HomeMy WebLinkAboutCEQA17-0005_SNBC_IWS_Draft_IS-MND
BUTTE COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
INITIAL STUDY AND
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SIERRA NEVADA BREWING COMPANY
INDEPENDENT WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
CEQA 17-0005
BUTTE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CEQA17-0005
SIERRA NEVADA BREWING COMPANY INDEPENDENT WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Butte County Environmental Health will hold a public hearing
to consider an application for a Public Water System on Friday August 18th, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., or
shortly thereafter, in the Butte County Development Services Training Room, located at 7
County Center Drive, Oroville, California as follows:
Project Information:
Project: CEQA17-0005 - Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project
Location: The project site is located at 1075 East 20th Street in the City of Chico.
APNs: APNs 005-450-051 and 005-550-036
Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a permit for a Public Water System (Non-Transient Non-Community) as an independent water supply for the Sierra Nevada Brewing
Company. The Sierra Nevada Brewing Company is currently connected to the California Water
Service Company’s (Cal Water’s) water system. The Public Water System would supply drinking
water quality water to most users within the brewery, both for domestic and plant/process
purposes. Exceptions would be that Cal Water supplies would still be used to supply the on-site restaurant, certain small/isolated users within the brewery, and fire protection. A water well has been drilled and was permitted by Butte County Public Health Department (BCPHD) as a drinking
water well (Permit EHWL16-0014).
In compliance with CEQA, this notice discloses that there are no listed toxic sites present on the
project site. Chico Scrap Metal is listed on the EnviroStor database managed by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and is located approximately 750 feet to the north of the well site. The Victor Industries site is listed on the EnviroStor database and located approximately,
1,500 feet to the southwest of the well site.
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and reference documents for this
project is on file for public review and comment starting July 19, 2017 through August 17, 2017, at the Butte County Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965. The IS/MND
is also available for review on the County website at
http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Planning/CEQA.aspx. All persons are invited to review the
documents. Comments may be submitted at the above address to the Planning Division in writing
at any time prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting listed above, or as may be continued to a later date. If you challenge the above application in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to
the Planning Division prior to, or to the Environmental Health Division at the public hearing.
For information, call or send an email to Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager, Butte County
Planning Division at (530) 538-6572 or cthistlethwaite@buttecounty.net.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in the hearing, please contact us at (530) 538-7581. Notification at least 72 hours prior
to the hearing will enable staff to make reasonable arrangements.
BUTTE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ELAINE McSPADDEN, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ CEQA17-0005 - Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■ i ■
Contents
1 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Proposal ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Determination ................................................................................................................................ 2
2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Project Information ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................................. 6
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Project Proposal ............................................................................................................................ 7
4 PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 14
5 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING .................................................... 15
5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................ 15
5.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................... 15
6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 17
6.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources ....................................................................................................... 17
6.1.1 Aesthetic/Visual Resources Setting ........................................................................................ 17
6.1.2 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 19
6.2.1 Agricultural Resources Setting ................................................................................................ 19
6.2.2 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 20
6.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 21
6.3.1 Air Quality Setting.................................................................................................................... 22
6.3.2 Impact and Mitigation Analysis ................................................................................................ 25
6.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 27
6.4.1 Biological Resources Setting .................................................................................................. 28
6.4.2 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 29
6.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 30
6.5.1 Cultural Resources Setting ..................................................................................................... 30
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ CEQA17-0005 - Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■ ii ■
6.5.3 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 31
6.6 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 32
6.6.1 Geologic and Soils Setting ...................................................................................................... 33
6.6.2 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 34
6.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................... 36
6.7.1 Greenhouse Gases Setting ..................................................................................................... 37
6.7.2 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 39
6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 40
6.8.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Setting ............................................................................. 41
6.8.2 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 42
6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 44
6.9.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Setting ...................................................................................... 46
6.9.2 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 46
6.10 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 50
6.10.1 Land Use Setting ................................................................................................................. 50
6.10.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 51
6.11 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................................... 52
6.11.1 Mineral Resources Setting .................................................................................................. 52
6.11.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 52
6.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 53
6.12.1 Noise Setting ....................................................................................................................... 54
6.12.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 55
6.13 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 57
6.13.1 Population and Housing Setting .......................................................................................... 57
6.13.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 57
6.14 Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 58
6.14.1 Public Services Setting ....................................................................................................... 59
6.14.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 59
6.15 Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 60
6.15.1 Recreation Setting ............................................................................................................... 60
6.15.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 60
6.16 Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................................. 61
6.16.1 Transportation Setting ......................................................................................................... 62
6.16.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 62
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ CEQA17-0005 - Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■ iii ■
6.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 64
6.17.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 64
6.18 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................... 65
6.18.1 Utilities and Service Systems Setting.................................................................................. 65
6.18.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 66
6.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065) .................................... 69
6.18.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance Discussion .................................................................. 69
7 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 72
8 ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL ................................................................................... 73
9 CONSULTED AGENCIES: ................................................................................................................. 75
10 PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO PROPOSED PROJECT:...... 76
Figures
Figure 1: Project Site Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 2: Project Site Location .................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Conceptual Well Site Layout ........................................................................................................ 11
Figure 4: Conceptual Well Site Improvement Plan ..................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Conceptual Piping Improvement Plan ......................................................................................... 13
Tables
Table 1: Butte County Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status .................................................................... 23
Table 2: Butte County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for Ozone 2013-2015 ................... 24
Table 3: Butte County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for PM2.5 2013 - 2015 ................. 24
Table 4: Maximum Allowable Exterior Noise Levels from Non-Transportation Sources ............................ 54
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ Initial Study Negative Declaration – Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■Page1■
1 SUMMARY
A. Owner/Representative: Sierra Nevada Brewing Company/Brandon Smith, P.E.
B. Staff Contact: Elaine McSpadden, Director, Butte County Environmental Health
Division; (530) 538-6773; emcspadden@buttecounty.net
C. Contact for this Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: Chuck
Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager, Butte County Department of Development
Services; (530) 538-6572; cthistlethwaite@buttecounty.net
D. Project Name: Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project
CEQA17-0005
E. Project Location: 1075 East 20th Street in Chico; generally bound by Dr. Martin
Luther King Drive to the east, Franklin Street to the west and Silver Dollar Way to the
south, in the City of Chico.
F. Type of Application: Public Water System (Non-Transient Non-Community)
G. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 005-450-051 and 005-550-036
H. Project Site Size: 17.14 acres
I. Zoning: ML (Light Manufacturing) (City of Chico)
J. General Plan Designation: Manufacturing & Warehousing (MW) (City of Chico).
1.1 Project Proposal
The project entails the construction and operation of an independent water supply for the Sierra
Nevada Brewing Company (SNBC) in Chico, CA. Currently water is supplied to the brewery by
California Water Service Company Chico-Hamilton City District (Cal Water). The brewery has been
constructed in phases since 1986 and as a result, the internal plumbing is not separated into
distinct domestic and plant/process networks. For this reason SNBC is pursuing a Public Water
Supply (PWS) that is both non-community and non-transient. Non-community and non-transient
means a public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at
least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. This PWS would supply drinking water
quality water to most users within the brewery, both domestic and plant/process. The exceptions
would be that Cal Water supplies would still be used to supply the on-site restaurant, certain
small/isolated users within the brewery, and fire protection.
While California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 60101 exempts specific activities within
CEQA Categorical Exemption Classes, including the construction operation or permitting of new
water wells for existing water systems which do not exceed 125 gallons per minute (gpm), due
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ Initial Study Negative Declaration – Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■Page2■
to the operational requirements of the SNBC Brewery, the expected gpm for the proposed
project will be 600 gpm and therefore does not qualify for the exemption.
1.2 Findings
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to assess the
proposed Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply project’s potential
impacts on the environment. Based upon this assessment, construction and operation of the
proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment with implementation
of mitigation measures identified in the environmental analysis presented in Section 6. This
conclusion is supported by the following findings:
1. The proposed independent Water Supply Project represents a relatively minor
construction project that would serve the existing SNBC Chico Brewery.
2. Construction and operation of the proposed Independent Water Supply Project would
have:
a. No impact upon agricultural resources biological resources, aesthetics/visual
resources, cultural resources, recreation, land use, mineral resources, population
and housing, and public services.
b. A less than significant impact upon geology and soils (geologic hazards),
transportation/traffic (construction related trips), and utilities and services
(wastewater, water supplies); and, greenhouse gas emissions (diesel emissions),
hydrology and water quality (groundwater supplies, stormwater runoff and
adequate drainage), and noise (construction and operational noise), and
hazardous materials (handling of materials.)
c. A less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated for air quality (diesel
emissions) and greenhouse gas emissions.
For these reasons, construction and operation of the proposed independent water supply system
would have a less than significant effect upon the environment. A mitigated negative declaration
is proposed and preparation of an environmental impact report is not necessary.
1.3 Determination
[ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[X] I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the
environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have
been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ Initial Study Negative Declaration – Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■Page4■
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project Information
Project Name: Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project (CEQA17-
0005), also referred to as “the proposed project” or “the proposed facility”.
