HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from City of Oroville - Draft Mitigated Negative Dec CITY OF OROVILLE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
. {'. AND PUBLIC WORKS
` 1.735 MONTGOMERY STREET• OROVILLE,CA 95965-4897
= PLANNING DIVISION
530-538-2401
Fax 530-538-2426
spa � q www.cityoforoville.org
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
N"U 0 2007
TO: Responsible, Trustee, and Interested Agencies OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA
Dept. Of Fish and Game Army Corp of Engineers Dept. of Water Resources
Butte County Board of Supervisors SC-OR TID
FRRPD Butte LAFCo BEC
Subject: DRAFT Mitigated Negative Declaration -to adopt a proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the project described in the attached Initial Study:
A thirty (30) day public review period is being conducted on the proposed mitigated negative declaration
described in this notice. The review period begins November 5, 2007, and it will end December 5, 2007.
Environmental studies and supporting materials can be reviewed at the City of Oroville Planning Department,
1735 Montgomery Street, Oroville. Comments relating to environmental concerns and the proposed mitigated
negative declaration for the project described in this notice should be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the
Planning Commission. Please review the enclosed mitigated negative declaration. This review should focus on
your agency's area of expertise and jurisdiction. Any comments must be received by the Oroville Planning
Department at the above-noted address by 5:00 P.M. on December 5, 2007.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Linkside Place II Tentative Subdivision Map, File TSM 07-04; Lead
Agency: City of Oroville 1735 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 959_65. Tentative Subdivision Map to create
59 single family lots. Linkside Place Phase 2 Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to develop a total of 59
additional lots for single-family detached dwelling units on approximately 14 of the 19+acres within parcels APN
030-260-026 and APN 030-260-021. The project was previously approved by the City of Oroville Planning
Commission and site grading and improvements were begun to meet required project conditions. The site has
been finish graded and underground facilities and roads, except for paving, have been installed. The developer
subsequently asked that the map be rescinded in order to implement a change in drainage design to
accommodate drainage detention rather than retention. This project is a re-submittal of the previously approved
map with minor changes based primarily on a change is stormwater detention strategy. APN 031-260-021, 026.
Project Location: 19 acres located on the south side of State Highway 162 immediately west of the
Table Mountain Golf Course, Ptn. Of the SE %4 of Section 16 and the NE % of Section 21 T 19N R 3E
MDB&M.
Project Applicant: Linkside Place LLC
General Plan Designation(s): Medium Density Residential
Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed environmental documents, please contact the
Oroville Planning Department office at 538-2430 between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
aos
11_�05t 194) NOV 0 2 2007
CITY OF OROVILLE
1735 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965
INITIAL STUDY- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Linkside Place Phase 2 Subdivision
Tentative Subdivision Map No.07-04
2. Applicant Name and Address: Linkside Place, LLC
2121 Echo Bay Street,Suite 204
Las Vegas, NV 89128
Contact Person and Phone Number: Bert Garland (530) 200-0900
William Isaac
3. Representative Name and Address: C&N Investments
1802 North Carson Street,Suite 212
Carson City, NV 89701
4. Type of Project: Tentative Subdivision Map to create 59
developed lots for construction of single-family
homes
5. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6 units per acre
maximum density)
6. Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential); Airport Influence
Area Overlay "C" Zone (minimum density of 4
units per acre is required)
7. Project Location: Approximately 18 acres adjacent to Linkside
Place Phase 1, located on the south side of Oro
Dam Boulevard West (State Route 162) and
west of the Table Mountain Golf Course (see
Figure 1)
8. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: APN# 030-2607026 and APN 030-260-021
! r
9. Project Description:
The Linkside Place Phase 2 proposed project is a continuation of the 65-lot Phase 1
Subdivision currently under development. The project site abuts the south boundary of
the Phase 1 Subdivision, and the west boundary of the Table Mountain Golf Course (see
Figure 1). Access to the proposed project site would be from SR 162 via Christian Avenue
and Hawes Way, streets that have been constructed as part of Phase 1. Linkside Place
Phase 2 Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to develop a total of 59 additional lots for
single-family detached dwelling units on approximately 14 of the 19f acres within parcels
APN 030-260-026 and APN 030-260-021 (see Figure 2). The project was previously
approved by the City of Oroville Planning Commission and site grading and
improvements were begun to meet required project conditions. The site has been finish
graded and underground facilities and roads, except for paving, have been installed.
The developer subsequently asked that the map be rescinded in order to implement a
change in drainage design to accommodate drainage detention rather than retention.
This project is a re-submittal of the previously approved map with minor changes based
primarily on a change is stormwater detention strategy.
The combined residential density for Phases 1 and 2 is 4 dwelling units per acre (124 units/
31 acres). The 5.8-acre "remainder" parcel at the south end of the proposed Phase 2
project site contains wetlands and vernal pools. A conservation easement is proposed
for this parcel to maintain it as permanent open space for wetlands protection and to
meet the Airport Influence Area zoning open space requirements. The 5.8-acre parcel
would provide all of the required 10% open space for the combined 38-acre area being
developed to Phases 1 and 2, as both project sites are located within AIA Overlay Zone
C.
With development of Phase 2, the project applicant proposes to detain in the
stormwater detention pond (known as Pond 1) located on lots i through 6 which serves
all of the lots of Linkside 1 subdivision. These 6 lots will be a future phase of the subdivision
which would only be able to be filed when the stormwater detention basin is replaced
by a larger facility which would serve both Linkside I and Il. Currently, Pond 1 discharges
stormwater through an underground pipe to a discharge point on a natural swale on the
east boundary of the project site. Linkside II will have a separate stormwater detention
facility located south of the subdivision on a separate parcel, also owned by the
developer, and subject to Butte County (not City)jurisdiction. Pond 2 was constructed
immediately south of the Phase 2 project site (being APN 030-260-025;zoned AR-5 by the
County), and it detains storm water and will discharge to a on-site drainage course.
Pond 3 was constructed approximately 3,200 feet south of the southern boundary of the
Phase 2 site (being APN 030-260-018;zoned AR-10 by the County), and it will eventually
serve as a retention pond for overflow from Pond 2. No stormwater will be discharged
from Pond 3.
The County of Butte does not require a grading permit or any discretionary permits for
projects below 300 feet in elevation; therefore, no CEQA review was required for
construction of Ponds 2 and 3. However construction of the retention and detention
ponds as well as the access road between them was subject to all federal and State
requirements, including those imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California
Department of Fish and Game. As a part of the Linkside Place Phase 2 project,
additional improvements will be made to Pond 2, and this pond will be dedicated to the
City of Oroville for perpetual maintenance, with the cost of maintenance to be funded
by an assessment district. Proposed new infrastructure improvements to Pond 2 include a
new outfall for discharge of retained storwmater and the installation of permanent
pumps and power.
Water, sewer lines, electric and other utility lines have already been extended to Phase 2
from the Phase 1 site. Additional frontage improvements will be made along the SR 162
frontage of the Phase 1 site, including construction of paveout and curbs, and
undergrounding of the roadside drainage ditch.
Figure 1 -Site Vicinity Map/8.3x11/b/w
VICINITY MAP
WOO
.00,;
F7,:.IN Site Location
CITY OF OROVILLE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Appffcant Owner
Garland&Associates kaac Family Trust �
(Phase Il of Unkside PEace)
Project Losaeon:
Oro Dam Boulevatd
Aasewwry Parw I
Zoning Designation: General Plan Land Use Designation:
03ff-26D_U28 Rf Single Family Residential RNID Resideawl Medium Density
App ocafron/Request:
Apocant proposes to subdivide 18 acres into 5D lots
Frtvaronwental EvWuatien: Hearng Date, Fife
WA August 13.20117
TSM 07-04
rigure z--rroposea ienrarnve neap
oc ainoa p
16
TRAP
a gig
13
S R P- a g p RS F r, e n F e a
5a atr�azt �
It
gill I
aj
IAM
LZ51
'� - a� :
@ 61. [i]
v
o !b r6.. 0. _ 3
IIrFr
L. O
OV
� t
• 170--j
I Ix
aLmaoeai-f:ulaa�s
,Zz
�p*C 777555
smrHt AND rxc►vsm oeuxx¢pxaL a
10. Other Public Agencies Using this Environmental Document:
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): An encroachment permit for Phase 1
improvements to SR 162 has been issued. The encroachment permit will have to be
modified for construction of additional improvements on SR 162 for the Phase 2 project.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG): Prior to site preparation, the project
applicant will be required to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement as well as final
project approval from the Department of Fish and Game.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): Project applicants are
required to submit plans for the disposition of surface runoff and erosion control to the
City of Oroville that meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board's
(SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. The project
applicant must prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to any
construction activities, and obtain a Water Quality Certification from the CVRWQCB. The
Project has been the subject of a Regional Water Quality Control Board action resulting
from an alleged discharge of storm waters that contained sediments from the site.
City of Oroville: Non-discretionary permits required by the Department of Community
Development and Public Works include a Grading Permit (Grading, Drainage, and
Improvement Plan), and Building Permits.
Thermalito Irrigation District: Thermalito Irrigation District (TID) provides domestic water
and sewer collection services to the area surrounding the project site. Installation of
infrastructure to serve the project site would need to be coordinated with T1D.
Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo): None at this time, however
LAFCo must approve any future City acquisition of territory in Butte County to serve new
development within the City (Ponds 2 and 3). LAFCo must also take action if the project
site is to be annexed to the Feather River Recreation and Parks District.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): According to Eco-Analysts, who
conducted the wetlands delineation for the proposed project site, the USACE is claiming
federal jurisdiction of wetlands within the proposed project site. The project applicant is
in the process of filing an appeal. In the event that the USACE denies the appeal, the
applicant would be required to consult with the USACE in regards to permits under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Section 7 Consultation or Section 10
Consultation with the USFWS will be required as the reconnaissance level survey
conducted by ECORPS Consulting, Inc. determined that vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecto lynchi), a federally listed threatened species, and California linderiella
(Linderiella occidentalis), a USFWS species of concern, exist in numerous vernal pools
within the proposed project site.
11. Environmental Setting:
Oroville is located within the western reaches of the Sierra Nevada Mountains
geomorphic province of California, at the juncture where the Sacramento Valley meets
the Sierra foothills. Geologically, the proposed project site is located in the northern
section of the Great Valley Province. Situated approximately '/2 mile west of the Oroville
Municipal Airport at the western most boundary of the City limits of Oroville, the
proposed project site is located in the southeast quarter of Section 16 and in a portion of
the northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 19 North, and Range 3 East on the Biggs,
California USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle map. The approximately 19+ acre area of
land that is the subject of this proposed development is situated on a relatively flat plain
with mild slopes interspersed with wetlands. The proposed project area is located at
elevations between 150 and 170 feet above mean sea level.
The project site consisted of a combination of upland grassland and vernal pool habitat.
Rough grading of the site removed the grassland vegetation within much of the project
area, but wetland features and surrounding vegetation remains interspersed in some
areas and throughout the southern part of the site. The proposed project site contains
vernal pools and proposes additional improvements on County lands that contain vernal
pools with identified invertebrate species listed as endangered, pursuant to the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Fauna noted or suspected in the vicinity of the proposed
project site include the raptor species including Swainson's Hawk, Red-tailed hawk,
coyote,jackrabbits, and rodents.
Oroville is located within an area considered to have a relatively low seismic potential in
general and the possibility of landslides on the project site is considered low due to the
gently sloping terrain. The proposed project site was historically used at various times for
cattle grazing. Surrounding land uses currently consist of rural residential development,
grazing, public/quasi-public, and medium-density residential. The Table Mountain Golf
Course is located to the east of the proposed project site and Linkside Place Phase I is
located to the north. The U.S. Air Force operates a NEXRAD radar tower located
approximately 150 feet east of the proposed project site. Although no historical or
cultural sites were identified within 1/2 mile of the Area of Potential Effects (APE), three
historic sites associated with farming and ranching activities were located within a one-
mile radius.
II. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
i
❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. No
further action is required.
d4i�j 10 Z3 b
Sign re Date
Craig Sanders__ Planninq_Consultant
Printed Name Title
Ill. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the environmental checklist in
this document.
❑ Aesthetics ® Hazards/Hazardous Materials ® Public Services
❑ Agricultural Resources ® Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Recreation
® Air Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ® Transportation/Circulation
® Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems
❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Population and Housing
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
All answers must take into account 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. A brief explanation is required for answers except "No
Impact" answers adequately supported by the information sources cited in the response
following each question.
