solutions
Chico Velo Cycling Club
South Feather Water and Power
Lake Oroville Area Garden Club
Oroville Area Chamber of Commerce
Chico Certified Farmers Market
Lake Oroville Bicyclists
Osher Lifelong Learning Institute - Oroville
Additional Agencies Contacted
Oroville City Elementary School District
SC-OR
Hispanic Resource Council of Northern California
100
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
23
Appendix A. Summary of Project Phasing, R-O-W Needs, and Identified Issues
OPPORTUNITY DESIGN R-O-W or Title ISSUES IDENTIFIED
FROM PHASING CONCEPT Needed?
PLAN
Connect the gap in Melton Design is Yes Small portion of rightof-way access
the Brad Freeman preparing design needed. Must be compliant with
Trail under the and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Green Bridge environmental requirements. Homeless
between Veterans documents for encampments discourage use of
Hall and Nature FRRPD informal path. CEQA document being
Center prepared for project currently by Melton
Design Group.
Clean and green UGP #2 Generally no. Yes, Overgrowth and trash. Coordinate with
Southside alleys if gating-off of easement holders including Lake
alleys is proposed Oroville Area Public Utility District.
(LOAPUD); generally exempt from
CEQA per Guidelines section 15301(c
)
Clean and green UGP #2 No, program City of Oroville Code Enforcement;
vacant Southside focuses on tax lien overgrowth and trash. Generally
properties and exempt from CEQA per section
lots
identified 15304(b)
nuisances.
Improve Myers UGP #4 No Current drainage issues; Coordinate
Street through the with PG&E and LOAPUD.
Southside
neighborhood/
manage
drainage problems
at Myers &
Wyandotte
Beautify the river UGP #3 No Coordinate with DWR for streambed
and levee alteration permit.
Downtown
2
Over one hundred implementing projects have been suggested for the UGP. As a programmatic
document, the UGP Initial Study assumes compliance with applicable laws and regulations,
which will be confirmed via subsequent environmental review for projects, prior to construction.
3
All Facilities are in the City of Oroville unless otherwise noted. All facilities must be compliant
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA compliant) and must be coordinated with
applicable easement holders, whether specifically indicated or not.
101
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
OPPORTUNITY DESIGN R-O-W or Title ISSUES IDENTIFIED
FROM PHASING CONCEPTNeeded?
PLAN
Shade El Medio No Categorically exempt from CEQA per
Fire Department Guidelines section 15304 (b) Minor
event site Alterations to Land, new gardening or
landscaping.
Connect Nelson UGP #1 Yes Requires bridge to cross conveyance
Park to the canal with DWR approval/permitting.
Thermalito Coordinate with Aquatic Center.
Forebay Picnic
Area/Aquatic
Center
Plant new trees UGP #1 No Categorically exempt from CEQA per
and update the Guidelines section 15304 (b) Minor
Alterations to Land, new gardening or
irrigation system
landscaping.
at the Nelson
ballfields complex
Link Thermalito Maybe School safety. History of pedestrian
Schools with fatalities. Coordinate with CalTrans,
City, County, and School districts.
Residential Areas
East of Highway
70
Improve Streets UGP #6 Maybe County jurisdiction
around Las
Plumas
High School and
Nearby
Elementary
Schools
Fill in sidewalk No
gaps along
Fallbrook,
Burlington,
Columbia, and
Wyandotte
Improve Oro Dam UGP # 5 Maybe Coordinate with CalTrans.
Boulevard
between
Highway 70 and
Washington Street
102
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
OPPORTUNITY DESIGN R-O-W or Title ISSUES IDENTIFIED
FROM PHASING CONCEPTNeeded?
PLAN
Address No Current drainage issues; landowners
stormwater may hold some of the property that
system along Oro appears to be street ROW
Bangor Highway
and Ithaca Street
Manage drainage Maybe Current drainage issues
at the end of Elgin
Road
Build a community No Categorically exempt from CEQA per
garden at the Guidelines section 15304 (b) Minor
Collins and Denny Alterations to Land, new gardening or
Market and/or at landscaping.
schools site(s) in
or around
Thermalito.
Create a Safe Yes Requires coordination with PG&E,
Route to School easement holders and schools.
below the Power
Lines between
Southside and Las
Plumas High
School.
103
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
104
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
ctober 2015
105
Appendix B: Dam Inundation for the Oroville Urban Area
O
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
ctober 2015
106
O
Appendix C: Water Providers in Oroville Urban Area
Oroville Area Urban Greening Plan
October 2015
107