Type of Project: The proposed project entails the construction and operation of an independent
water supply for the Sierra Nevada Brewing Company (SNBC) in Chico. The water well has been
drilled and was permitted by the Environmental Health Division of the Butte County Public Health
Department (BCPHD) as a drinking water well Permit (EHWL16-0014). The proposed project
involves the existing well, design and installation of a new wellhead and distribution apparatuses
to fulfill permitting, construction and operation requirements of BCPHD for a Public Water Supply
(Non-Transient Non-Community).
Applicant: Sierra Nevada Brewing Company
Applicant Representative: Brandon Smith, P.E., Engineering Manager, Sierra Nevada Brewing
Company; (530) 893-3520; brandon.smith@sierranevada.com
Lead Agency: The Butte County Environmental Health’s Small Water System’s Project is
designated as the Local Primacy Agency for public water systems with less than 200 service
connections. As the CEQA Lead Agency, Environmental Health will consider approval of the PWS
permit for the Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project.
Lead Agency Contact: Elaine McSpadden, Director, Butte County Environmental Health Division;
(530) 538-6773; emcspadden@buttecounty.net
Contact for this Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: Chuck Thistlethwaite,
Planning Manager, Butte County Department of Development Services; (530) 538-6572;
cthistlethwaite@buttecounty.net
Location of Project Documents: The IS/MND and reference documents for this projects are on
file for public review at the Butte County Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. ,
Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The IS/MND is also
available for review on the County website
(http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Planning/CEQA.aspx) by selecting the Sierra Nevada Brewing
Company Independent Water Supply project link.
Project Location: The SNBC is located at 1075 East 20th Street in Chico; generally bound by Dr.
Martin Luther King Drive to the east, Franklin Street to the west and Silver Dollar Way to the
south. The existing well is centrally located within the SNBC Chico Brewery property and
surrounded by existing buildings. See Figure 2, Site Map. Latitude and Longitude coordinates
are 39.722688, -121.816930.
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ Initial Study Negative Declaration – Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■Page5■
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: Portion of APNs 005-450-051 and 005-550-036, together totaling
approximately 17 acres. In this document, the terms “project parcels” and “subject parcels” refer
to APNs 005-450-051 and 005-550-036.
Project Size: The proposed Public Water System would serve a portion of APNs 005-450-051 and
005-550-036, together totaling approximately 17 acres. The well site itself is approximately 8
feet high and about 300 square feet in area (15 feet by 19 feet) (See Figure 3, Conceptual Site
Plan and Figure 4, Well Site Improvement Plan). Approximately 1,400 linear feet of distribution
piping would be installed contiguous with existing SNBC infrastructure on existing pipe racks
within the brewery complex (See Figure 5, Conceptual Piping Improvement Plan). Construction
staging and access areas would occur within the SNBC property on existing concrete surfaces.
Zoning: The City of Chico zoning for the proposed project site is Light Manufacturing (ML).
General Plan: The City of Chico General Plan designation (adopted 2010) for the proposed project
site is Manufacturing & Warehousing (MW).
The City of Chico Zoning Code and General Plan are available at the Community Development
Department, 411 Main Street Chico, CA, between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. The zoning
code and general plan may also be accessed at the Community Development Department web
site:
http://www.chico.ca.us/planning_services/PlanningServicesHomePage.asp
Butte County’s General Plan 2030 and supporting documents are available at the Department of
Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00
pm, and at the following web site:
http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Planning/GeneralPlan.aspx
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ Initial Study Negative Declaration – Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■Page6■
2.2 Purpose of this Document
An initial study is prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect
on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[a]). A lead agency is “the public
agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project” (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15367).
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the term “lead agency” as “…the public agency which
has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” The City of Chico has land
use jurisdiction over the project site, however the Butte County Department of Public Health
(BCPH) is the lead agency and CEQA requires that the Department adopt an appropriate
document that reflects its independent review of all potential impacts to the environment
resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21082.1(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e).
Assessment of potential environmental impacts must be based upon substantial evidence,
defined in Public Resources Code Section 21080(e)(1-2) as follows:
“…substantial evidence fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert
opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation,
unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or
evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by,
physical impacts on the environment.”
If the initial study determines there is substantial evidence that a project may cause a significant
effect upon the environment, the lead agency must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR)
to further study that impact and to identify any feasible mitigation and project alternatives. If the
initial study demonstrates that there is no possibility that the project would cause a significant
environmental impact, the lead agency can prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the initial
study finds that an impact on the environment could be significant, but that changes in the
project would reduce all such impacts to a level that is clearly less than significant, the lead
agency may adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Potential impacts to the environment are identified in this initial study but they would be reduced
to less than significant with incorporation of the feasible mitigation measures provided.
Therefore, an IS/MND is the appropriate document for the proposed project to comply with
CEQA
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ Initial Study Negative Declaration – Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■Page7■
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Background
Sierra Nevada Brewing Company (SNBC) is pursuing the construction and operation of an
independent water system to service SNBC’s Chico brewery.
The goal of the project is to construct and operate an independent water supply for the SNBC
Chico brewery. Currently, water is supplied to the brewery by California Water Service (Cal
Water). The brewery itself has been constructed in phases since 1986, and as a result, the internal
plumbing is not separated into separate domestic and plant/process networks. For this reason
SNBC is pursuing an independent water supply, also known as a Public Water Supply (PWS) that
is both non-community and non-transient. A non-community and non-transient system means a
public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at least 25
of the same persons over six months per year. This PWS would supply drinking water quality
water to most users within the brewery, both domestic and plant/process. The exceptions would
be that Cal Water supplies would still be used to supply the on-site restaurant, certain
small/isolated users within the brewery, and fire protection. A well was drilled to a depth of 770
feet in late 2016 as the first phase of the project under a ministerial permit from the
Environmental Health Division of the Butte County Department of Public Health (EHWL16-0014).
This well was designed by Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (Woodland, CA) and
drilled by North State Drilling (Chico, CA) in late 2016. The well was designed and constructed as
a drinking water well and permitted by BCPH. Rolls Anderson & Rolls (Chico, CA) designed the
wellhead facility and specifications needed for the permitting and construction process. The
design of the distribution piping itself was developed by SNBC staff.
The well location and distribution piping is within the brewery boundaries, as shown on Figure 3
and Figure 5. This schematic was produced for the purposes of the Drinking Water Source
Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) portion of the permit process.
While California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 60101 exempts specific activities within
CEQA Categorical Exemption Classes, including the construction operation or permitting of new
water wells for existing water systems which do not exceed 125 gallons per minute (gpm), due
to the operational requirements of the SNBC Brewery, the expected gpm for the proposed
project will be 600 gpm and therefore does not qualify for the exemption. The existing well is
thus included as part of the proposed project.
3.2 Project Proposal
The main project purpose, as stated above, is that most of the water required by the brewery
will come from this well. The distribution system is expected to tie into existing plant plumbing
at three locations, roughly corresponding to three existing Cal Water service entrance/meter
■ Butte County Public Health Department ■ ■ Initial Study Negative Declaration – Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Independent Water Supply Project ■ ■Page8■
locations. At two of these locations, the tie-in will be immediately downstream of existing
backflow preventers at Cal Water service entrances. At the third location, the tie-in will be
downstream of the on-site restaurant, so a new backflow preventer will be installed to prevent
well water from flowing to the restaurant. In all cases, the intent is that no well water will be
allowed to flow into Cal Water distribution lines.
One unique feature of this project is that SNBC intends to remain connected to Cal Water at the
above locations as a backup/emergency water supply. This is due to the fact that the SNBC system
will only have one well and therefore will need a backup water supply during times of expected
and unexpected downtime. Cal Water is aware of this arrangement.
The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of an independent water supply
to serve the SNBC production facilities. The well site is mostly contained within a 15 foot by 19
foot area surrounded by existing warehouses in the center of the brewery property (See Figure
3). The well has been drilled to a depth of approximately 770 feet under a previously granted
water well construction permit (EHWL16-0014). The well was constructed using a 30 inch Outer
Diameter (OD) steel conductor and a 12 inch OD stainless steel casing and will be fitted with a
submersible pump (approximately 60 horsepower) that will extract up to 600 gpm. A 42 inch x
42 inch concrete pedestal will house the well head and distribution piping. Other accessories
include a vertical pressure tank (125 pound per square inch working pressure with 500-800
gallons), chemical drum storage enclosure, approximately 1,400 feet of distribution piping,
bollards and associated electrical equipment.
Utilities
Utilities such as electric, stormwater and wastewater are already located in the immediate area
of the project site. The SNBC will continue to utilize the connection to the City of Chico’s Waste
Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) for wastewater and their General Industrial Permit for storm
water. All future (operational, infrequent) discharges from the well to the distribution system
and storm drain system are expected to meet or surpass Federal and California Department of
Public Health (CDPH) drinking water standards promulgated under Title 22 of the California Code
of Regulations.