I) A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.,
the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific screening analysis.
2) If it is determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
responses must indicate whether the impact is "Potentially Significant", "Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Incorporated", or "Less Than Significant". "Potentially
Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may
be significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries, an EIR
is required.
3) If all of the potentially significant impacts have been rendered less than significant
with mitigation, a Negative Declaration may be prepared. The mitigation measures
shall be described in the response, and it shall be explained how the mitigation
measure reduces the potential effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation
measures may be cross-referenced to other sections when one mitigation measure
reduces the effect of another potential impact.
4) The response for each issue should identify the threshold or criteria, if any, used to
determine significance and any mitigation measure, if any, to reduce a potential
impact.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration (Earlier analyses, if any, are cited at the end of the checklist). If an earlier
analysis is used, the response should identify the following:
a) Earlier analysis used-Identify and state where the document is available.
b) Impacts adequately addressed-The responses will identify which impacts were
within the scope of and were adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures -- For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Incorporated", the response will describe the mitigation measures, which were
incorporated or refined from the earlier analysis, and to the extent they address
site-specific conditions for the project.
b) The checklist responses will incorporate references to inform 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. A source list should be
attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the
discussion. References are noted in the Initial Study by bold numbers in parentheses
(e.g., (10) (See Section VII. References).
7) Individuals contacted and other outside supporting sources of information will be
cited in Section VII. References.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ® ❑
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including, ❑ ❑ ❑ El
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ ❑ ® ❑
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ ® ❑
that would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
There are no scenic vistas in close proximity to the project site. Table Mountain is
located approximately 4 miles to the northeast, beyond land developed to urban
and rural uses and an elevated section of SR 70. The primary vista in the area is the
undulating but relatively flat grasslands to the south and west of the project site, and
those areas are developed to rural residential uses. Therefore the proposed project
will have a less than significant effect on scenic vistas.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
There are currently no State-designated scenic highways in the Oroville Planning
Area. In addition, there are no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or
historic buildings on the project site {(Linkside Place Cultural Resources Study Report
dated August 6, 2004 is available for review at the City of Oroville Department of
Community Development). Therefore, there is no impact associated with these
features.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
The construction of 59 single-family detached residences on the proposed project
site will alter the existing character of the area to that of a more urban setting that is
consistent with development anticipated in the City of Oroville General Plan and
the current zoning for the site. Surrounding land uses currently consist of rural
residential/agricultural development, public/quasi-public, and medium-density
residential. The Table Mountain Golf Course is located to the east of the proposed
project site and Linkside Place Phase 1 is located to the north. The U.S. Air Force
operates a NEXRAD radar tower located approximately 150 feet east of the
proposed project site. Scattered vernal pools are located within the proposed
project site and on lands to the east and south of it.
The project is located within an area of grasslands, some of which have been used
in the past for cattle grazing. Because the per-acre production and value of
grazing land is low relative to other uses, it is usually susceptible to development
(Butte County General Plan). Therefore, impacts of the proposed project are
considered less than significant because the change in character from grazing land
to suburban development is consistent with the land use anticipated in the Oroville
General Plan.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views In the area?
Oroville City Code specifies that a street-lighting system must be installed along all
interior and boundary streets, in accordance with Oroville City standards. The City's
street light standards minimize glare and spill-over lighting to a level that is
considered less than significant.
Less Than
Significani
Potenlially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ❑ ❑ ® ❑
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project 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?
The project is located within an area of grasslands, some of which have been used
in the past for cattle grazing. The Butte County 2004 Farmland map designates the
site as grazing land. However, the parcels are designated in the Oroville General
Plan as Medium Density Residential and they are zoned R-1 (Single Family
Residential). Further, other medium-density residential development is located
adjacent to the proposed project site and the project site would not constitute an
economic unit for grazing as the parcel is approximately 18 acres in size. Therefore,
this impact is considered less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
Currently, there are no lands within the vicinity of the project that are subject to a
Williamson Act contract. As the Butte County Farmland Map of 2004 designates the
proposed project area as "Grazing Land" and not as Prime Farmland, impacts
resulting in conflicts with the Williamson Act are considered less than significant.
c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural
use?
Although the project site is not currently being used for agriculture, the area has
been utilized in the past for cattle grazing. Some lands in the area may still be used
for limited grazing for hobby purposes but no commercial grazing operations are
adjacent to the project site. Because the per-acre production and value of grazing
land is low relative to other uses, these lands are usually susceptible to development
and they are not designated for agricultural production by the General Plans for
Butte County or the City of Oroville. Therefore, regarding the conversion of farmland
to non-agricultural uses, the impact is considered less than significant.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ® ❑ ❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantially 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 in non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑
number of people?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Temporary air pollutant emissions associated with the development of the project
would consist primarily of motor vehicle exhaust, dust and other emissions due to
construction activities. Long-term emissions associated with the project would
include those generated by Indirect Mobile Sources (such as automobiles) and
Indirect Stationary Sources (such as lawn mowers, barbeques, water heaters and
the burning of vegetated and woody material). Most indirect stationary sources,
such as those listed above, remain uncontrolled by the BCAQMD. Reductions in
emissions from these sources over time are primarily the product of advances in
technologies and new regulations and legislation.
The Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD) has adopted
mitigation measures which, when implemented, reduce impacts related to
development to a level that is less than significant. Action-level thresholds
(thresholds) are consistent with the New Source Review adopted by the NSVAB
Districts for permitting stationary sources. The thresholds illustrate the extent of
indirect source impacts resulting from projects, and are a basis from which to apply
mitigation measures. The thresholds are not intended to discourage planning
agencies from implementing mitigation measures for smaller projects. The action-
level thresholds are intended for use as a guide rather than strict, absolute values.
When preliminary analysis of a project indicates projected emissions are near the
thresholds, additional analysis is warranted. Closer scrutiny should refine the
emissions analysis, explore any mitigating characteristics of the project or site, and
identify feasible mitigation measures.
Level A: Indirect sources which have the potential to emit less than 25 pounds per
day of ROG or Nox, or less than 80 pounds per day of PM10 (as calculated by the
District),would be subject to the recommended list of standard mitigation measure
Level B: Indirect sources which have the potential to emit 25 pounds per day of ROG
or NOx, or 80 pounds per day of PM10, or any nonattainment criteria pollutant (as
calculated by the District) would select as many supplemental mitigation measures
as are feasible, in addition to the recommended list of standard mitigation
measures.
Level C: Indirect sources which have the potential to emit 137 pounds per day or
greater (25 tons per year) of ROG or NOX, PM10, or any nonattainment criteria
pollutant (as calculated by the District) would select as many supplemental
mitigation measures as are feasible, in addition to the recommended list of standard
mitigation measures. Depending on factors specific to the project, an
environmental impact report may also be necessary under the California
Environment Quality Act (CEQA).
According to the BCAQMD guidelines this project will have level "A" impacts of less
than 25 Ib of ROG and 80 Ib of PM 10 emissions. Standard mitigation measures will be
proposed and included as a condition of the map. The City of Oroville assists the
District with monitoring construction activities, and requires developers to adhere to
construction and development mitigation measure to reduce project emissions and
conflicts with the Air Quality Attainment Plan to a level that is considered less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure:
MM 3.1
The project applicant, in coordination with the City and BCAQMD, shall implement
BCAQMD standard mitigation measures set forth below:
1. Use adequate fugitive dust control measures for all construction activities
during all phases of construction.
2. Use EPA Phase 11 certified wood burning devices or District approved
fireplaces. Provide energy-efficient lighting (includes controls) and process
systems such as water heaters, furnaces, and boiler units.
3. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material on the project site.
4. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate at all stages of construction.
5. Schedule construction activities that direct traffic flow to off-peak hours as
much as practicable.
6. Paved streets adjacent to the development site should be swept at the end
of each day as necessary to remove excessive accumulations of silt and/or
mud which may have accumulated as a result of activities on the
development site.
7. Land clearing, grading, earthmoving or excavation activities suspended
when winds exceed 20 miles per hour.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective
action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the District shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with District Rule 200 & 205 (Nuisance and
Fugitive Dust Emissions)
Compliance with the MM 3.1 would assist the District in implementing the Air Quality
Attainment Plan and reduce the impacts and conflicts with the Air Quality
Attainment Plan to a level that is considered fess than significant.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
Butte County is currently designated as a non-attainment transitional zone for ozone
standards. The entire Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB) is classified as
a non-attainment area for particulate matter less than 10 microns (PMio). The main
source of PM10 is dust generated during clearing, grubbing, grading and other
construction activities. Impacts to air quality attributable to such construction
activities would be temporary and therefore cease once construction is
completed. Ozone, the primary ingredient of smog, is a gas created when
nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react with the sun.
Air pollutant emissions associated with development of the Linkside Place Phase 2
Subdivision would consist primarily of motor vehicle exhaust, dust, and other
emissions due to construction activities and emissions from lawn mowers,
barbeques, as well as the burning of vegetated and woody material. According to
the BCAQMD ISRG, the Threshold of Significance for air quality impacts associated
with a subdivision of less than 97 homes would most likely remain within Level "A".
The applicant's adherence to BCAQMD's standard mitigation measures would
reduce the impacts to air quality standards to a level that is considered less than
significant.
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air duality standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
The physical environment in the northern Sacramento Valley, which includes the
Oroville area, is a contributing factor to adverse air quality. Pollutants are trapped
between the Coast Range and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This problem is
exacerbated by a temperature inversion layer that traps air at lower levels below an
overlying layer of warmer air. Prevailing winds in the area are from the south and
southwest. Sea breezes flow over the San Francisco Bay Area and into the
Sacramento Valley, transporting pollutants from the large urban areas to the south
northward into the.upper valley and affect local air quality. Growth and urbanization
in Butte County and surrounding counties also contributes to the pollutant load in the
local air. The California Air Resources Board maintains an air quality monitoring
station in Chico. Another monitoring station was established in Paradise. No
monitoring stations are located in Oroville.
Butte County is currently designated as a non-attainment transitional zone for ozone
standards. The entire Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB) is classified as a
non-attainment area for particulate matter less than 10 microns (PMio). The main
source of PMio is dust generated during clearing, grubbing, grading and other
construction activities. Impacts to air quality attributable to such construction
activities would be temporary and therefore cease once construction is completed.
Ozone, the primary ingredient of smog, is a gas created when nitrogen oxides and
volatile organic compounds react with the sun.
Ozone emission measurements taken at the Chico monitoring station during the years
2002-2005 4-year period indicate that the number of days that exceeded the state
standards was two with no days exceeding the federal standard. These figures
indicate a better air quality for ozone than the 1998-2000 3-year period when ten
days exceeded the state standard and one day exceeded the federal. The number
of days that the air quality exceeded state PMto standards was 17, down from 20
days for the 1998-2000 period. There were no days in which federal PM10 standards
were exceeded. The station also monitors the PM2.5 particles and for the 2002.2005
time period the state standard was exceeded twice, while the federal standard was
not exceeded on any day. The Federal standard for PM2.5 has recently been revised,
effective December 17, 2006 and it is expected that Butte County may now become
a non-attainment area for the stricter Federal standard. No exceedance of other air
quality standards was recorded at the Chico monitoring station. (BCAQMD Air
Quality Report 2001- 2005). Butte County has been designated as a non-attainment
area for state and federal standards for ozone and as non-attainment for state
standards for particulate matter (PMto). Butte County is designated as an attainment
or unclassified area for all other state and federal ambient air quality standards.
The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are generally highest in the fall and winter months
reflecting agricultural burning and the use of wood burning stoves for heat. Another
contributor to PMio emissions is dust generated during site clearing and grading in
anticipation of development and other construction activities. Construction impacts
are temporary in nature and cease once the site is developed and soils stabilized.
Cumulatively, this project is but a small portion of the new dwelling units now under
construction or in the planning stages not only in the Oroville area but within the
northern Sacramento Valley Air basin. As the Sacramento Valley Air basin covers
such a large area, development from Sacrament northward need to be included
when looking at cumulative impacts. This would include development proposed for.
Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Wheatland Marysville, Yuba City, and numerous other
cities. There are literally tens of thousands of new dwelling units proposed in these
areas that will affect cumulative air quality impacts. When this project of 59 dwelling
units is considered alongside the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 other proposed dwellings
in the northern Sacramento Valley, the air quality emissions are not cumulatively
significant. In addition, the EIR adopted for the 1995 General Plan adopted
overriding findings with respect to air quality. CEQA sections 15130 (d), 15152(f)(1),
and]5183(a) clarify that where a Lead Agency determines that a cumulative effect
has been adequately addressed in a prior EIR, such as cumulative air quality impacts
of future projects that are consistent with the general plan and zoning, it is not
treated as significant. Also, mitigation measures have been proposed that would
reduce the direct net increase impacts of criteria pollutant to a level that is less than
significant.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
According to the City of Oroville Environmental Review Guidelines, sensitive
receptors include facilities, developments, or uses that attract children, the elderly,
people with illnesses, and others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air
pollutants. These types of uses include, but are not limited to: schools, day care
facilities, hospitals, senior/retirement centers, and other residential uses.
Based on information gathered during site visits and according to maps of Oroville,
there are no schools, commercial day care facilities, hospitals, or retirement centers
located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Further, the project is
not predicted to generate ongoing dust, a major contributor of particulate matter
less than TO microns in size (PMio), once Standard Construction Mitigation Measures
are incorporated into the project. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors due to
pollutant concentrations are considered less than significant.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
The proposed project site would consist entirely of residential development. The
project does not include any industrial activities or agricultural operations. Any
objectionable odors affecting the project area would fall under the control of local
nuisance ordinances. There is no impact associated with objectionable odors as a
result of the project.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
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 or
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 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through
direct removal,tilling, hydrological interruption or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ® ❑
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or 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?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project 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?
Threatened, endangered, rare and special-status species are defined as follows:
• Plants and animals that are legally protected or proposed for protection
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), 14 CCR 670.5, or
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), 50 CFR 17.12 and Federal Register
Notices;
• Plants and animals defined as endangered or rare under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),Section 15380;
• Animals designated as Species of Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service or California Department of Fish and Game;
• Animals listed as "fully protected" in the Fish and Game Code of California
(Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515), and;
• Plants listed in the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare
and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2002).
According to the City of Oroville Planning Area Map For Biotic Resources (Figure
6.11-A in the General Plan), the proposed project site is not located within an Area
of Special Biological Importance. However, according to the Wetland Delineation
and Assessment of the Linkside Place Subdivision prepared by ECO-ANALYSTS in May
2002„there are numerous wetlands on the proposed project site. According to
ECORP Consulting, who conducted a reconnaissance level 90-Day Report of
Findings Regarding Federally-Listed Branchiopods For Linkside Place, vernal pool
fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), a federally threatened species, were
encountered in several of the vernal pool wetlands within the proposed project
area. In addition, California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Species of Concern, were observed in numerous vernal pools within the
proposed project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was notified of the
presence of Branchinecta lynch! on the property via email sent January 26, 2004.
Copies of all studies and emails described in this section are available for review at
the City of Oroville Department of Community Development.
Potential impacts to the federal listed species within the proposed project area
include the destruction (i.e. filling) of vernal pools during construction. Upon a final
wetlands delineation and consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a
Section 7 or Section 10 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), a
compensatory mitigation plan approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be adhered to such that impacts to all vernal
pool features are mitigated offsite.
Eco-Analysts noted in studies conducted in 2002 that suitable foraging habitat
existed within the project site for raptors. However that habitat was removed by
construction of improvements on the Phase 1 site and finished grading of the Phase
2 site.
Adherence to all conditions and mitigations as required by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Game would
reduce the project's impacts on federal and State endangered, threatened, and
sensitive species, as well as federal and State special status species, to a level that is
considered less than significant.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Vernal pools are a type of wetland habitat that exhibit unique characteristics and
support specifically adapted species. According to the Wetland Delineation and
Assessment of the Linkside Place Subdivision (available for review at the City of
Oroville Department of Community Development), several vernal pool complexes
connected by depressional wetlands were delineated within the proposed project
area. According to the delineation, the number and extent of depressional
wetlands on the site surveyed were far greater than indicated in aerial
photographs. Infrared false color photos taken June 25, 1995 suggested a greater
density of vernal pools in the center of the property. The report determined that 14
of the 149 lots proposed for Linkside Place (Phasesl and 2 combined), contain
segments of depressional wetlands.
Prior to site preparation, the applicant will be required to obtain either a
Nationwide or Individual Section 404 Permit, if the USACE determines that the
proposed activity will involve the discharge of fill material into waters of the United
States. Adherence to all conditions and mitigations as required by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Game
would provide appropriate mitigation and reduce the impacts to sensitive natural
communities, including riparian areas and vernal pools,within the proposed project
area to a level that is considered less than significant.
c). Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption or other means?
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, actions that pose potential
impacts or disturbance of any kind to wetlands and Other Waters of the United
States require appropriate mitigation or avoidance. Consultation with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and USACE final approval of the Wetland Delineation and
Assessment of the Linkside Place Subdivision, as well as adherence to any USACE
compensatory mitigation plan are required.
In addition to USACE and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulations
regarding federally protected wetlands, Section 1601-1607 of the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code requires the applicant of the Linkside
Place Phase 2 proposed project to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from
the CDFG prior to site disturbance.
Adherence to all federal, State, and regional permit requirements regarding
federally protected wetlands, including vernal pool habitat, is considered sufficient
to reduce the impacts to federally protected wetlands to a level that is less than
significant with mitigation.
MM 4.1 To the extent practicable, the discharge or dredged or fill material into
Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State shall be avoided (this also includes
waters not subject to USACE jurisdiction, but subject to RWQCB, CDFG jurisdiction).
This includes avoiding activities that would obstruct the flow of, or alter the bed,
channel, or bank of any intermittent or ephemeral creeks. If complete avoidance
is implemented, no further measures are necessary. If complete avoidance is not
practicable, the following measures shall be implemented:
1) Prior to any discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the U.S.",
including wetlands, authorization under a Nationwide Permit or Individual
Permit, as applicable. shall be obtained from the USACE. For any features
determined to not be subject to USACE jurisdiction during the verification
process, authorization to discharge (or a waiver from regulation) shall be
obtained from the RWQCB. For fill requiring a USACE permit,water quality
certification shall be obtained from the RWQCB prior to discharge of
dredged or fill material.
2) Prior to any activities that would obstruct the flow of, or alter the bed,
channel, or bank of any intermittent, ephemeral creeks or riparian
vegetation, notification of streambed alteration shall be submitted to the
CDFG; and, if required, a streambed alteration agreement shall be
obtained.
3) Construction activities that will impact "waters of the U.S." shall be
conducted during the dry season to minimize erosion.
4) Appropriate sediment control measures to protect avoided "waters of the
U.S." shall be in place prior to the onset of construction and shall be
monitored and maintained until construction activities have ceased.
Temporary stockpiling of excavated or imported material shall occur only
in approved construction staging areas. Excess excavated soil shall be
used on site or disposed of at a regional landfill or other appropriate
facility. Stockpiles that are to remain on the site through the wet season
shall be protected to prevent erosion (e.g,silt fences, straw bales).
5) Vehicular entry into "waters of the U.S.", including wetlands, to be
avoided, shall be prohibited during construction.
6) Loss of wetlands shall be compensated at a creation ratio stipulated by
the ACOS. This can be accomplished through purchase of appropriate
credits at a USACE approved mitigation bank, appropriate payment into
a USACE approved in-lieu fee fund, or on-site or off-site creation,
monitoring, and maintenance (as approved by the USACE or RWQCB).
7) Loss of "other waters" shall be compensated through purchase of
appropriate credits at a USACE approved mitigation bank, appropriate
payment into a USACE approved in-lieu fee fund, or through placement
of avoided waters and associated riparian buffers into a conservation
easement or similar protective mechanism. The amount of avoided
waters and riparian buffers to be permanently protected shall be
sufficient to offset the impact and shall be determined by the USACE and
the applicant during the permitting process.
8) Any monitoring, maintenance, and reporting required by the regulatory
agencies (i.e. USACE, RWQCB, CDFG) shall be implemented and
completed. All measures contained in the permits or associated with
agency approvals shall be implemented.
Timing/implementation: Prior to initiating construction
Enforcement/Monitoring: USACE, RWQCB, CDFG
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
According to ECORP Consulting, who conducted a reconnaissance level 90-Day
Report of Findings Regarding Federally-Listed Branchiopods For Linkside Place
(available for review at the City of Oroville Department of Community
Development),vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecto lynchi), a federally threatened
species, were encountered in several of the vernal pool wetlands within the
proposed project area. In addition, California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalls), a
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species of Concern, were observed in numerous vernal pools
within the proposed project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was notified of
the presence of Branchinecta lynchi on the property via email sent January 26, 2004
(available for review at the City of Oroville Department of Community
Development).
Adherence to all federal, State, and regional permit requirements regarding
federally protected wetlands, including vernal pool habitat, is considered sufficient
to reduce the impacts to federally protected wetlands to a level that is less than
significant.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City of Oroville General Plan primarily recognizes and encourages the
preservation of foothill woodlands containing oak, other hardwood, and pine
species. As there are no historical or specimen trees or foothill woodland species
located within the proposed project site, the project would not conflict with City
policies. Therefore, there is no impact related to local policies and ordinances
protecting tree species.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or
state habitat conservation plan?
There are no habitat conservation plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or
similar plans that apply to the proposed project area. Therefore, there is no impact
related to existing habitat protection plans.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
3,
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred ❑ ❑ ® ❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
The approximately 19-acre proposed project site is on undeveloped land in a rural
portion within the City limits of Oroville. The Linkside Phase 1 development borders
the proposed project area to the north. Although no historical or cultural sites were
identified within '/2 mile of the Area of Potential Effects (APE), three historic sites
associated with farming and ranching activities were located within a one-mile
radius (the Cultural Resources Study For the Linkside Place Development Project
dated August 6, 2004 is available for review at the City of Oroville Department of
Community Development). Although the pedestrian survey failed to yield any
evidence of prehistoric cultural resources located within the project area, four
isolates were identified during the survey. Isolates, or isolated cultural objects, do
not meet the minimum definition of a site and therefore, are not considered
significant cultural resources according to the Cultural Resources Study For the
Linkside Place Development Project.
In accordance with Oroville General Plan Policy 6.15d, the City of Oroville requires
that it historic or prehistoric archaeological resources are uncovered during the
course of project development and construction, the uncovered site must be
examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation.
The inclusion of the following condition as a note on the map will ensure that
unanticipated discoveries are handled appropriately and the impacts on historic
and prehistoric resources are less than significant.
Map Condition:
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural in origin are discovered during
construction, then all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A
qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeologist, shall
be retained to evaluate the significance of the find_ . Work cannot continue at the
discovery site until the archaeologist conducts sufficient research and data
collection to make a determination that the resource is either 1) not cultural in o(gin;
or 2) not potentially significant or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places/State Register. if a potentially eligible resource is encountered, then the
archaeologist, City of Oroville, and project proponent shall arrange for either 1) test
excavations or total data recovery; or 2) total avoidance of the resource,if possible.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
According to the Cultural Resources Study For the Linkside Place Development
Project, no significant archaeological resources are known to exist within the project
site. Should archaeological deposits be uncovered during the course of project
development and construction, per the Oroville General Plan, all development is
required to cease and the site examined by a qualified archaeologist ensuring that
impacts to archaeological resources remain at a level considered less than
significant.
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geological feature?
No systematic survey of paleontological resources has been performed for the
Oroville Planning Area and no known anecdotal records of paleontological
resources exist. Should paleontological resources, or mineralized remains of animals
or plants or other artifacts such as footprints, be uncovered in the course of project
development and construction, all activities would be required to stop in the
immediate vicinity and the project applicant is required to seek immediate
consultation with a qualified paleontologist in order to assess the impacted resource
and design a mitigation and monitoring plan as necessary. This would ensure that
impacts to unique paleontological resources and geologic features remain at a
level that is considered less than significant.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
According to the Cultural Resources Study For the Linkside Place Development
Project, there is no mention of known burial sites within the proposed project area.
However, the findings of an inventory-level surface reconnaissance may not reveal
remains prior to site development and construction. Should human remains be
unearthed during the course of project development and construction, the
provisions of California Health and Safety Code shall apply. According to the
California Health and Safety Code, no further disturbance shall occur until the Butte
County Coroner makes the necessary findings as to origin and disposition of the
remains, Adherence to the California Health and Safety-Code would ensure that
impacts to human remains remain at a level that is considered less than significant.
l ( .