Switchover between the well and backup water supplies is expected to be a combination of
automatic and manual switchover. Automatic switchover is expected to be only on one of the Cal
Water service entrances and is intended to maintain pressure on the system and not necessarily
the full volume required by the brewery. Additional changeovers would require manual valve
switching.
Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Public Water Supply Well Project
Location Map
Figure 1M0 1.5 3 Miles
1:500,000
Data Sources: ESRI, Rolls Anderson& Rolls GE: #16-178 Map Date: 02/20/17
¬«99
Project Site
Project Site
¬«70
Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Public Water Supply Well Project
Site Map
Figure 2M0 50 100 Feet
1:2,500
Data Sources: ESRI, Rolls Anderson& Rolls GE: #16-178 Map Date: 02/20/17
C
S
t
.
E. 20th St.
Project Site
Project Site
Si
e
r
r
a
N
e
v
a
d
a
C
t
.
D
R
A
F
T
OF
PR
E
P
A
R
E
D
F
O
R
:
1 961341SRRCADPWR
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
L
A
Y
O
U
T
PO
T
A
B
L
E
W
A
T
E
R
W
E
L
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
SI
E
R
R
A
N
E
V
A
D
A
B
R
E
W
I
N
G
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
JA
N
U
A
R
Y
2
3
,
2
0
1
7
5%
#
.
'
(+
0
+
5
*
2
4
1
&
7
%
6
9#
4
'
*
1
7
5
'
9'
5
6
2
#
%
-
#
)
+
0
)
9
#
4
'
*
1
7
5
'
$166.'5*12
01
6
'
5
.1
%
#
6
+
1
0
/
#
2
.'
)
'
0
&
)'
0
'
4
#
.
0
1
6
'
5
D
R
A
F
T
OF
PR
E
P
A
R
E
D
F
O
R
:
1 961341SRRCADPWR
SIT
E
P
L
A
N
PO
T
A
B
L
E
W
A
T
E
R
W
E
L
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
SI
E
R
R
A
N
E
V
A
D
A
B
R
E
W
I
N
G
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
FE
B
R
U
A
R
Y
3
,
2
0
1
7
9'
5
6
2
#
%
-
#
)
+
0
)
9
#
4
'
*
1
7
5
'
$166.'5*12
%1
0
5
6
4
7
%
6
+
1
0
0
1
6
'
5
.1%#6+10/#2 .')'0&
)'
0
'
4
#
.
0
1
6
'
5
&'
6
#
+
.
&'
6
#
+
.
&'6#+.
WE
L
L
ȱ SE
C
T
I
O
N
#
5'
%
6
+
1
0
#
Ä
#
2.
#
0
8
+
'
9
#
14
4 PROJECT SETTING
4.1 Surrounding Land Uses
The SNBC property is located within the City of Chico. Surrounding land uses include public/quasi-
public facilities, low and medium density residential to the south, medium and medium-high density
residential to the west, neighborhood commercial and light manufacturing to the north and regional
commercial to the east.
4.2 Environmental Setting
The project site is within the northern Sacramento Valley at approximately 210 feet above sea level,
near its interface with the Sierra Nevada foothills. Weather in the project vicinity exhibits a
Mediterranean pattern with cool, wet winters and hot dry summers. The coolest months are
generally December through February, with low temperatures of about 35°F. July and August tend
to be the warmest months, with average high temperatures of about 93°F. Brief periods of more
extreme low and high temperatures are common.
15
5 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING
5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Project impacts to the environmental factors checked below could be potentially significant; however, with
the incorporation of mitigation measures, project related impacts are reduced to a “less than significant”
level (CEQA Guidelines 15382).
[ ] 6.1 Aesthetics [ ] 6.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 6.3 Air Quality
[ ] 6.4 Biological Resources [ ] 6.5 Cultural Resources [ ] 6.6 Geologic Processes
[X]] 6.7 Greenhouse Gases [ ] 6.8 Hazards/Hazardous Material [ ] 6.9 Hydrology/Water Quality
[ ] 6.10 Land Use [ ] 6.11 Mineral Resources [ ] 6.12 Noise
[ ] 6.13 Housing [ ] 6.14 Public Services [ ] 6.15 Recreation
[ ] 6.16 Transportation/Traffic [ ] 617 Utilities/Service Systems [ ] 6.18 Tribal Cultural
Resources
[ ] 6.19 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
5.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers, except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer
is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project would
not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis.)
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, 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 when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant
Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-
referenced).
5) “Reviewed Under Previous Document.” Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 I (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
16
a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
17
6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
6.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c. Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
X
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
X
6.1.1 Aesthetic/Visual Resources Setting
The City of Chico and the Butte County General Plans both identify scenic vistas and resources within
their respective jurisdictions. There are no scenic vistas, resources, or buildings, at or near the
project site. There are no City, County or State identified scenic or potentially scenic highways at or
near the project site.
The project site area is characterized as developed with an existing manufacturing use, the Sierra
Nevada Brewery, with several developed uses (Taproom, Big Room and Gift Shop that are
accessory to the brewery). The topography of the project area is gentle and flat, with an elevation
of approximately 210 feet.
The well site is almost completely surrounded by existing buildings with the exception of a 15
foot wide gap in the existing buildings to the west of the project site. There is an 8 foot masonry
wall with vegetated barrier 320 feet to the west of the proposed project site. The approximately
1,400 linear feet of distribution piping would be installed contiguous with existing SNBC
18
infrastructure on existing pipe racks within the brewery complex. The project site will not be
visible from any location outside of the SNBC property. Current night-time lighting exists in and
around the SNBC facility. There is no new lighting proposed as part of this project.
6.1.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. An impact upon a scenic resource occurs when a change due to development or some
changing land use results in a valued scenic resource being obscured or otherwise degraded. The
project site and surrounding SNBC project parcel are completely developed. The proposed would
be consistent with the established visual character and surrounding uses. The proposed project
will not change any scenic vista and will not be visible from adjacent properties. As such,
construction and operation of the proposed project would have no impact on a scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. There are no trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings within a state scenic highway,
or other scenic resources on or near the proposed project site and there would be no impact
upon such scenic resources with construction and operation of the project as proposed.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No Impact. As noted in the environmental setting for this section, the proposed project site is
within an area that has been developed extensively with an existing manufacturing use. Given its
construction location and existing developed setting, the proposed project would have no impact
on the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. As discussed in the Project Description, there is no lighting proposed as part of this
project. As such, construction and operation of the project would have no impact with regards
to lighting, glare or nighttime views in the area.
19
6.2 Agricultural Resources
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
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?
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
X
c. Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
X
6.2.1 Agricultural Resources Setting
The proposed project will be developed within the existing complex of buildings, facilities, roads
and parking lots in an urban setting that comprise the SNBC project parcel in Chico.
20
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Department of
Conservation identifies the proposed project site soil as “Urban and Built-up Land ” and is not
considered prime, unique or farmland of statewide importance. There are no Williamson Act
contracts on the parcel and the land is not zoned for agricultural uses.
To the east of the project parcel, and west of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard there is land
designated as “prime” by the FMMP. This land is partially utilized for the SNBC pilot hop fields.
There will be no effect to the function of the adjacent property as a result of the proposed
project.
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The proposed project site is not located on prime farmland, unique farmland or
farmland of statewide importance as shown on Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
maps. Construction and use of the proposed facility will have no impact on these resources.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
No Impact. The proposed project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not subject to a
Williamson Act Contract. Construction and use of the proposed facility will have no impact on
existing zoning for an agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The proposed project site is on land zoned by the City of Chico for Light Manufacturing
and is not defined as forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526)or timberland zoned for
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). Construction and use
of the proposed project will have no impact on these timber production related lands.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Please see sub-section (b) and (c); construction and operation of the proposed facility
will have no impact in terms of the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
21
No Impact. The proposed facility will provide an independent water supply as noted in the Project
Description, on land that is currently utilized in conjunction with the SNBC Chico Brewery. The
project parcel and project site do not have agricultural soils or include agricultural practices. The
SNBC hop fields to the east of parcel on which the proposed project is located would not be
affected by construction or use of the proposed facility. There will be no impact that could result
in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
6.3 Air Quality
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b. Violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality
violation?
X
c. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
e. Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
22
6.3.1 Air Quality Setting
The approximately 300 square foot well site and distribution piping would occupy a portion of
two fully developed parcels in the center existing buildings, roads, parking lots and facilities that
comprise SNBC Chico Brewery in the City of Chico. The project parcel is in the midst of lands that
have been developed for several decades, approximately 2400 feet west of State Route 99.
Air quality is a function of a variety of local and regional influences. Butte County is located within
the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), comprising the northern half of California’s 400-mile long
Great Central Valley. The SVAB encompasses approximately 14,994 square miles with a largely
flat valley floor (excepting the Sutter Buttes) about 200 miles long and up to 150 miles wide,
bordered on its east, north and west by the Sierra Nevada, Cascade and Coast mountain ranges,
respectively.
The SVAB, containing 11 counties and some two million people, is divided into two air quality
planning areas based on the amount of pollutant transport from one area to the other and the
level of emissions within each. Butte County is within the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin
(NSVAB), which is composed of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, and Yuba Counties.
The NSVAB is bounded on the north and west by the Coastal Mountain Range and on the east by
the southern portion of the Cascade Mountain Range and the northern portion of the Sierra
Nevada Mountains.
Emissions from the urbanized portion of the basin (Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, and Placer
Counties) dominate the emission inventory for the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, and on-road
motor vehicles are the primary source of emissions in the Sacramento metropolitan area. While
pollutant concentrations have generally declined over the years, additional emission reductions
will be needed to attain the State and national ambient air quality standards in the SVAB.
Seasonal weather patterns have a significant effect upon regional and local air quality. The
Sacramento Valley and Butte County have a Mediterranean climate, characterized by hot, dry
summers and cool, wet winters. Winter weather is governed by cyclonic storms from the North
Pacific, while summer weather is typically subject to a high pressure cell that deflects storms from
the region. Table 1 provides the attainment setting for criteria air pollutants in Butte County.
23
Table 1: Butte County Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status
Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
1-hour ozone
Nonattainment
Classification Moderate Standard rescinded
24-Hour PM2.5 No Standard
2006 Standard: Nonattainment
Classification: Subpart 4-Moderate
Status: Designation in 2017
Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Attainment
24-Hour PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
Annual PM10 Attainment No Standard
Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment / Maintenance (Chico)
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Source: Butte County Air Quality Management District, 2017
8-hour ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
Diminished air quality within Butte County largely results from local air pollution sources,
transport of pollutants into the area from the south, the NSVAB topography, and prevailing wind
patterns and certain inversion conditions that differ with the season. During the summer, sinking
air forms a “lid” over the region, confining pollution within a shallow layer near the ground that
leads to photochemical smog and visibility problems. During winter nights, air near the ground
cools while the air above remains relatively warm, resulting in little air movement and localized
pollution “hot spots” near emission sources. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate
matters and lead particulate concentrations tend to elevate during winter inversion conditions
when little air movement may persist for weeks.
As a result, high levels of particulate matter (primarily fine particulates or PM2.5) and ground-level
ozone are the pollutants of most concern to the NSVAB Districts. Ground-level ozone, the
principal component of smog, forms when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides
(Nox) – together known as ozone precursor pollutants – react in strong sunlight. Ozone levels
tend to be highest in Butte County during late spring through early fall, when sunlight is strong
and constant, and emissions of the precursor pollutants are highest.
Federal and state standards have been established for six criteria pollutants, including ozone (O3),
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates less than 10 and
2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). California has also set standards for
sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. The nonattainment
pollutants of concern for Butte County are ozone and PM2.5; Table 2 and Table 3 summarize recent
ozone and PM2.5 trends in Butte County, showing a need to reduce days exceeding national and
24
state standards.
Table 2: Butte County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for Ozone 2013-2015
1-Hour
Observations
1-Hour
Year State State National
2015 0 8 2 0.086 0.078 0.074
2014 0 11 2 0.116 0.085 0.075
2013 0 5 2 0.1 0.093 0.076
Source: California Air Resources Board Air Quality Trends Summary: http//wwww.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends2.php
Days > Standard 8-Hour Averages
8-Hour
Maximum Maximum
National Standard
Design Value
Table 3: Butte County Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for PM2.5 2013 - 2015
Nat'l State Nat'l State
2015 2.2 9.1 *9.3 9 29.5 29 39.0 58.3
2014 1.0 8.8 8.8 *12 26.0 *58.6 62.8
2013 2.1 10.1 **12 30.2 *38.8 38.8
1D.V. = National Design Value
2D.V. = State Designation Value
*There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.
Year
Est. Days >
Nat'l '06
Std.
Average Nat'l
Ann. Std.
D.V.¹
State
Annual
D.V.²
Nat'l '06
Std. 98th
Percentile
Nat'l '06
24-Hr Std.
D.V.¹
High 24-Hour Average
Source: California Air Resources Board Air Quality Trends Summary: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends2.php
All concentrations expressed in micrograms per cubic meter.
State and federal exceedances are indicated in bold. An exceedance is not necessarily a violation.
State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons: pp p, p g
reference or equivalent methods. State and national statistics may therefore be based on different samplers. State criteria for
Air quality in California is subject to the federal Clean Air Act (administered by the Environmental
Protection Agency) and the more rigorous regulations provided by the California Clean Air Act.
The California Air Resources Board administers the California Clean Air Act and delegates
monitoring and regulation to local Air Quality Management Districts; the Butte County Air Quality
Management District (BCAQMD) is responsible for attainment and maintenance of air quality
standards in Butte County pursuant to federal and state Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Based on the most recent monitoring data, Butte County is a nonattainment area for both state
and federal ozone standards, the state and federal PM2.5 standards, and the state PM10
standards. Butte County is in attainment for the state and federal standards for sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide
25
The BCAQMD acts as a commenting agency for local projects subject to CEQA and discretionary
approval by a lead agency. The BCAQMD CEQA Handbook, revised most recently in October, 2014
provides guidance to lead agencies in regards to evaluating potential air quality and greenhouse
gas impacts that could result from construction and operation of a project. The handbook
includes a screening threshold for criteria air pollutants to determine whether or not modeling
for criteria pollutants is necessary. The threshold for requiring model emission analysis industrial
land use types is required for projects 59,000 square feet or greater.
6.3.2 Impact and Mitigation Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The California Clean Air Act requires preparation of air quality
attainment plans for designated National and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards
nonattainment or maintenance areas. In order to meet these standards, attainment plans first
project future emissions based upon growth assumptions for the jurisdictions within a given plan
area. Measures are then promulgated to limit nonattainment emissions to the required standard.
In general, a project subject to CEQA conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable
attainment plan if it would result in or induce growth in population, employment, land use, or
regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that is inconsistent with the growth (and therefore the
emission projection) assumptions in the applicable attainment plan.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in additional vehicular trips or emission
over pre-project conditions.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with BCAG’s population, employment, VMT or pollutant
emission projections, and it would have a less than significant impact in regards to
implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation Measure #1. Emissions with the
potential to affect air quality, in proximity to sensitive receptors, could occur with the
construction of the proposed facility. Construction would involve machinery that burns fuel or
uses electrical energy. The proposed project’s operations would involve the use of electricity
supplied by the SNBC solar and on-site generation infrastructure that has the ability to produce
up to 100% of the SNBC electrical needs. It should be noted that the SNBC does purchase grid
power from PG&E when the solar and on-site generation infrastructure does not meet all of the
SNBC power needs.
The project’s construction and operational emissions were not modeled due to its small area not
26
meeting the thresholds for the requirement to model.
The 2014 BCAQMD Handbook proposes a maximum of 137 lbs./day for ROG and NOx and 80
lbs./day for total PM as screening thresholds for construction emissions. The project is below the
threshold for individual modeling, and it is not expected to contribute dust due to its location on
existing concrete. Therefore it is not subject to dust suppression measures identified the
BCAQMD Handbook.
In order to minimize NOx and diesel PM, Mitigation Measure #1 would reduce the project’s
contribution to less than significant impact upon any BCAQMD air quality standard or in regards
to contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation Measures #1. As indicated in
Table 2, Butte County is non-attainment for 8-hour ozone and 24-hour PM2.5 (federal
designations). Mitigation Measures #1 will reduce cumulative contribution to construction-
related NOx and PM2.5 emissions to less than significant as discussed in sub-section (b).
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation Measures #1. Sensitive receptors
are individuals who, by virtue of old or young age or health status, are especially vulnerable to
air pollutant emissions. Typical land uses associated with sensitive receptors include hospitals,
convalescent homes, day care facilities and schools. In this instance, sensitive receptors may
include employees working in proximity to construction or members of the public.
Operation of the proposed project is not expected to cause any localized emissions that could
expose sensitive receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measure #1 construction emissions are expected to be less than BCAQMD criteria air
pollutant thresholds. Accordingly, there will be a less than significant impact to receptors both
outside and within the proposed project area.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation Measures #1. Objectionable odors
during construction could include diesel fumes from equipment but these odors would be
temporary and dissipate with distance. Given the substantial distance between the project site
and possible sensitive receptors in the surrounding community, objectionable odors are unlikely
to have an impact from construction of the proposed facility. People working in the SNBC facility
may experience an odor impact from diesel fumes during construction. Operation of the project
27
would not include any new sources of significant odors that would cause complaints from
surrounding uses. Mitigation Measure #1 would minimize construction diesel fumes and this
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure #1: Minimize Combustion Emissions from Construction Equipment
Plan Requirements: The following note shall be included on (or on an additional page to) building
and site development plans:
“The applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures to mitigate combustion
emissions from construction equipment:
• Diesel-powered equipment shall be compliant with all applicable State of California air
quality regulations for on and off-road vehicles.