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury or
death,involving:
i) 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
topsail?
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?
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?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving:
i) 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.
A review of known earthquake faults, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zonings showed no know earthquake faults as defined in
the Aiquist- Priolo Act traversing the project site. Therefore, there is no impact
related to known earthquake faults,
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
There are no active or potentially active faults near the project area. The area
could be subject to occasional severe ground shaking due to regional faulting.
Structures to be constructed as part of the project would be subject to the
provisions of the Uniform Building Code, particularly the seismic design standards
for buildings within Seismic Zone 3. Buildings constructed to these standards are
expected to survive the predicted levels of ground shaking, as determined by the
probabilistic ground shaking maps prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey,
without suffering catastrophic collapse. Therefore, this impact is considered less
than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
The project site is generally located on flat terrain and there are no known faults
within the project area. Thus, hazards such as lateral spreading or slumping are
not likely to occur. Further, liquefaction tends to occur in areas of sandy or silty
soils with a high water table. The soils on the project site are dominated by thin
clayey soils as identified by the General Soils Survey of Butte County, making the
potential for seismic-related ground failure a less than significant impact.
iv) Landslides?
The terrain on the project site is relatively level. There is no potential for landslides in
the area.Therefore there is no impact associated with landslides.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Applicants are required to submit plans for the disposition of surface runoff and
erosion control that meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control
Board's (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) would require
the project applicant to obtain a NPDES Construction Activities Stormwater General
Permit and implement erosion control measures. Approval of a Grading, Drainage,
and Improvement Plan application by the City's Public Works Department and
adherence to Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations are considered
sufficient to reduce potential wind and wafer erosion impacts to a level that is
considered less than significant.
c) Would the project 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?
Oroville is located within an area considered to have a relatively low seismic
potential in general and the possibility of landslides on the proposed project site is
considered low due to the gently sloping terrain. Subsidence is the sinking of the
ground surface undermined by natural forces or human-induced activities.
According to Figure GEO-4 in the 1993 Butte County Master Environmental
Assessment, there is only a small area in the southwest portion of the Oroville Planning
Area that may have the potential to subside. In addition, there are no known current
f•
activities, such as significant water, gas, or oil extraction, in the Oroville Planning Area
that would cause subsidence. This approximately 19-acre parcel of land includes
mima, or mound-swale topography, with site elevations ranging between 150 and
170 feet above mean sea level.
The project applicant is required to submit a soils study prior to approval of a Final
Map, to obtain approval of a Grading, Drainage, and Improvement Plan from the
City of Oroville Public Works Department. and to adhere to all Building Code
requirements related to unstable soils if such are identified in the soils report.
Approval of a grading permit application by the Oroville Public Works Department
and adherence to all Public Works and applicable Building Code requirements is
considered sufficient to reduce unstable soil impacts to a level that is considered less
than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
According to the Wetland Delineation and Assessment of the Linkside Place
Subdivision, the soils on the project site are dominated by thin clayey soils known as
Redding-San Joaquin-Rocklin in the General Soils Survey of Butte County. Expansive
soils generally have high clay content and are known to have the potential for
shrinking and swelling with changes in moisture content, which can cause damage
to overlaying structures.
According to Oroville City Ordinance No. 1305, a Civil Engineer registered by the
State of California is required to prepare a geotechnical soils report documenting
site-specific soil types, expansive characteristics, estimated load-bearing capacity,
and any other soil characteristics that would affect the support of structures. The soil
investigation would recommend corrective actions that are likely to prevent
structural damage to dwellings proposed to be constructed on expansive soil, and
subsequent building permits would be conditioned upon the incorporation of the
approved recommended corrective actions within the construction of each
dwelling.
In addition to City Cade, the City of Oroville has adopted the Califirnia Building Code
(CBC), which includes standards for the design and construction of foundations,
slabs, driveways, and other pavement systems in expansive soil conditions.
Adherence to any recommended actions identified in the required geotechnical
report and to all CBC requirements for structures built on expansive soils is considered
sufficient to reduce expansive soil impacts to a level that is considered less than
significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks nor alternative
wastewater disposal systems as the subdivision proposes to connect to existing
sanitary sewer located under Feather Avenue; therefore, there would be no impact
related to insubstantial soils.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 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 area or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles of a public airport or a
public use airport,would the project 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 working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ® ❑
with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
The transport of hazardous materials is strictly regulated by State and federal
agencies, and the City of Oroville maintains a Multi-Hazard Functional Disaster Plan
with instructions for responding to a hazardous materials crisis, including accidental
spills by trucks transporting such materials. Adherence to State and federal
1
regulations regarding the use and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that
impacts due to the use and disposal of hazardous materials throughout the
development of the project would remain at a level that is considered less than
significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The Linkside Place Phase 2 proposed project is not likely to exceed the thresholds for
regulated substances as identified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Section 2770.5; therefore, the project is not required to develop and submit a Risk
Management Plan. However, it is conceivable that spills and leaks of hazardous
materials could occur during project construction if fuels were to be stored on site.
These hazardous materials would mainly be petroleum products- motor vehicle and
equipment fluids. These spills and leaks would most likely be minor. However, spills
and leaks located near the drainage ditch on site could have an adverse impact
on water quality, depending on the time of year as the wafer course does not
convey water year-round. implementation of MM 7,1 and adherence to all federal
and State regulations regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials would reduce project impacts associated with the accidental release of
hazardous materials to a level that is considered less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Mitigation Measure:
MM 7.1 Prior to approval of a grading and construction permit, the permit
applicant shall designate staging areas where fueling and oil-changing
activities are permitted. No fueling and oil-changing activities shall be
allowed outside of the designated staging areas. As much as practicable,
the staging areas shall be located on level terrain. Staging areas shall not
be located within 100 feet of any water course or residence that exists or
may be constructed while the staging area is in use.
Timingllmplementation: To be implemented upon commencement of
construction activities.
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of 4roville.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
The nearest schools are located more than one quarter of a mile from the proposed
project site, and there are no schools proposed for development within one-quarter
mile of the project site. Therefore, impacts regarding hazardous materials near
schools would remain at a level that is considered less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The U.S. Air Force operates a NEXRAD radar tower approximately 150 feet east of
the proposed project site. NEXRAD is the commonly used acronym for the Next
Generation of Weather Radar, which began to be tested and implemented by the
National Weather Service and the Federal Aviation Administration during the 1980s.
Based on measurements taken at the NEXRAD tower in Oroville, the Department of
the Air Force, Beale Air Force Base, California, concluded that radiation emitted
from the NEXRAD does not exceed accepted Air Force Occupational Safety Hazard
standards as established by the Federal Communications Commission (the Radio
Frequency Evaluation, NEXRAD Radar Site Memorandum For 9CSISCMAR,
Department of the Air Force, 19 October, 2004 is available for review at the City of
Oroville Department of Community Development).
A review of the publicly available California Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site, or Cortese List, prepared in
accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5 and updated in
2003, indicates that there are two hazardous substance sites located within the City
of Oroville, Sierra Pacific and Koppers Industries. However, both the Sierra Pacific
wood treatment plant and the Koppers Industries site, a 200-acre former wood
treating facility, are located over 1 mile from the proposed project area.
As there are no hazardous material sites located within the proposed project area,
according to the latest Cortese List, and as radiation emitted from the NEXRAD
adjacent to the proposed project site would not exceed accepted Air Force
Occupational Safety Hazard standards as established by the Federal
Communications Commission, impacts from hazardous materials sites are
considered less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
The proposed project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) Overlay
Zone C, which establishes limitations on the density/ intensity, height, and other
aspects of the use of the property in order to protect persons on the ground and in
the air from hazardous impacts that may result from the operation of an airport.
These limitations are defined in the City of Oroville Zoning Code, Section 26-63B,
which the City of Oroville adopted to implement the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission's 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The primary
safety-related restriction for the AIA Zone C requires that 10% of the total area within
the AIA Zone C must be preserved as open space to provide an area within which
emergency aircraft landings can occur with minimal hazard to people residing or
working within the AIA Zone C. The Linkside Place Unit 2 project proposes to provide
a "no-development" permanent conservation easement over 5.8 acres of land at
the southern end of the Phase 2 project site,for purposes of providing all of the open
space required for the combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects (which occupy
approximately 38 acres of land).
Presently, bird populations that populate the project area include grassland-
adapted birds and raptors. Development of the site will likely change the type of
birds that utilize the property from those who require grassland habitat to passerine,
or perching birds, due to the planting of street trees and the reduction of open
f-
grassland caused by the development. The project's stormwater detention and
retention ponds will be periodically inundated, potentially providing part-time
habitat for migrating waterfowl. In a letter dated July 23, 2004, Eco-Analysts states
that the effects of the retention/detention ponds as a bird attraction should be very
limited because of the year round ponds on the adjoining golf course and in the
afterbay (copy of the letter is available in the City of Oroville Community
Development Department).
Based on the project's compliance with the requirements of the Airport Influence
Area Overlay Zone C requirements, potential impacts related to airport safety
hazards for people residing or working in the project area are considered less than
significant.
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?
Because there are no private airstrips within the project vicinity, there is no impact.
g) Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
According to Figure 8.60-A, Evacuation Routes, in the Oroville General Plan, Oro
Dam Boulevard West (State Route 162) is designated as an evacuation route for the
City of Oroville. Access to the proposed project site would be from SR 162 via
Christian Avenue, a street now under construction as part of Phase 1. The planned
entrance to Linkside Phase 1 includes a dedicated turn lane, as well as an
acceleration/deceleration lane on SR 162. The Linkside Place Subdivision, Phases 1
and 2, would generate additional automobile traffic onto SR 162 in the event of an
emergency. However, the project would not block or restrict the designated
evacuation route nor block access to an emergency facility. Therefore, impacts to
emergency evacuation are considered fess than significant.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Within Butte County, fires have been more frequent in the Central Valley than in the
mountainous areas in recent years. Most of the Valley fires are grass fires near
populated areas, including Oroville. The 19-acre proposed project site is bounded
by Linkside Place Phase 1 to the north, the Table Mountain Golf Course to the east,
and by grasslands and vernal pools to the south. Wildland fires pose a potential
threat to homeowners within the proposed project site due to the project's interface
with grasslands,which become particularly dry from Butte County's long dry season.
In partnership with surrounding fire and public safety agencies, the City of Oroville
has established policies, programs, and practices that help to minimize wildland fire
risk. The development and maintenance of Oroville's fire fighting infrastructure has
resulted in an Insurance Services Office (ISO) fire risk rating of 3, indicating a
relatively fire safe community. In addition, the City's ability to respond to wildland
fires has been enhanced by the Wildland Fire Protection Agreement (WFPA), per
Public Resources Code 4142. This cooperative agreement between the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) and the City of Oroville provides
for a seamless response to wildland fires and eliminates any unnecessary delays in
responding to an incident. In the event of wildland fire within the City Limits,the CDF
would automatically respond with the some resources it uses to protect State
Responsibility Areas. In addition, the City of Oroville, Butte County Fire/ CDF, and the
Fl Medio Fire District participate in Automatic Aid Agreement, a common dispatch
agreement in which emergency calls are received and dispatched by Butte
County. The closest available unit, regardless of ju(sdiction, is dispatched to the call.
Both the Wildland Fire Protection Agreement and the Automatic Aid Agreement
essentially authorize the City of Oroville access to county and state-owned fire and
emergency service resources.
Based on the Oroville Area fire protection measures, human risks associated with the
impacts of wildland fires are considered less than significant.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑
,
discharge 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 pre-existing
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 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 of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated impact Impact
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?
h) Place within a 300-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ® ❑
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
_DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge.
requirements?
The project applicant is required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) in accordance with Section A of the NPDES Construction Activities
Stormwater General Permit.