• Maintain all equipment in proper tune and regularly serviced according to manufacturer’s
specification.
• Electrify equipment where feasible.
• Substitute gasoline-powered for diesel-powered, where feasible.
• Use alternative fueled construction equipment on site where feasible, such as
compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel.
Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all construction phases of
the project (clearance, grading, compaction, paving, construction).
Monitoring: The Environmental Health Division of the Butte County Department of Public Health
shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #1 note is included on (or on an additional page to)
building and site development plans. The Sierra Nevada Brewing Company shall ensure that
contractor(s) have the requisite California Air Resources Board compliance certificates for on-
and off-road vehicles. Butte County Air Quality Management District inspectors will respond to
nuisance complaints.
6.4 Biological Resources
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
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?
X
28
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means)?
X
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy
ordinance?
X
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?
X
6.4.1 Biological Resources Setting
The approximately 300 square foot well site and approximately 1,400 linear feet of distribution
piping would occupy a portion of two fully developed parcels in the center of existing buildings,
roads, parking lots and facilities that comprise SNBC Chico Brewery in the City of Chico. The
project site is completely void of habitat that could support biological resource either residing in
or migrating. There are no streams, wetlands or other aquatic resources regulated by the USACE
under §404 of the Clean Water Act. There are no tree resources within the project site. The Draft
Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP) is a joint Habitat Conservation Plan/National
Community Conservation Plan that is currently being prepared for the western half of the Butte
County, and is scheduled to be completed in 2017. The project site is located within the proposed
plan area of the BRCP and is within the Plan’s proposed Chico Urban Permit area. The Draft Butte
Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP) is not yet adopted and the proposed project would not
interfere with its eventual implementation.
29
6.4.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The approximately 300 square foot well site and 1,400 linear feet of distribution
piping would occupy a portion of two fully developed parcels in the center of existing buildings,
roads, parking lots and facilities that comprise SNBC Chico Brewery in the City of Chico.
Due to the characteristics of the project site, its location surrounded by development and its lack
of wildlife habitat or supporting conditions for locally occurring special-status plant species
indicates that construction of the proposed project will have a no impact with regards to
candidate, sensitive, or special status species.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. No riparian or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is within the project site. The proposed project would have no direct effect upon these
or other wetland features as they are not present within the proposed project parcel.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)?
No Impact. No federally protected wetlands (including marsh or vernal pool) are evident in the
project site. Construction and operation of the proposed facility would have no impact upon any
federally protected wetlands.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The proposed project site, located in a fully developed area of the SNBC Chico
property does not provide or contain habitat used by migratory fish or wildlife species. There will
be no impact upon the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites.
30
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a
tree preservation policy ordinance?
No Impact. As noted in the Biological Resource Setting, there are no oak woodlands or other
protected tree species within the project site. In addition, no trees are proposed for removal as
part of the proposed project. The proposed project will have no impact in regards to a conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation
policy ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project site is within the planning area for the Butte Regional
Conservation Plan (BRCP) and this initial study will be forwarded to the BRCP reviewing wildlife
agencies. As of this writing, a preliminary public draft of the BRCP was released for review and
comment in December 2012. Final approval of the BRCP is expected at an undetermined date in
the future depending upon the issues that will be addressed and the duration of the state/federal
approval process. The proposed project will not conflict, nor interfere with, the attainment of the
goals of the proposed plan. Regardless, the small scale of this project and the lack of habitat
resources would be expected to have a no impact upon sensitive biological resources that would
require mitigation under the future habitat conservation plan.
6.5 Cultural Resources
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? X
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? X
6.5.1 Cultural Resources Setting
Butte County contains a rich diversity of archaeological, prehistoric and historical resources. The
31
General Plan 2030 EIR observes that the “archaeological sensitivity of Butte County is generally
considered high, particularly in areas near water sources or on terraces along water courses”
(Butte County General Plan EIR, 2010, p. 4.5-7).
A substantial adverse change upon a historically significant resource would be one wherein the
resource is demolished or materially altered so that it no longer conveys its historic or cultural
significance in such a way that justifies its inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources or such a local register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subd. (b)(2)). Cultural
resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as
rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural
resources consist of any human-made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and
illuminates our past. Often such sites are found in foothill areas, areas with high bluffs, rock
outcroppings, areas overlooking deer migratory corridors, or near bodies of water.
The proposed project site is within a modernly constructed brewery. The well was constructed in
late 2016 as a drinking water well and permitted by BCPH. The project site has been extensively
disturbed by past grading, construction of adjacent buildings and previous paving of the well site
and surrounding area. The brewery and its associated buildings are less than 35 years old,
therefore none of the buildings or structures would be considered historically significant. The
proposed project activities have no potential to change, modify, destroy or disturb historical,
archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains.
6.5.3 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
No Impact. A substantial adverse change upon a historically significant resource would be one
wherein the resource is demolished or materially altered so that it no longer conveys its historic
or cultural significance in such a way that justifies its inclusion in the California Register of
Historical Resources or such a local register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subd. (b)(2)).
The proposed project, which involves the installation and operation of an independent water
supply system on existing concrete or above existing buildings within the SNBC Chico Brewery
complex, would have no potential to disturb a historic or cultural resource. There are no historical
resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 evident on the surface of the project
parcel. There is no grading proposed that may uncover presently unknown historical resources
that lie below the surface of the ground. The potential for a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical or archaeological resource is considered to be no impact.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
32
pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. As discussed above potential impacts in regards to a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archeological resource would be considered no impact.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
No Impact. There are no unique paleontological resources or geologic surface features on or near
the proposed project site and, no subsurface geologic features of note are expected to occur.
The well has been drilled under a previously granted water well construction permit (EHWL16-
0014). All project activities proposed as part of the evaluation in this document will occur on the
existing concrete surface or above existing buildings of the project site and therefore there will
be no impact with regards to paleontological resources or unique geological resources.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact. There is no potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries. All proposed project activities will occur on the existing concrete surface or
above existing buildings within the project parcels and therefore there will be no impact with
regards to human remains.
6.6 Geology and Soils
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
4. Landslides?
X
X
X
X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
33
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
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?
X
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?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system where
sewers are not available for the disposal or wastewater?
X
6.6.1 Geologic and Soils Setting
A wide variety of geologic conditions exist in the valley, foothill and mountain regions of Butte
County with respect to seismic activity and various types of soil instability (landsliding, expansion,
liquefaction, erosion, etc.). Thorough summaries of the geologic and soil conditions in Butte
County may be found in the 2007 Settings and Trends report prepared for the Butte County
General Plan 2030 and are incorporated herein by reference.
County-wide maps regarding the relative hazards due to landslides, expansive soils, liquefaction,
and faults are available with County GIS data and used as general references by Development
Services, and the Environmental Health Division of BCPH when reviewing construction and land
disturbing proposals requiring a permit.
The well site is located on a flat paved surface in the center of the SNBC project parcel. The City
of Chico is located within one of the least active seismic regions in California and contains no
active faults. There are no designated Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones within the City’s
Planning Area, nor are there any known or inferred active faults. The only known active fault in
Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault zone, located approximately 31 miles southeast of the
project site, where activity on August 1, 1975 resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This
earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and produced surface displacement along
approximately 2.2 miles of the fault. As stated by the Butte County General Plan 2030 Draft EIR,
the area of Butte County most likely to be subject to strong ground shaking is along the Cleveland
Hills Fault.
Despite the lack of proximate active earthquake faults, the project site (like most of California’s
34
Central Valley) can be expected to be subjected to seismic ground shaking at some future time.
Accordingly, all buildings and other improvements would be designed and installed in accordance
with California Building Code requirements. Under existing regulations, all structures will
incorporate CBC standards, as required, into the design and construction, which will adequately
minimize potential impacts associated with ground-shaking during an earthquake.
In regards to other geologic hazards, surface and subsurface soil characteristics influence the
potential for landslides, erosion and expansive soils. The Safety Element of the City of Chico 2030
General Plan provides a map showing the hazard potential for expansive soils at the project site
having a rating of moderate to high. The Health and Safety Element of the Butte County General
Plan 2030 includes several maps that identify hazard potential for the project site and vicinity,
including landslide (low to none), erosion (little or none), and expansive soils (moderate).
The United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey identifies the soil on the proposed
project site as Chico loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. Chico loam is characterized as very deep, well
drained soils that formed in alluvium from mixed rocks.
6.6.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and
the nearest active fault (Cleveland Hills) is about 30 miles to the east. As applicable, the proposed
facility must be built according to the California Building Code (incorporating the Uniform
Building Code) seismic design standards for buildings and the California Division of Mines and
Geology Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special
Publication 117 (revised 2008), which includes design and construction requirements related to
fire and structural safety. As there is no evidence of a potential for surface rupture from faults in
the region and the proposed facility must be built to current seismic codes as applicable, there
would be a less than significant impact in regards to a potential for substantial adverse effects
to the structure or those within it as a result of ground rupture.
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. While no active faults have been mapped across or within 15 miles
of the project site, strong seismic ground shaking could occur with potential risk to the proposed
35
facility. This risk would be minimized by required compliance with the California Building Code
(incorporates the Uniform Building Code) seismic design standards for buildings and the
California Division of Mines and Geology Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards
in California, Special Publication 117 (revised 2008), which includes design and construction
requirements related to fire and structural safety. Compliance with these existing building
standards as applicable would maintain impacts from ground shaking at a less than significant
level.
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a process in which uniform sediment subject to
infiltration by groundwater temporarily loses cohesion during ground shaking and behaves as a
viscous liquid rather than a solid, sometimes subsiding in discrete areas. Liquefaction and
subsidence occur in level areas with high groundwater levels and deposits of sand and silt. As the
proposed grading site is on flat developed land, and the proposed project would be constructed,
as necessary, in accordance the California Building Code (incorporates the Uniform Building
Code) seismic design standards for buildings and the California Division of Mines and Geology
Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117
(revised 2008), there would be a less than significant impact with regards to seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction.
4. Landslides?
No Impact. When steep slopes become saturated, their soils can lose strength, resulting in
landslides. The proposed project site is flat and there is no potential for landslides, therefore
there is no impact in regards to this topic.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact. Soil erosion is the removal of soil by water and wind. The proposed project site is
flat, fully developed with existing concrete surfacing and would not require cut and fill or
modification of the local topography, therefore there is no impact in regards to this topic. For
discussion of erosion potential as it relates to water quality, see Section IX, Hydrology and Water
Quality.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Impact. Subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over saturation or extensive
withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Butte County has established a groundwater
monitoring network and a subsidence monitoring network in coordination with DWR. Subsidence
is not generally viewed as an urgent issue and has not been recorded in Butte County (City of
36
Chico General Plan DEIR). As noted, liquefaction is not anticipated as a consequence of site
characteristics or construction and operation of the proposed project. Similarly, lateral spreading,
subsidence, or collapse is not anticipated given the size of the proposed project and the flat
terrain upon which it will be built. Regardless, the proposed structure would be built, as
necessary, in conformance with the California Building Code foundation and geological design
criteria as applicable. This would require, as necessary, a geotechnical study of potential hazards
associated with the underlying soils and measures to ensure the structure’s stability in relation
to any potential geotechnical hazard. There will be no impact in regards to potential lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, landslides 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?
Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in water content to a
degree that can adversely impact building foundations and roads. The extent of shrinking and
swelling is related to the clay content of soils. Clay rich soils are prone to shrinking and swelling
while soils dominated by sand or gravel components experience commensurately less. As noted
in the Geologic and Soils Setting, Butte County GIS data developed for its General Plan update in
2010 indicates the proposed project site has a “moderate” potential for expansive soils. As
discussed above, the proposed facility would be built consistent with the foundation and
geological design criteria in the California Building Code as necessary and the proposed project
elements would be installed on an existing concrete surface. There would therefore be a less
than significant impact with regards to expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal or
wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project would not include the use of a septic system or alternative
wastewater disposal system. There would be no impact with regard to such wastewater systems.
6.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
37
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
6.7.1 Greenhouse Gases Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) include naturally occurring and anthropogenic gases that absorb and
emit radiation within the thermal infrared range, trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Anthropogenic greenhouse gases include CO2
emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, and halogenated compounds that contain fluorine,
chlorine, or bromine such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), which are
generally a product of industrial activities. CO2 emissions may be further distinguished as biogenic
(derived from living cells and generated from biological decomposition, combustion and
numerous other processes) and non-biogenic (derived from fossil fuels, limestone, and other
materials transformed by geologic processes).
The different greenhouse gases have varying effects upon global warming. For example, CH4 and
N2O have 21 and 310 times the warming effect of CO2, respectively. In order to evaluate
greenhouse gases by a common metric, individual gases are converted to a carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) by multiplying their values expressed in metric tons per year (MTCO2e) by their
global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is a ratio of a gas’ heat-trapping characteristics relative
to CO2, which has a GWP of one (1).
While global warming is a world-wide phenomenon, it may result in a variety of effects at the
regional and local scale. For California these may include (among others) changes in precipitation
patterns, reduced snowpack, drought, heat waves and consequent effects upon air quality,
agriculture, biological resources, and the availability of water for consumptive uses (CAPCOA,
2009).
Although the direct greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere,
human activities largely associated with the combustion of carbon-based fuels have increased
their atmospheric concentrations since the start of the industrial age. The State of California has
adopted a number of statutes and regulations to control and reduce the emission of GHGs,
reflecting a belief that their increasing concentration will result in a number of deleterious
38
impacts to public health, safety and the environment through the effects of global climate change
(CalEPA, 2010).
In particular, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, sets a goal to
reduce overall GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 while further directing the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to create a plan which includes market mechanisms and implements
rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” Included are
greenhouse gas reductions of CO2e emissions by 169 million metric tons (MMT), about 30 percent
of the state’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 MMT CO2e that would occur without the
reductions. The AB 32 Scoping Plan, adopted by the California Air Resources Board on December
11, 2008, provides several strategies to achieve the AB 32 reductions, including energy efficiency
measures in buildings.
Section 15183.5(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations states that a GHG Reduction
Plan, or a Climate Action Plan, may be used for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG
emissions in subsequent CEQA project evaluation provided the CAP does the following:
A. Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time
period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area;
B. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to
greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively
considerable;
C. Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or
categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
D. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that
substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would
collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
E. Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to
require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and
F. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
In 2012, the Chico City Council adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which sets forth objectives
and actions that will be undertaken to meet the City’s GHG emission reduction target of 25
percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. This target is consistent with the State Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, Health & Safety Code, Section 38501[a]). Additionally,
Butte County adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on February 25, 2014 that is consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) and AB 32 Scoping Plan requirements for a local jurisdiction
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The project consists of installing and operating an
independent water supply system consistent with existing and proposed development already
39
anticipated, analyzed, and mitigated in the City of Chico 2030 General Plan and associated
Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR). The project does not involve an expansion to the water
conveyance system, nor will it result in any new long-term direct or indirect sources of emissions.
Construction of the proposed project will not result in air quality impacts associated with the
operation of vehicles generating ozone precursor (NOx) and PM2.5. Construction activities will
create a temporary increase in combustion emissions in the project vicinity. However, these
impacts are temporary and episodic in nature. Further, the construction activities, including the
use of vehicles, proposed as part of the project will not exceed those already anticipated,
analyzed, and mitigated in the 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR).
Therefore, compliance with City of Chico policies/requirements and BCAQMD Rules and
Mitigation Measure #1 will reduce construction related impacts to a Less-Than Significant level.
To implement the measures of the Butte County CAP, a development checklist was created to
evaluate a new projects consistency with the CAP, and to identify which GHG emission reduction
measures would be implemented with project approval.
6.7.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Mitigation Measure #1 from section 6.3.1 requires
the use clean fuel construction equipment, and GHG emissions from construction and operation
of the proposed project are therefore reduced. GHG emissions from the project equates to a
small fraction of the 2006 baseline GHG emissions and 2020 reduction goals for Butte County.
Neither Butte County, the City of Chico, nor the Butte County Air Quality Management District have
established a threshold of significance for the project-level generation of GHG emissions. As
discussed in Section 6.7.1, the Butte County and City of Chico Climate Action Plans are consistent
with AB 32 and AB 32 Scoping Plan reduction gals for local governments to achieve 1990 emission
levels by 2020, or a 15% below existing (that is, 2006 baseline) emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions due to construction activities would be temporary and a very minor
percentage baseline inventory for both the City of Chico and Butte County CAPs. Operational
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the operation of an electric pump on the well are
expected to be very minor due to the SNBC reliance on solar and on-site generated energy
sources. The proposed project would therefore have a less than significant impact due to
greenhouse gas emissions with adoption of Mitigation Measure #1.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
40
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed in the Greenhouse Gases Setting, the
applicable plan is the City of Chico CAP, which has a number of measures to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in the City in a manner consistent with AB 32 and its scoping plan. The proposed
project is consistent with the following CAP greenhouse reduction measures:
• Compliance with California's Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
and Non-Residential Buildings
• Consistency with the Butte County Air Quality Management District's CEQA Handbook
• Adherence to Butte County Air Quality Management District mitigation requirements for
construction sites (e.g., dust suppression measures, reducing idling equipment,
maintenance of equipment per manufacturer specs, etc.)
To conclude, construction of the proposed facility would be consistent with the City of Chico and
Butte County CAPs and General Plans, resulting in a less than significant impact in regards to the
agencies intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
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?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools?
X
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
X
41
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
X
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?