A three-party agreement between the City of Oroville, Thermalito Irrigation District,
and the lake Oroville Area Public Utility District established the Sewerage
Commission - Oroville Region (SG-OR), which operates a sewage treatment facility
that serves a large part of the Oroville Planning Area. The 59 homes proposed for
construction within the Phase 2 project would be connected to Thermalito Irrigation
District's (TID) wastewater collection system. Domestic and permitted industrial
waste collected by TID's sewer system flows to the SC-OR facility where it undergoes
conventional treatment and is then discharged into the Feather River. The SC-OR
treatment facility has the capacity to treat 6.5 million gallons of effluent per day
(mgd) and operates under a discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. SC-OR is currently complying with their discharge permit, howver, the
District has concerns over high winter inflows that have occurred during unusually
high rainfall events. The source of these high sewage inflows has been attributed to
infiltrationand inflow (IM). I&I takes up capacity in the system and forces SC-OR to,
in essence, treat storm water. According to the SC-OR (personal communications,
October 2007), they can connect the equivalent of another 3,000 homes before the
plant reaches capacity and needs to expand. As long as SC-OR can meety wast
discharge requirements from the State, no impacts to water quality will occur.
As the Linkside Place Phase 2 Subdivision project will be required to connect to the
municipal sewer system and to comply with the NPDES Construction Activities
Stormwater General Permit, the Water Quality Certification permitting procedures,
and the Report of Waste Discharge requirements, impacts on water quality
standards would be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant.
b) Would the project 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 pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
The Linkside Place Phase 2 Subdivision project does not propose the use of individual
residential wells. All of the 59 lots will be connected to Thermalito Irrigation District's
(TED) domestic water system by extension of water mains constructed for the Phase 1
subdivision. Table 53 of the Housing Element of Oroville's General Plan, adopted in
2004, indicates that in October, 2003, TID had utilized only 25% of its Feather River
. water supply entitlement. TID's requirements for providing service are payment of
District fees and compliance with District standards.
The proposed project would introduce impervious surfaces, including roofs,
concrete, asphalt, and other hardscape, which are likely to alter recharge patterns.
Based on the Hydraulic Summary For Phase 1 and 2 Drainage, conducted by
Genesis Engineering and available for review at the City of Oroville Department of
Community Development, it can be assumed that the stormwater detention and
retention basins would allow for percolation and groundwater recharge.
As the project applicant would be required to adhere to the conditions governing
water service by the Thermalito Irrigation District and as the proposed stormwater
detention and retention basins would allow for adequate groundwater recharge,
impacts related to groundwater supply and recharge are considered less than
significant.
c) Would the project 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?
The project would involve significant earth-moving activities that may alter drainage
patterns, which has the potential to result in substantial erosion or siltation both on-
and off-site. However, as described above, a SWPPP is required to be prepared for
the project site. Also, all drainage and improvement plans developed for this
project must be designed in accordance with the standards of the City's Public
.Works Department. In addition, the project is required to comply with CDFG Code
Sections 1601-1607, if required, and with a USACE Section 404 permit, and with
.CWQCB regulations. Compliance with these requirements would reduce the
project's impacts on drainage patterns as well as onsite and offsite erosion and
siltation to a level that is considered less than significant.
d) Would the project 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 that would result in
flooding on-or off-site?
As the proposed project would introduce impervious surfaces, including paved
roads and driveways, concrete sidewalks, rooftops, and other hardscape to an area
previously vegetated with grasslands, it is likely that the project would generate a
significantly higher amount of surface runoff.
With development of Phase 2, the project applicant proposes to maintain the 40,000
square foot stormwater detention pond (known as Pond 1) located at the southern
end of the Phase 1 Subdivision site for Phase 1 stormwater detention and utilize Pond
2 solely for Phase 2 stormwater. Pond 1 discharges stormwater through an
underground pipe to a natural drainage course on the eatern boundary of the
property. Pond 2 was constructed immediately south of the Phase 2 project site, and
it detains storm water for later release to another drainage swale on site. Pond 3
which has also been constructed will not be utilized at this time. Pond 3 was
constructed approximately 3,200 feet south of the southern boundary of the Phase 2
site, and it will serve as a retention pond for both phases if additional development
of the site occurs in the future.
According to the Hydraulic Summary For Phase 1 and 2 Drainage provided by
Genesis Engineering and dated May 11, 2005, Ponds 2 and 3 are proposed to serve
both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The stormwater detention basin known as Pond 2
currently has a top area of 50,061 square feet and a bottom area of 21,160 square
feet with an approximate capacity of 3.2 million gallons. The approximate depth of
Pond 2 is 12 feet, side slopes are 2:1, and there is a 14 feet deep sump at the inlet.
The stormwater retention pond known as Pond 3 has an approximate top high water
area of 154,810 square feet (approximately 250 feet by 600 feet) and a bottom
pond area of approximately 53,196 square feet. The average depth of the pond
below adjacent grade is roughly 15 feet deep. The side slopes of Pond 3 are 6:1
and the capacity of the pond is approximately 12 million gallons. The project
applicant will ultimately install permanent pumps and power for Pond 2 that will
pump water to Pond 3 via storm drain pipes buried under a minimum of 2 feet of
cover within a recently constructed 11-foot-wide graded roadway. Until that
connection between pond 2 and pond 3 is made,water will be detained in pond 2
and discharged at a rate equal to pre-construction levels. Detention of storm water
in the ponds 2 and 3, and compliance with all federal and State permit
requirements and regulations would reduce the project's impacts to surface runoff
and flooding to a level that is considered less than significant.
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Though the City of Oroville is not required to obtain a Municipal Stormwater Permit or
implement a Stormwater Management Plan (as the population does not exceed
100,000 people), the City does encourage the use of Best Engineering Practices
(BEPs) that address pollution in stormwater runoff from new development.
Incorporation of Best Engineering Practices into the proposed project and retention
of all storm water runoff within Ponds 2 and 3 (as described in "d)" above) would
reduce the project impacts from increased and/or polluted surface runoff to a level
that is considered less than significant.
f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The project would have no other effects on water quality outside of those previously
described. In addition, the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
which would incorporate post-construction controls that ensure long-term
protection of water quality, as well as the incorporation of Best Engineering Practices
would reduce the project's impacts to water quality to a level that is considered less
than significant.
g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
❑ federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
According to The City of Oroville General Plan Figure 8-A, the project site is located
outside of the 100-year Flood Zone as mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). According to FEMA, the proposed project is located
within Zone X. Zone X is defined by FEMA as an area determined to be outside of
the 100-year and 500-year floodplain. As the Linkside Place Phase 2 proposed
project is located outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplain, according to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, there is no Impact to housing in terms of
the 100-year flood hazard.
h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows?
As noted above, the proposed project is not within a 100-year Flood Zone as
mapped by FEMA. Therefore, there is no impact related to structures impeding or
redirecting flows.
1) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or
dam?
The Linkside Phase 2 project site is not within the area that needs the protection
provided by the Oroville Levee. The Oroville Dam, completed in the 1960s to
capture and store water from the Feather River, is situated at the northeast corner of
the Oroville Planning Area. According to Figure 8-A, Environmental Hazards, in the
Oroville General Plan, the Linkside Place Phase 2 proposed project site is located
within the Dam Inundation Area for Oroville Dam, as is most of Oroville. However,
the likelihood of dam failure is reduced as engineering studies conducted by the
Department of Water Resources have indicated that the Oroville Dam could
withstand an earthquake of an estimated magnitude of 6.5 on the Richter Scale
without significant damage. The study also determined that a 6.5 magnitude
earthquake exceeds the maximum credible event for the region.
In addition, the California Office of Emergency Services has developed and
approved a dam failure inundation map for the area below the Oroville Dam.
Based on the approved inundation map, the City of Oroville has adopted
emergency procedures for the evacuation and control of populated areas below
the dam. Impacts related to flooding due to failure of the Oroville Dam or Oroville
Levee are therefore considered less than significant.
j) Would the project be affected by inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
Lake Oroville is a large body of water that could be susceptible to seiches.
However, it has not been identified as a significant problem that would affect the
Oroville area. According to the Oroville General Plan, past history indicates that
mudslides are not a problem in the Oroville Planning Area. Therefore, impacts
related to hazards of seiche, tsunami, or mudflows, are considered less than
significant.
Less Than
Significant
Potentialty With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy ❑ ❑ ❑
or regulation 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?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑
plan or natural community conservation plan?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project physically divide on established community?
The project is located on a vacant parcel within an area of the City of Oroville
boundary zoned for residential development. The project would not divide an
established residential community. Therefore, there is no impact.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation 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?
The project is proposed on a parcel that has been designated Medium Density
Residential in the General Plan, which allows for uses as proposed by the project.
The parcel's AIA Zone C zoning designation allows no less than 4 homes per acre,
and the R-1 zoning designation allows up to 6 units per acre. The project's proposed
density of 4 units per acre is consistent with these designations; therefore there is no
impact associated with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations.
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans are
applicable to this project. Therefore, there is no impact associated with
conservation plans for the area.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
14. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally ❑ ❑ ❑
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project 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?
There are no known significant mineral resources underlying the project site,
according to the General Plan. No mining activities occur in the area. Therefore,
there is no impact relative to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project.
b] Would the project 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 plana?
The City's General Plan does not identify any mineral resources on the project site.
Therefore, there is no impact related to mineral resources as a result of the proposed
project.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
11. NOISE. Would the project 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 of applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
levels?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ® ❑
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ® ❑ '
plan area or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles of a public airport or a
public use airport,would the project 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 project area to excessive noise
levels?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or of
applicable standards of other agencies?
The City of Oroville General Plan Noise Element reports that SR 162 between SR 99
and 181h Street, which runs near the proposed project area, has a 60 dB Ldn contour
less than 77 feet from the centerline. The closest residence to the 60 dB Ldn contour
is located within Phase 1 (over 100 feet from the SR 162 centerline under existing
conditions). Because Phase 2 will maintain a greater distance to the 60 dB Ldn
contour, the impact is considered less than significant.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
No standards for groundborne vibration or groundborne noise have been
established by the City of Oroville. As the proposed project would not be located
near a source of known groundborne noise, exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels are considered less
than significant.
c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Due to the low density nature (four units per acre) of the project's housing
component, the Linkside Place Phase 2 Subdivision proposed project is not
expected to significantly increase ambient noise levels within the project's vicinity.
Additionally, residential subdivisions are not a land use associated with significant
noise levels. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
A temporary increase in noise levels associated with project construction would
occur during project development and home construction. This increase would
cease once construction was completed. There are no immediately adjacent land
uses sensitive to noise level increases (e.g., hospitals, schools). The City's Noise
Ordnance regulates temporary and periodic noise associated with construction.
The impact is less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
The Noise Element of the City of Oroville General Plan establishes standards for the
exposure of persons to noise. Table 9-1 lists 60 decibels as the maximum exterior
noise level, and 45 decibels as the maximum inferior noise level, allowable in
residential areas from transportation noises. The project site is located in Zone C of
the Airport Influence Area Overlay Zone, and it is located approximately i mile to
the west of the Oroville Municipal Airport. Properties within the AIA C Zone are
located outside the 55 decibel noise level contour for the Oroville Airport, according
to Exhibit 5E of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission's 2000 Butte County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Nevertheless, City Code requires that
residential uses within the AIA Zone C provide deed notice of airport proximity and
the potential for aircraft overflights. Based on the fact that the project site lies
outside the 55 decibel noise level contour for the airport, potential impacts related
to airport noise levels for people residing or working in the project area are
considered less than significant.
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?
There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, there is
no impact related to noise from private airstrips.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project induce substantial papulation growth in an area, either directly
(e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
According to the Environmental Review Guidelines for the City of Oroville, projects
that are consistent with the General Plan are not considered to be growth inducing
unless provision of infrastructure developed for the project would allow additional
development not anticipated by the General Plan. The project is located on
vacant parcels within an area of the City of Oroville designated by the General Plan
as Medium-Density Residential and zoned for Single-Family Residential. The
applicant for the Linkside Place Phase 2 Tentative Subdivision Map proposes an
average of 4 dwelling units per acre on the developed portions of the combined
Phase 1 and Phase 2 subdivision.
According to the California Department of Finance, Oroville has an average of 2.5
persons per household. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an
approximate increase of 148 persons. The Oroville General Plan buildout projections
for population are estimated at 80,277, based on the 1995 General Plan population
(33,531) and future residential development (46,746) as illustrated in the General
Plan. The future residential population is calculated using an average residential
density for the identified vacant residential land use in the Oroville Planning Area. A
population increase of 148 persons is considered minimal, as it constitutes less than
one percent of the total buildout population (148 project population/80,277 buildout
population).