X
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
6.8.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Setting
Hazardous substances are regulated under the California Health and Safety Code Chapters 6.95,
6.75 and 6.5 and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. Under Chapter 6.95 of the
Health and Safety Code, a hazardous material
“…means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration or physical or chemical,
poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the
environment if released into the workplace or the environment. ‘Hazardous materials‘
include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material
that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it
would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if
released into the workplace or the environment.”
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is responsible for regulation, handling
use and disposal of toxic materials in California.
The approximately 300 square foot well site and distribution piping would occupy a portion of
two fully developed parcels in the center existing buildings, roads, parking lots and facilities that
comprise SNBC Chico Brewery in the City of Chico. The project parcel is in the midst of lands that
42
have been developed for several decades, approximately 2400 feet west of State Route 99 and
there are no known toxic waste sites within the project parcel.
Approximately 750 feet to the north of the well site is Chico Scrap Metal which is listed on the
EnviroStor database managed by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. The
Chico Scrap Metal site is listed as a “Volunteer Cleanup Program” for lead contamination.
Approximately, 1,500 feet to the southwest of the well site is a location, listed on EnviroStar,
known as Victor Industries. The Victor Industries site contains potential contaminants of
Trichloroethylene and its cleanup oversight agencies are the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
6.8.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed facility would not involve a new occurrence of routine
transport or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed disinfection chemical, sodium
hypochlorite (chlorine bleach), is used at the SNBC property for existing brewery activities. As
such, transport of hazardous materials to and from the proposed facility would be similar as
existing conditions and there would be a less than significant impact.
Ongoing operation of the well site will include storage of sodium hypochlorite, within the existing
chemical storage enclosure at the project site. Sodium hypochlorite is used for water disinfection
prior to introduction to the distribution system. The chemical storage enclosure will be locked at
all times, except during maintenance visits by trained staff.
Sodium hypochlorite is classified as a hazardous material by the California Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (8 CCR
339). California's Regional Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) are the regional
governmental agencies tasked with compliance oversight of hazardous materials in storage. The
Butte County Public Health Department is the overseeing CUPA for Butte County. Under the
CUPA program the SNBC maintains an existing Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) that
addresses proper storage management, employee training, and emergency response planning
associated with keeping sodium hypochlorite at the SNBC property. In addition, the enclosure
will comply with applicable federal, state and local regulations for the storage of sodium
hypochlorite. Proper storage management of this material will follow in accordance with the
existing regulations, and potential impacts from the storage of hazardous materials is considered
to be a less than significant impact.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
43
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in sub-section (a), the proposed facility will be required
to adhere to state and local requirements for the storage and handling of hazardous materials. As
such, there would be a less than significant impact in regards to hazards to the public or the
environment.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The nearest school to the project is the Chapman Elementary, located
about 1,400 feet to the north. Release of diesel PM during construction would be minimized by
Mitigation Measure #1 and, in any event, would not be expected to impact students or staff at the
school. Once construction is completed, normal operation of the well site will include storage of
sodium hypochlorite (chlorine bleach), within the chemical storage enclosure at the project site.
Sodium hypochlorite is used for water disinfection prior to introduction to the distribution
system. The chemical storage enclosure will be locked at all times, except during maintenance
visits by trained staff.
Sodium hypochlorite is classified as a hazardous material by the California Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (8 CCR
339). California's Regional Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) are the regional
governmental agencies tasked with compliance oversight of hazardous materials in storage. The
Butte County Public Health Department is the overseeing CUPA for Butte County. Under the
CUPA program the SNBC will be required to update and maintain a Hazardous Materials Business
Plan that addresses proper storage management, employee training, and emergency response
planning associated with keeping sodium hypochlorite at the proposed facility. Adherence to Cal
OSHA and State requirements to handle and store hazardous materials in a safe will ensure a less
than significant impact to Chapman Elementary.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The nearest Cortese sites are located about 750 and 1,500 feet away from the well site.
Construction of the proposed project would have no impact in regards to creation of a significant
hazard to the public or environment in relation to a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
44
No Impact. The Ranchaero airport is located approximately 2.8 miles west, and the Chico Municipal
Airport is located approximately 5 miles north, of the project site. The project site is not located in
an airport compatibility zone as shown in the 2001 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan. There will be no impact in regards to an airport-related safety hazard to people residing or
working in the proposed 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?
No Impact. The Ranchaero airport is located is located outside the City Limits on Oak Park Avenue,
approximately 2.8 miles west of the project site. There would be no impact in regards to a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area in relation to a private airstrip.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. Due to the type of project and its location within a fully developed brewery complex
there is no potential for the proposed project to impair of interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan, therefore there is no impact.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. The proposed project site is not in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as designated by
CAL-Fire Fire Hazard Severity zone maps. This project is within the City of Chico Fire Department’s
responsibility area. Since the proposed project involves the installation of independent water supply
within a fully developed brewery complex, there would be no impact in regards to the exposure of
people or structures to loss, injury or death from wildfire.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? X
45
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
X
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?
X
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
X
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows? X
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury,
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
46
6.9.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Setting
The approximately 300 square foot well site and distribution piping would occupy a portion of
two fully developed parcels in the center of the existing buildings, roads, parking lots and facilities
that comprise SNBC Chico Brewery in the City of Chico.
There are no natural drainages within or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site.
Water is currently supplied to the SNBC brewery by California Water Service Company’s Chico
District (Cal Water). Cal Water's Chico District was formed in 1926 with the purchase of the Chico
Water Supply Company, Chico-Vecino Water Company, and the C.C. White Water Company. The
Chico District utilizes 68 wells to pump an average of 27 million gallons of groundwater per day,
which is delivered through 373 miles of pipeline, eight storage tanks, and nine booster pumps.
The brewery has been constructed in phases since 1986, and as a result, the internal plumbing is
not separated into distinct domestic and plant/process networks. For this reason, SNBC is
pursuing a Public Water Supply (noncommunity nontransient) (PWS) for the brewery. This PWS
would supply drinking water quality water to most users within the brewery, both domestic and
plant/process. The exceptions would be that Cal Water supplies would still be used to supply the
on-site restaurant, certain small/isolated users within the brewery, and fire protection.
As discussed in the Project Description, the well to supply the proposed Independent Water
Supply was constructed in 2016 under a ministerial permit (EHWL06-0004). While California Code
of Regulations, Title 22, Section 60101 exempts specific activities within CEQA Categorical
Exemption Classes, including the construction operation or permitting of new water wells for
existing water systems which do not exceed 125 gallons per minute (gpm), due to the operational
requirements of the SNBC Brewery, the expected gpm for the proposed project will be 600 gpm
and therefore does not qualify for the exemption. The existing well is thus included as part of
the proposed project.
The Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation, through the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act, is acting as the local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA)
for portions of the Vina, West Butte, East Butte and North Yuba Sub-basins within Butte County.
Establishing Butte County as a Groundwater Sustainability Agency enables the County to work
with other GSAs in the preparation and implementation of an effective and mutually beneficial
Groundwater Sustainability Plan(s) for the sustainable groundwater management in Butte
County.
6.9.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
47
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not expected to violate any water quality standards
or degrade water quality. Necessary discharges to waste water systems occurred during the
initial well development (purging) phase, and may occur infrequently in the future for
maintenance or water quality testing. A Wastewater Discharge Permit was obtained from the
City of Chico for discharges of initial well development waters.
The SNBC will continue to utilize the connection to the City of Chico’s Waste Water Treatment
Plant (WWTP) for wastewater and their General Industrial Permit for storm water. All future
(operational, infrequent) discharges from the well to the distribution system and storm drain
system are expected to meet or surpass Federal and California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) drinking water standards promulgated under Title 22 of the California Code of
Regulations. The implementation and operation of the proposed project will adhere to existing
SNBC’s General Industrial Permit and connectivity requirements to the WWTP, therefore there is
a less than significant impact with regards to 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 preexisting nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The existing well and independent water supply would largely
accommodate the water demands of the SNBC facility in Chico. The SNBC’s demand for water
service from Cal Water would be largely substituted by the proposed new well. The new well
design capacity is approximately 600 gpm, and will modulate the pumping rate to produce water
when the pressure level in the SNBC distribution system drops below thresholds as a result of
SNBC’s internal demand. As such, the proposed well will not increase the amount of groundwater
used by the SNBC, but would rather serve to accommodate existing needs through independent
infrastructure.
The new well, by itself would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, but it will be one
of many wells drawing groundwater from the region including, but not limited to, Cal Water’s
water supply system. Therefore, the following discussion addresses drawing groundwater in
general to meet the demands of the Chico area.
Cal Water has recorded over 28 years of water levels in Cal Water wells; over that period the
level has declined about 30 feet. Short periods of groundwater elevation decline and recovery
have occurred during this period. The extended multi-year drought from 1987-1992 reduced the
availability of replenishment water, and coupled with higher-than- normal withdrawals, caused
a 15-foot decline in static groundwater elevation. Drought recovery began to become apparent
48
in 1995, with a 15-foot increase in the average static groundwater elevation by 2000.