As the project population increase of 148 persons is considered minimal, constituting
less than one percent of the total buildout population expected, and as the project
site has been established for growth, project impacts to inducing growth are
considered less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No housing currently exists on the proposed project site. Therefore, there is no
impact related to existing housing.
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is currently vacant. Therefore, there is no impact related to the
displacement of an existing population.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated Impact Impact
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. 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 cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the following public services:
a) Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
b) Police protection? ® ❑
c) Schools?
d) Parks? ❑ ❑
e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Fire Protection?
The City of Oroville Fire Department, the EI Medio Fire District, and the joint efforts of
the Butte County Fire Department and the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (CDFFP) provide fire protection services within the Oroville Planning
Area. The City of Oroville Fire Department (OFD) serves the approximate 12 square
miles (7,680 acres) of the incorporated City of Oroville. CDF Station 63 (at Nelson
Avenue) currently serves emergency requests for the area north of the Feather River
within the Thermalito area. This fire-reporting district has historically had the third
highest call responses for structure fires in the Oroville Planning area.
The nearest staffed fire station is Station # 63 (Oroville, full time, CDF staffed),which is
located approximately 3.2 miles to the northeast of the site (on Nelson Avenue at
County Center Drive). The nearest City fire station is located approximately 3.9 miles
away at 2055 Lincoln Street. The City and County have an automatic aid
agreement in place so both stations would respond to any call for emergency fire
services. Annexation of the property will change the primary fire respondent from
Butte County to the City of Oroville. This change will not, however, have a
significant effect or change the way fire protection services are delivered due to the
existing cooperative agreement between City and County fire departments
The Oroville City Council has adopted the Fire Department Standards of Coverage
Guidelines in order to guide future growth issues. The goal statements include:
• Fire Department travel times should place a first-due unit at scene within five
minutes travel time,for 90%of fire and medical incidents.
• Fire Department units shall be located and staffed such that an effective
response force of four units with eight personnel minimum shall be available to
all areas of the City within a maximum of ten minutes travel time, for 90%of all
structure fires.
The project is currently outside of the 5- minute response contour. To address the
fact that much of the west side of Oroville isn't within the desired response time, the
City of Oroville, in September 2006, formed two community facilities districts: CFD
No. 2006-1 Westside Public Safety Facilities; and CFD 2006-2 Public Safety Services.
CFD 2006-1 was formed to provide a funding mechanism to mitigate the increased
need for new public safety facilities, primarily a new fire station to be located in the
vicinity of the Oroville Municipal Airport, which will include within it a small police
substation. CFD 2006-2 was formed to fund on-going fire, police, and code
enforcement services that are needed as a result of additional development. To
mitigate the impacts on fire and police services, all new development in the area
that is essentially west of Highway 70 will be required to annex into both of these
districts and will be subject to the collection of fees and revenues to fund additional
public safety facilities and services.
According to the Oroville General Plan, as future development occurs, the OFD
plans to locate new stations within the community. Four new satellite stations are
proposed within the Planning Area. In addition to the two CFD districts the City of
Oroville has a fire impact fee for all new developments that will be used to develop
these new facilities. Construction of those individual projects and their potential
physical impacts on the environment would be disclosed during the CEQA process.
As the proposed project is not expected to place significant additional demands on
the need for new fire station facilities that may have a physical impact on the
environment, project impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation.
MM 13.1 Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the subdivision shall annex in to
both CFD 2006-01 and CFD 2006-02.
Timinglimplementation: Prior to approval of Final Map
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Oroville.
b) Police Protection?
The proposed project site is served by the Oroville Police Department. According to
the Environmental Review Guidelines for the City of Oroville, significance and
potential for impact is based on a project's potential to impact adopted service
levels and response times that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities.
The project would create a minor increase demand for police protection services.
However, The City of Oroville has a police impact fee for all new developments that
will be used to develop police protection services. According to the Oroville Police
Department, there are currently 26 sworn officers for the City of Oroville. Typically,
adequate level of service is considered to equate to 1 officer per 1,000 residents.
With a population of 13,550 (latest data as of 2005), the ratio is closer to 2 officers per
1,000 residents at full department staffing levels. As the population increase as a
result of the project would be minimal (.430 persons), thereby reducing the ratio but
not below adequate levels, the project would not increase the need for new police
facilities that may have a physical impact on the environment.
The City has not adopted service ratios, response times or other similar objectives
that would clearly illuminate the impacts of development on police protection.
According to the Environmental Review Guidelines for the City of Oroville,
significance and potential for impact is based on a project's potential to impact
adopted service levels and response times that would result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police
facilities. In September 2006, the City of Oroville formed two community facilities
districts: CFD No. 2006-1 Westside Public Safety Facilities; and CFD 2006-2 Public
Safety Services. CFD 2006-1 was formed to provide a funding mechanism for new
public safety facilities, primarily a new fire station to be located in the vicinity of the
Oroville Municipal Airport, which will include within it a small police substation. CFD
2006-2 was formed to fund on-going fire, police, and code enforcement services
that are needed as a result of additional development. To mitigate cumulative
impacts, all new development in the area that is essentially west of Highway 70 will
be required to annex into both of these districts and will be subject to the collection
of fees and revenues to fund additional public safety facilities and services.
Therefore, potential impacts to police services from the project are considered less
than significant with mitigation (see MM 13.1).
c) Schools?
The project would increase demand for school facilities and services. It is expected
that families with children would move into the residences that would be
constructed within the subdivision. The school district imposes development fees on
new residential construction, the proceeds from which would be used for the
construction of new school facilities. The payment of school impact fees are
intended to offset the potential impact of the development on school facilities.
Under Government Code Section 65996(b), as amended by the Leroy F. Greene
School Facilities Act of 1998, the payment of impact fees is to be considered full and
adequate mitigation for potential impacts on schools. As the project's size (59
homes) is not expected to generate a student enrollment impact greater than the
offset by the developer fees, the Linkside Place Phase 2 proposed project would not
result in the need for new facilities that could have a physical impact on the
environment. The project's impact on local schools is considered less than
significant.
d) Parks?
The City of Oroville Code Section 14a, Parks and Recreation, requires new residential
developments to pay a fee for the acquisition, improvement, or expansion of park
facilities. Projects paying their fair share fees, or dedicating parkland in-lieu of fees,
are considered to have mitigated their potential impacts on parks by providing the
City with funds to acquire, improve, or expand parks before significant deterioration
on performance or level of service occurs. The City Code requires that fees
collected for park acquisition, improvement, and expansion be used within a
reasonable distance from the area the funds represent. Additional discussion on
park fees and impacts is contained in section 14a below. As the project applicant
would be required to pay a fair share cost for the acquisition of parks, or dedication
of park land in lieu of fees, the project's impacts on parks are considered less than
significant.
e) Other Public Facilities?
No impacts to service levels of other public facilities are foreseen with the
development of this project.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
14. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
There are number of parks in the area. The Thermalito Aferbay facilities are located
within a mile of the project site. The Oroville Wildlife area and access to the Feather
River is approximately 2.5 miles away. The 1995 Oroville General Plan identifies
existing and future recreation facilities within the Oroville Planning area. In addition,
there is a significant amount of State facilities in the Oroville area that are readily
accessed by residents. These facilities include hiking and biking trails, water bodies,
open space, picnic areas, camping facilities, and fishing access. The General plan
calls for providing between 3 and 5 acres of neighborhood and community parks
per 1,000 residents, a standard that is not currently being met. However, the
standard is met when State facilities and other recreation facilities such as the
Oroville municipal golf course are included.
In order to meet to meet the ratio of park land to residents, which is not based on
any CEQA requirement, the City of Oroville Code Section 14a, Parks and Recreation,
requires new residential developments to pay a fee for the acquisition,
improvement, or expansion of park facilities. The payment of in-lieu fees allow
smaller project to pay rather than construct new park facilities, which would be a
CEQA issue due to the physical change'to the environment. Upon receiving
adequate fees, the City will develop additional park facilities as identified in the
capital facilities plan and appropriate CEQA documents will be prepared for the
construction of the park at that time. Projects paying their fair share fees, or
dedicating park land in-lieu of fees, are considered to have mitigated their potential
impacts on parks by providing the City with funds to acquire, improve, or expand
parks before significant deterioration on performance or level of service occurs. The
General Plan identifies 222 acres of new parkland including neighborhood and
community park facilities. The City Code requires that fees collected for park
acquisition, improvement, and expansion be used within a reasonable distance
from the area the funds represent. Currently, new development must pay $860.85
per single-family residence. This fee will help fun new community and neighborhood
parks. The Feather River Recreation and Parks District also has facilities within the
greater Oroville area and has completed a nexus study for the collection of impact
fees that they are requesting be collected by the City on their behalf. Tentative
subdivision maps are subject only to those laws and ordinances in effect at the time
the application for the map is deemed complete by the local reviewing agency.
Among the laws and ordinances commonly in effect when a developer applies for
a subdivision map is a parkland dedication requirement. The power of a local
agency to impose a parkland dedication requirement or to collect a fee in lieu of
that requirement on an approved tentative map is fully and solely regulated by
Government Code section 66477.This section, commonly known as the Quimby Act,
is a part of the State Subdivision Map Act. The Quimby Act establishes a formula to
be used to calculate the maximum permissible parkland dedication requirement, or
the maximum permissible in lieu fee requirement. The Quimby Act anticipates that in
some situations, local park and recreation services might be provided by an agency
other than the city or county that approves the map. In that situation, the city or
county is empowered to require that the parkland or in lieu fee be conveyed to the
agency that provides park services. Both the County of Butte and the City of
Oroville have adopted ordinances which implement the Quimby Act. The City of
Oroville requires that parkland required by the Quimby Act or in lieu fees be
dedicated to the City.
Pursuant to provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law of California, and the
Subdivision Map Act, the proposed subdivision will pay in lieu fees to the City of
Oroville. Because the map has will be approved by the City of Oroville, its
ordinances and regulations that implement the State Subdivision Map Act including
the Quimby Act control the collection of fees. By paying the adopted fees, the
project applicant will fully satisfy the sole and maximum parkland dedication and/or
in lieu fee obligations allowed by the Quimby Act. Because the City of Oroville
requires that parkland dedication be satisfied by dedication to the City and not to
any other local park service provider, and because the project will fully satisfy the
parkland dedication requirement imposed on the subdivision by the City, the
applicant cannot be required to dedicate land or pay any in lieu fee to any agency
other than the Clty. Based on the existing park facilities in the area and the
proposed in lieu fee, the project is not expected to place significant additional
demands on the need for new park facilities. The project's impacts on parks are
considered fess than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
According to the Linkside Place Phase 2 Tentative Subdivision Map, dated
September 27, 2004, the project design does not provide for recreational facilities,
including indoor or other constructed facilities. However, the project is in the vicinity
of several neighborhood and community parks and recreational facilities.
Additionally, the close proximity of the project site to the numerous recreation
facilities surrounding Lake Oroville would reduce pressure on more heavily used city
parks and recreation facilities. Given the small size of the Linkside Place Phase 2
proposed Subdivision, the project is not expected to require the construction of
additional recreational facilities at this time, which might create adverse physical
impacts on the environment. Impacts are therefore considered less than significant.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in ❑ ❑ ® ❑
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
vol ume-fo-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ❑ ® ❑ ❑
of service standard established by the City General
Plan or the Butte County Association of
Governments 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 in substantial safety(sks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ® ❑
feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs ❑ ❑ ® ❑
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project cause on increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads,
or congestion at intersections)?
Access to the project site would be from an internal road from Oroville Dam
Boulevard West(State Routel62). The proposed Phase 2 internal road network
begins at Phase 1's southernmost boundary, connecting to the existing roads in that
phase,which are linked by a connector street that runs east/west within the Phase 1
subdivision. The entrance to the site from Highway 162 includes a turn lane in order
to reduce potential "stacking" of vehicles proposing to make a turning movement
onto SR 162 from the subdivision, or from SR 162 to the subdivision. For fire safety and
other emergency purposes, a 12-foot paved lane was constructed along the
eastern boundary of Phase 1 and it will be extended to the southern boundry of
Phase 2. This emergency access road is connected to two cut-de-sacs within Phase
1 that run east/west, and there is a gate at the SR 162 entrance that can be
removed by emergency personnel.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes a Trip Generation Manual that
identifies the average trip generation rate for single-family detached housing as
10.73. Multiplied by the number of housing units proposed by the project (59), this
means that the project would generate an estimated maximum of 633 vehicle trips
per day. According to Caltran's October, 2003 draft Transportation Concept Report
for State Route 162, the section of SR 162 between Highway 99 and SR 70 is
improved as a conventional 2-lane facility on which annual average daily trips
(AADT) in the year 2000 were 11,960 (which equated to a Volume to Capacity Ratio
of 0.64). Therefore, project-related traffic will increase the 2000 AADT level on this
section of SR 162 by only 0.5%,which is not a substantial increase.
As a part of the Linkside Phase 1 project, a center turn lane and
acceleration/deceleration lanes have been constructed along the SR 162 frontage
of the project site. As the number of trips resulting from construction of 59 homes is
not substantial in relation to existing traffic volumes on SR 162, and as improvements
constructed along the SR 162 frontage of the project site will minimize congestion at
the project entrance, impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the City General Plan or the Butte County Association of
Governments for designated roads or highways?
According to the General Plan Transportation Element, policy 5.10e requires projects
to maintain a LOS of C for all arterial and collector streets within the Oroville Planning
Area, with some.exceptions. According to the 1997 City of Oroville Transportation
Improvement Program and the 2001 City of Oroville Non-Residential Traffic Impact
Fee Program for 21 Key Intersections, the cumulative traffic-related impacts of new
development in Oroville will cause the Level of Service (LOS) on the City's
designated arterials and collector streets and intersections to fall below the
standards in the Oroville General Plan Circulation Element, adopted by the City.
The two referenced traffic studies identified improvements that must be constructed
to maintain the adopted LOS and the "fair share" portion of the cost of these
improvements for various types of development. As mitigation for the impacts of
future development of these parcels, the developer would pay a roadways
improvement fee as identified in the 1997 City of Oroville Transportation
Improvement Program and an intersection improvement fee as identified in the 2001
City of Oroville Non-Residential Traffic Impact Fee Program for 21 Key Intersections,
at the time a building permit is issued for new development.
4
The project site is located adjacent to the Linkside Place Phase 1 site,which abuts SR
162. SR 162 has been identified in the 1997 study for widening to four lanes between
12th Street and Feather River Boulevard. Additional proposed improvements for SR
162 include new traffic signals at the 10th Street and 12th Street intersections. City
standards require the project applicant to construct a half-width 4-lane improved
street section along the SR 162 frontage of the project site, in addition to the
payment of fair share fees.This improvement was completed with Phasel.
Caltrans staff determined that development of the Linkside Place Phase 2
subdivision will also have a cumulative impact on the need to construct a traffic
signal at the intersection of SR 162 and SR 99. The cost of constructing that signal is
not included in the mandatory traffic fee currently collected by the City of Oroville
at the time a building permit is issued for new construction. Caltrans has indicated
that payment of an additional "fair share" fee, as calculated by Caltrans, will
mitigate the Linkside Place Phase 2's impact at that intersection (email
correspondence from Richard Helman, Caltrans, to Jo Sherman, Oroville Planning
Manager, dated 4/22/05).
Mitigation Measure.
MM 15.0 A fee shall be paid as a "fair share" contribution towards construction of a
traffic signal at the intersection of SR 162 and SR 99. Prior to approval of a
Final Map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement regarding when and
how the fee is to be collected and held. The form of the agreement shall be
approved by Caltrans.
The project applicant has agreed to pay the calculated fee of $3,800 (letter from
the applicant dated July 15 is available at the Community Development
Department).
Although traffic and roadway improvements are required with or without the project
in order to provide acceptable levels of service at local intersections, project-
related contributions are confined to a fair share contribution. Therefore, payment
of the fair share fees adopted by the City of Oroville, construction of improvements
towards widening SR 162 to 4 lanes along the Phase 1 project site frontage, and
payment of the Caltrans-established fee for installation of a traffic signal at the SR
162/SR 99 intersection would reduce the project's cumulative impacts on applicable
levels of service to a level that is considered less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
c) Would the project 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?
Most air traffic at the Oroville Municipal Airport is from single-engine aircraft.
Although the Linkside Place Phase 2 proposed project would result in an
approximate increase of 148 persons and contribute to a potential increase in
passenger air traffic, the project would not necessitate regularly scheduled
commercial air service from the Oroville Municipal Airport. Residents requiring such
service would utilize airports in Chico or Sacramento.
In addition, according to the City of Oroville Zoning Code for Single-Family
Residential districts, Code 58.E.3 restricts the maximum building height of any main
building or structure to 2 stories or 30 feet, whichever is greater. According to
Section 26.68B.050, Airport Influence Overlay Area (AIA) Zone C, the allowable
height for structures within that zone exceeds the 30 foot height restriction for R-1
zones.
As the project would not necessitate changes in operations or expansion of the
Oroville Municipal Airport and as the project would not interfere with air traffic
patterns, the impacts of the project on air traffic are considered less than significant.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The vehicle composition developed by this project would be mostly passenger
vehicles. The project would result in additional trips and automobile access onto SR
162, a State highway. A left turn lane and acceleration/deceleration lanes are
being constructed along the SR 162 frontage of the Phase 1 site as a part of the
Phase 1 project. These improvements would reduce potential hazards associated
with the new intersection for Linkside Phases 1 and 2 to a less than significant level.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The City of Oroville requires all projects to conform to the provisions of the Uniform
Fire Code - General Provisions for Safety (1994 U.F.C. Sections 901-902). As there is
only one public vehicle access from SR 162 to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 sites, a
temporary fire road is being constructed along the eastern boundary of Phases 1 to
improve emergency vehicle circulation. Extension of this road is proposed for Phase
2. As the proposed project would be obligated to meet Uniform Fire Code
requirements and provide adequate access for emergency vehicles, the project
would have a less than significant impact on emergency access.
f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity?
The project proposes both on-street and off-street parking. The project must comply
with Section 26-49 of the Oroville Zoning Code,which requires two off-street parking
spaces per dwelling unit. Compliance with this requirement is considered to reduce
parking-related impacts to a level that is less than significant.
g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Bus routes for the Oroville Area Transit System f OATS) are located along SR 162, but
only as for as 14th Street. Extension of this route to the Unkside development would
not be economically feasible at this time, given the small population that would be
served. The Oroville General Plan proposes a Class I bicycle path along SR 162. As
part of the Linkside Place Phase 1 project, a paved bicycle path will be constructed
along the full SR 162 frontage of the site, outside of the SR 162 right-of-way.
Therefore, conflicts with plans or policies supporting public transportation or
alternate forms of transportation would be less than significant.
l
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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?
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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ ® ❑
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ® ❑
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand, in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ® ❑
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑
regulations related to solid waste?.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
See discussion under item 8a. As the SC-OR facility has the capacity to provide
treatment, the project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater
treatment requirements.
b) Would the project 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?
A three-party agreement between the City of Oroville, Thermalito Irrigation District,
and the Lake Oroville Area Public Utility District established the Sewerage
Commission - Oroville Region (SC-OR), which operates a sewage treatment facility
that serves a large part of the Oroville Planning Area. Domestic and permitted
industrial waste collected by the sewer systems owned by the City, Lake Oroville
Area Public Utility District (LOAPUD) and by Thermalito Irrigation District (TID) flows to
the SC-OR facility where it undergoes conventional treatment and is then
discharged into the Feather River. The SC-OR treatment facility has the capacity to
treat 6.5 million gallons of effluent per day (mgd) on a dry weather basis and has a
peak wet weather capacity of 10.6 MGD. Current dry weather flows to the plant
are approximately 3.1 mgd. However, the plant experiences significantly higher wet
weather flows due to system-wide 1&I which originates from the TID, LOAPUD, and
City of Oroville, collection systems.
Sewage flows from the project site will handled by the Thermalito Irrigaiton District.
Facilities have already been installed as part of Linkside I to handle sewage flows for
Linkside II. Effluent runs easterly along Highway 162 where it ties into SC-OR's West
Interceptor. The West Interceptor is a trunk line located in the Hwy. 162 right-of way
and it carries flows east over the Feather River towards the SC-OR treatment facility.
The West Interceptor has reached its capacity on one or more occasions due to wet
weather events. Options to solve the wet weather flows are to either decrease the
&I in the system or increase the size of the both interceptors and associated pump
stations. I&I also contributes to the capacity issue in the east interceptor.
The I&I is a maintenance issue that both TID and the City will have to address
through ongoing maintenance of their respective sewer lines. New project cannot
beheld responsible to fix an existing problem. Additionally, the I&I maintenance fix
would most likely be exempt from CEQA review. Options to replace the west
interceptor is a large-scale project and the need to enlarge the line cannot be
attributed to any one project. The cost of performing the upgrades cannot be
borne by any one project and will have to be shared between existing and new
development. From a CEQA perspective, a plan including preliminary design work,
will have developed in order to address the CEQA impacts of replacing the
interceptor lines. The west interceptor is located within an existing road right-of-way,
so significant impacts to the environment are not anticipated as the road is currently
paved. Improvements to the west interceptor, when needed, will be finance
through the collection of sewer hook-up fees adopted by SC-OR.
The project will generate a domestic waste water flow which will enter into the
sanitary sewer system. The City of Oroville is served by a regional wastewater
treatment plant operated by the Sewerage Commission of Oroville (SC-OR) which is
subject to a National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit issued by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). That permit has been
issued based on a designed average dry weather flow of 6.5 mgd. The plant
currently receives approximately 3.1 mgd average dry weather flow. However, the
plant receives significantly higher wet weather flows that are a result of system-wide
inflow and infiltration. These wet weather flows must be treated before being
discharged. In 2005/2006 the peak wet weather flow was 11.4 mgd which
exceeded the wet weather treatment plant capacity of 10.6 MGD. When high wet
weather flows exceed the treatment capacity of the plant the discharge of
untreated water is avoided by the fact the plant facilities include holding ponds
which can temporarily store excess flows for later treatment. The excess storage
capacity is approximately 22 million gallons. Under extreme rainfall events
untreated water could be released from the facility due to excessive inflows. An
inflow and infiltration study conducted by the City and SC-OR in 1982 concluded
that, due to I&I, in any given year there is a 50% chance that CS-OR's hydraulic
capacity will be exceeded and a 20%chance that SC-OR's treatment capacity will
be exceeded. The project will add incremental flows into the plant that can be
handled during the dry weather but have the potential to exacerbate wet weather
flows. Cumulatively, as the number of dwelling units in the Oroville area increase, a
solution to the wet weather flows will have to be found, either by decreasing I&I or
expanding plant capacity. Decreasing I&I is the responsibility of the three member
agencies that are served by SC-OR. This is a regional issue that is beyond the scope
of this project to address. This project alone does not trigger the need for the
expansion of the SC-OR facility and could not pay for such an expansion. Nor is this
project responsible for solving existing I&I problems.
Cumulatively, the member agencies have issued will serve letters for development
project which total upwards of 6,000 dwelling units. SCOR has significant concerns
that the increased flows from these dwelling units combined with existing wet
weather flows will exceed the ability of the plant to process all waste wafer without
illegal discharges. While it can't be predicted at what rate these homes will be
constructed, historical housing growth has been averaging about i% per year which
is reflected by building permit activity which varies between 30 and 150 homes per
year. New estimates from the State Department of Finance have increased the
Oroville annual growth rate to 2.6% and the City has estimated the potential to be
as high as 5% over the next 5 years then tapering off for the next 5 years. It should be
noted that the City estimates were not were not based on any study. Demand for
new homes has slowed significantly with only 30 new dwellings being constructed in
2006 and only 27 new dwellings being issued permits for the first 9 months of 2007.
The SC-OR Board of Directors recently adopted a $53 million capital improvement
plan which includes expansion to their treatment plant, and replacement of the
west side interceptor. Along with the plan, SC-OR also adopted new sewer hook up
fees to cover the cost of the improvements. Sewer hook up fees for new dwelling
will increase from a current figure of approximately $1,700 to $4,200 effective
November 1, 2007. The plant expansion will accommodate 30,000 dwelling units
within the Oroville urban area which is the equivalent of an approximate population
of 75,000 people. SC-OR also stated that they currently still have capacity of
approximately 3,000 new dwelling units in the area. This figure represents a 7-10 year
remaining life of the existing treatment facility. It will also allow SC-OR to collect
fees towards future improvements during that time period. Based in the above facts,
the impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements less than significant.
To provide water service to Phase 2, the project applicant proposes to extend the
12-inch water main constructed for Phase 1 into Phase 2. The water lines within the
subdivision would be looped. This infrastructure has already been installed and no
significant additional site disturbance will be required. TID will supply water for the
project and the District has approved the infrastructure as part of Linkside I to serve
both projects. As discussed in section S TID has an adequate water supply to serve
the project. Final approval of infrastructure improvements by the Thermalito
Irrigation District, and payment of fees for water and sewer are considered sufficient
in reducing potential environmental impacts related to the extension of water and
wastewater infrastructure to a level that is considered less than significant.
c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
All storm water from the Phase 2 project will be detained in Pond 2 and be released
through a metered orifice to a seasonal drainage swale on the property, as
described in the Hydrology section. Additionally, as a part of the Phase 2 project
underground drainage facilities will be constructed along the Phase 1 frontage of SR
162 in order to allow construction of an additional eight-foot wide paved section
and curbs, to complete the half-width 4-lane section. The design and construction
of the underground drainage facilities will be subject to a Caltrans encroachment
permit to assure that upstream and downstream sections of the roadside ditch are
not impacted. As all storm water from Phase 2 will be detained as per City
requirements, and as the applicant must obtain an encroachment permit from
Caltrans for construction of the drainage facilities within the SR 162 right-of-way,
impacts related to the construction of stormwater drainage facilities are considered
to be less than significant.
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The Thermalito Irrigation District currently provides water services to approximately
2,700 municipal and residential customers. Total annual water consumption is
currently 2,800 AP (acre-feet), with approximately 95% of the customers being
residential. This demand is expected to grow to 3,300 acre-feet in 2010, 3,920 acre-
feet in 2015 and 4,712 acre feet in 2020. Even in the driest years the watershed has
always replenished the reservoir to spill, thus the water source has not changed over
time.This supply is approximately three times the current annual demand.
The District's water treatment plant has a capacity of 6 MGD (million gallons per
day). Under normal conditions, this is sufficient to meet the current demand.
However, the maximum day demand is approximately 5 MGD, near the current
treatment capacity. Therefore the plant is currently being expanded to a capacity
of 10 MGD. The design of this expansion will allow for a future addition of 10 MGD,
bringing the future capacity of the plant to 20 MGD.The design of these expansions
is underway.
All of the 59 lots will be connected to Thermalito Irrigation District's (T1D) domestic
water system by extension of water mains constructed for the Phase i subdivision.
TID's requirements for providing service are payment of District fees and compliance
with District standards. Based on this information new sources of water supply or
new wafter entitlements would not be required to serve this project and the impact
would be less than significant.
e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand, in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
See discussion under 16b.. As the SC-OR wastewater treatment facility currently has
sufficient capacity to serve the additional households resulting from the Linkside
Place Phase 2 proposed project, and as the project applicant would be required to
i
pay the necessary sewer connection fees to SC-OR, impacts related to the
wastewater treatment provider are considered less than significant.
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
The franchised solid waste collection service for Oroville (Norcal Waste) uses the
Norcal Waste System Ostrom Road Landfill in Yuba County as the disposal site for
solid waste collected in the Oroville Planning Area. According to the latest data
collected by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the Ostrom Road
facility had a remaining capacity of 25.7 million tons as of December 2004. The
estimated cease operation date for the facility is 2062, based on an annual average
growth rate of 2% for the service area. As facilities get within 15 years of their
capacity, the State requires that provisions be made for future land fill facilities. The
City's compliance with AB 939 through its Source Reduction and Recycling Element
and through the mutually adopted County Integrated Waste Management Plan is
considered to be adequate mitigation for potential impacts on the capacity of the
landfill.
Norcal Waste operates a Materials Recovery facility (MRF) at its Fifth Avenue transfer
station in Oroville. All solid waste collected in. the Oroville city limits is transported to
the MRF where recyclable materials are sorted from the waste stream. The purpose
of the MRF is to meet the mandate of the California Integrated Waste Management
Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires a 50% reduction in waste going to the landfill.
The MRF is part of the City of Oroville's strategy to reduce waste going to the landfill
as outlined in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. As the Norcal
Ostrom Road Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate solid waste beyond
the year 2060, the project will have a less than significant impact on landfill
capacity.
According to the City of Oroville's Environmental Review Guidelines, all projects that
use the City's franchised waste collection service are considered to have a less than
significant impact on the capacity of the Landfill. The City's compliance with AB
939, through its Source Reduction and Recycling Element and through the mutually
adopted County Integrated Waste Management Plan, is considered to be
adequate mitigation for potential impacts to the holding capacity of the Neal Road
Landfill.
As the Linkside Place Phase 2 project is not proposing an alternative solid waste
disposal strategy, and as the Neal Road Landfill has adequate capacity to
accommodate solid waste beyond the year 2018, the project will have a less than
significant impact on landfill capacity.
g) Would the project comply with federal, State and loco/ statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
As the Linkside Place Phase 2 proposed project would be required to comply with
the City of Oroville's regulations related to solid waste operations as well as with all
applicable local,State, and federal regulations, the project would have no impact
associated with compliance with regulations related to solid waste.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ® ❑ ❑
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ® ❑ ❑
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
"Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ ❑ ® ❑
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualify of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
As discussed in the Biological Resources section of this document, the proposed
project site contains vernal pools and may be subject to USACE and USFWS
jurisdiction. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section, there is a low potential for
historical and archaeological resources in the vicinity of the project site.
Compliance with applicable federal and State laws is considered to reduce
potential impacts to biological as outlined in section 4 and mitigation measuse 4.1
will reduce the impact to ❑ level that is considered less than significant with
mitigation.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? "Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects?
Cumulatively the project will have an impact on the City's ability to provide fire and
police services. The City has formed two Community Facility Districts to address this
issue.The districts will collect both facility and operations fees to cover ongoing costs
of providing services to the Thermalito area. As discussed in item 13 a and b above,
the cumulative impacts can be mitigated by requiring annexation to the CFDs. This
impact is seen as less than significant with mitigation.
Together with Phase 1, the proposed project may have cumulatively considerable
impacts on traffic conditions along SR 162. As discussed in Section 15,Transportation
and Traffic of this Initial Study, even without development of the Linkside Place
Phase 2 proposed project, significant growth in population and development within
the Oroville area will result in significant increases in traffic volumes,which will worsen
the Levels of Service to unacceptable levels. Though development of the proposed
project would not significantly impact any of the roadways or intersections within
the vicinity of the proposed project, the project would contribute to an increase in
daily trips and volume of vehicles on area roadways, including at the intersection of
SR 162 and SR 99. However, traffic conditions would worsen whether or not the
proposed project is implemented. Payment of the City of Oroville's fair share traffic
fee and Caltrans' SR 162/SR 99 traffic signal fee would offset the proposed project's
increase in the number of vehicle trips and the contribution to congestion at
intersections to a level that is considered less than significant with mitigation.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of this document, the
project site lies within Area C of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) Overlay Zone,which
carries additional safety requirements for development within that zone.
Annoyance can be associated with noise from aircraft overflights within Zone C, but
safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area are not considered
to be significant. The project's compliance with the requirements of the AIA C Zone,
including provision of more than 10% of the area in permanent open space, will
ensure impacts related to airport safety hazards for people residing or working in the
project area are less than significant.
V. PROJECT DATA
A. Project Description
1. Type of Project:Tentative Subdivision Map
2. Proposed Density of Development:59 lots on approximately 14 acres of a
19+ acre site.
3. Access and Nearest Public Roads: Oro Dam Boulevard West (SR 162)
4. Method of Sewage Disposal:Thermalito Irrigation District
5. Source of Water Supply:Thermalito Irrigation District
6. Proximity of Power Lines: Oro Dam Boulevard West (SR 162)
7. Potential for Further Land Divisions or Development: Not within the project
site
B. Environmental Setting
1. Terrain
a. General Topographic Character:Gently sloping
b. Slopes: Minor; a total of fifteen feet elevation rise on the project
site
C. Elevation: Approximately 175 feet
d. Limiting Factors: Proximity to vernal pools with federally listed
species and wetlands
2. Natural Hazards of the Land
e. UBC Earthquake Zone:Seismic Zone III
f. Distance to Alquist-Priolo Zone: S miles
g. Erosion Potential: Very Low
h. Landslide Potential: Low
L Fire Hazard: Medium
j. Expansive Soil Potential: Medium
k. Liquefaction Potential: Low
3. Visual/Scenic Resources: None
4. Ambient Noise: Short term construction noise, vehicle traffic on Oro Dam
Boulevard West (SR 162), and Oroville Municipal Airport aircraft traffic.
5. Sensitive Receptors: N/A
6. Vegetation: Grasses
7. Wildlife Habitat: Federally listed brachiopods in the vernal pools.
S. Archaeological and Historic Resources in the Area: Low potential
9. City General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
10. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) /Airport Area of Influence
Zone C
1 T. Existing Land Use on Site: Undeveloped
12. Surrounding Area
a. Land Uses: Residential-Agriculture/ Resource Conservation, Public/
Quasi-Public, and Medium-Density Residential
b. Zoning. R-1, Public, Quasi-Public, (City), AR5 (County)
c. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential, Park (City)
Resource Management (County).
13. Character of Site and Area: The project site has been partially developed
with final grading complete along with underground utilities. The site is
surrounded by rural residential development, a golf course and the City
Airport land.
VI. REFERENCES
I. City of Oroville General Plan
2. City of Oroville Zoning Code
3. City of Oroville Zoning Map
4. City of Oroville General Plan Environmental Impact Report
5. City of Oroville Environmental Review Guidelines
6. Air Quality Management District Indirect Source Review Guidelines, Butte
County Air Quality Management District, 1997
7. Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, prepared by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control,2000
8. Wetland Delineation and Assessment of the Linkside Place Subdivision, Oroville,
Butte County, California, prepared by ECO-ANALYSTS, May 2002
9. Cultural Resources Study For The Linkside Place Development Project, prepared
by ECO-ANALYSTS, August, 2004
10. Hydraulic Summary for Phase 1 and 2 Drainage, prepared by Genesis
Engineering, May, 2005
11. Radio Frequency Evaluation, NEXRAD Radar Site Memorandum For
9CS/SCMAR, October 19, 2004
12. 90-Day Report of Findings Regarding Federally-Listed Branchiopods.For Linkside
Place. Prepared by ECORP Consulting Inc., June 12, 2004
13. Letter from Caltrans with comments regarding Linkside Place Phase 2, dated
August 13, 2004.
14. Email from Richard Helman, Caltrans, to Jo Sherman, City of Oroville,with
comments regarding Linkside Place Phase 2, dated April 22, 2005.
15. Illustration of SR 162 frontage "ultimate width" improvements abutting Linkside
Place, prepared by Genesis Engineering and received by the City of Oroville on
May 31,2005.
16. Letter from Eco-Analysts responding to biological matters associated with the
Linkside Phase 2 development, dated July 23,2004.
17. City of Oroville Housing Element, adopted March, 2004.
18. 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
19. Caltrans draft Transportation Concept Report for State Route 162, dated
October, 2003.
20. Letter from applicant dated July 15, agreeing to pay a one-time "fair share"
traffic fee of$3,800 towards construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of
SR 162 and SR 99 for purposes of reducing potential impacts from the Linkside
Place Phase 2 project on the level of service at that intersection to a level that
is less than significant.
i
CONSULTED AGENCIES
® Butte Co ALUC ❑ CA Dept Conservation ❑ Cal Water
❑ Butte Co Air Quality ® CA Dept Fish and Game ❑ LOPUD
❑ Butte Co Assoc of Gov ® CA Reg Water Quality ❑ SFWP
❑ Butte Co Ag Comm ® CA Dept Transportation ® Thermalito Irrigation Dist
❑ Butte Co Assessor ® US Air Force ® SC-OR
❑ Butte Co Env Health ® US Army Corps ❑ Oroville Elementary
® Butte Co Mosquito Abate ® US Fish and Wildlife ❑ Oroville High School
® Butte Co Planning Dept ® SSC Pacific Bell ❑ Palermo Union School Dist
® Butte Co Public Works ® PG&E ® Thermalito Union School Dist
❑ Butte Co Farm Bureau ❑ EI Medio Fire District
® Butte LAFCo ® Feather River Rec and Park