Groundwater levels have also declined in response to the drought that occurred between 2007
and 2009. Some recovery occurred when precipitation returned to pre-drought levels. The
current drought (2014 to present) has further reduced water levels. It is expected that once
normal rainfall returns there should be a corresponding recovery in groundwater levels.
In 2008, an in-depth Water Supply and Facility Master Plan (WSFMP) was completed for the Chico
District by West Yost Associates (WSFMP 2008). The WSFMP analyzed historical water level trend
data from 1988 to 2005 to assess the effects of Cal Water’s pumping of groundwater supplies.
The WSFMP utilized the definition and criteria for overdraft conditions set forth by Department
of Water Resources Bulletin 118 and found that the rate of water level decline within the Chico
district that would be indicative of overdraft conditions would probably be greater than 1 to 2
feet per year (ft./yr.). Overdraft in this context means pumping out more water than can be
recharged into the basin over a period of years that approximate average conditions.
The project site is located in the West Butte sub-basin. The WSFMP analysis of Cal Water wells in
the West Butte sub-basins showed average water level declines ranging from 0.09 ft./yr. to 0.10
ft./yr., with some variations attributable to rainfall (WSFMP 2008). This equates to approximately
1/10th to 1/20th the amount estimated to result in potential overdraft conditions using the
methodology from the Department of Water Resources.
SB 1262, which became effective on January 1, 2017, requires a screening of projects that include
groundwater extraction. The proposed project is not a subdivision of 500 or more units and does
not increase service connections by 10% or more, therefore a written verification of sufficient
water supply is not required. The proposed project is within a Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) High Priority area, however it is not within a Critically Overdrafted
Groundwater Basin.
There is no Groundwater Sustainability Plan adopted by the Butte County Department of Water
and Resource Conservation and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has not identified
the basin as, or projected it to become, overdrafted under continuation of present management
conditions.
Based the above information, the proposed project is considered to have a less than significant
impact in regards to the depletion of groundwater supplies or the interference with groundwater
recharge.
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?
No Impact. No stream or river will be altered as the proposed project is located within a fully
49
developed portion of the SNBC complex. Furthermore, there will be no alteration of drainage
patterns, erosion or siltation, therefore there will be no impact in regards to this topic.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
No Impact. As discussed in sub-section b above, the proposed project would not alter the course
of a stream or river, therefore there will be no impact in regards to this topic.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed facility will not increase impermeable
surfaces. There is the potential for occasional discharges of water into the City of Chico’s storm
water system and waste water system for maintenance and water quality testing. These
discharge occurrences are expected to be infrequent and minimal and will occur under the
existing operational permits that the SNBC maintains for wastewater and storm water discharges.
Therefore there will be a less than significant impact with regards to affecting the capacity of
storm water systems or polluted runoff.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. Aside from occasional discharges of water into the City of Chico’s
storm water system and waste water system for maintenance and water quality testing, the
proposed project would not be a source of other pollutants that would substantially degrade
water quality. The potential that water quality would otherwise be substantially degraded with
construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. According to the FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map, the proposed project site is in Flood
Zone X (unshaded) defined as “areas of minimal flood hazard from the principal source of flood
in the area and determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain”. As the
proposed project would not be in a 100-year flood hazard area, and there is no housing proposed
as part of the project, there would be no impact to housing or the proposed facility in regards to
risk from a 100-year flood.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
50
No Impact. As noted in sub-section (g), the structure is not in a 100-year flood hazard area. There
would be no impact with regard to impeding or redirecting flood flows.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No Impact. The proposed project will establish an independent water supply system in a fully
developed area of the SNBC Chico Brewery. The project site is located outside any dam
inundation areas identified in the Health and Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan.
Due to the nature of the proposed project, there will be no impact in regards to exposing people
or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. Seiche and tsunami are both are phenomena that occur with substantial storm or
seismic activity in very large lakes or oceans. Mudflows occur on hillsides with sufficiently steep
slopes, precipitation and soil conditions. The proposed project site is not in a region where seiches
or tsunamis and expected to occur There will be no impact to the proposed project from these
phenomena
6.10 Land Use
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Physically divide an established community? X
b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? X
6.10.1 Land Use Setting
The approximately 300 square foot well site and distribution piping would occupy a portion of
two fully developed parcels in the center existing buildings, roads, parking lots and facilities that
comprise SNBC Chico Brewery in the City of Chico.
51
Land use in California is largely determined at the local (e.g., county, city or district) level through
locally adopted plans and ordinances. The project site is designated Manufacturing &
Warehousing by the City of Chico General Plan and zoned as ML (Light Manufacturing/Industrial)
in the City’s zoning ordinance.
The Land use designation description for the Manufacturing and Warehousing designation is as
follows:
This designation provides for the full range of manufacturing, agricultural and industrial
processing, general service, and distribution uses. Other complimentary uses may be
allowed by right or with approval of a Use Permit, as outlined in the Municipal Code Chico
General Plan (pg. 3-13).
The purpose of the ML Zone is as follows:
The ML zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for light assembly and
manufacturing, wholesaling, warehousing and distribution, agricultural and industrial
processing within structures, and support commercial services. The ML zoning district is
primarily intended to implement the Industrial Office Mixed Use and the Manufacturing
and Warehousing land use designations of the General Plan (Chico Municipal Code
§19.46.010).
The proposed independent water supply and its function as part of the SNBC Brewery is
consistent with these zoning and land use designations.
6.10.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed Independent Water Supply would not
divide an established community. It is centrally located in an existing fully developed brewery
complex. The project will not block access to surrounding land uses.
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The proposed facility would support an existing land use (the Sierra Nevada Brewery)
that is consistent with the City of Chico’s General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
52
No Impact. The Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP) is a joint Habitat Conservation
Plan/National Community Conservation Plan that is currently being prepared for the western half
of Butte County. The project site is located within the proposed Chico Urban Permit Area (UPA)
as shown in the Formal Public Draft of the BRCP. The BRCP is expected to be completed and
considered for adoption in 2018. The project site would occupy a portion of a fully developed
parcel in an area designated as “urban” by the Draft BRCP. The proposed project site has no
significant habitat or other biological resources of value given its location and disturbed
condition. As such, the proposed facility would not conflict with, nor interfere with, the attainment
of the goals of the proposed plan.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
6.11 Mineral Resources
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
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?
X
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?
X
6.11.1 Mineral Resources Setting
The approximately 300 square foot well site and distribution piping would occupy a portion of
two fully developed parcels in the center of existing buildings, roads, parking lots and facilities
that comprise SNBC Chico Brewery in the City of Chico.
Aggregate, metal and other mineral resources are present in widely scattered areas throughout
Butte County. Aggregate resources tend to be along the current or pre-historic margins of larger
streams and rivers; metal resources such as gold are generally limited to placer and hard-rock
deposits in the foothill and mountain regions of the County. There are no designated or known
mineral resources within or near the site.
6.11.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to
53
the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. There are no designated or known mineral resources (for example, aggregate,
precious or strategic metals) within or near the proposed project site that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state. The project site is not located within a Mineral Resource
Zone as designated by the State of California.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact. There are no designated or known mineral resources (for example, aggregate,
precious or strategic metals) within or near the proposed project site that have been delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
6.12 Noise
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? X
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
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?
X
54
6.12.1 Noise Setting
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound that can be a by-product of normal (day-to-day,
regular) or atypical (sporadic, unusual) activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes
with normal activities, causes physical harm, or has adverse effects on health.
Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB) and
may be measured in various ways. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a weighted
average of dB levels over time. Community noise is also commonly described in terms of the
“ambient” noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a
given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the
average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq) over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is
the foundation of the Day-Night Average Level noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good
correlation with community response to noise.
The Health and Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan identifies land use compatibility
standards for exterior community noise for a variety of sensitive land uses. For urban
designations, a maximum exterior noise level of 70 Ldn/CNEL decibel level is generally identified
as being an acceptable noise environment requiring no special noise insulation or noise
abatement features. This standard is applicable to properties containing noise sensitive land uses
are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound
could adversely affect the use of the land.
The 2030 Noise Element of the City of Chico General Plan requires adherence to the following
exterior noise levels from non-transportation sources as shown in Table 1.
Table 4: Maximum Allowable Exterior Noise Levels from Non-Transportation Sources
Noise Level Descriptor (dBA)
Exterior Noise Level (dBA)
Daytime
(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Average-Hourly Noise Level (LEQ) 55 50
Intermittent Noise Level (L2orLmax) 75 65
Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment, loudspeakers,
or individual motor vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of point
sources (motor vehicles) or a train passing by on a railroad line. Sound generated by a point
source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6.0 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from
the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites (e.g., developed landscapes) and 7.5 dB(A)
at acoustically “soft” sites (e.g., undeveloped landscapes). For example, a 60-dB(A) noise level
55
measured at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dB(A) at 100
feet from the source and 48 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source
typically attenuates at a rate of 3.0 dB(A) and 4.5 dB(A) per doubling of distance from the source
to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively. Man-made or natural barriers can also
attenuate sound levels.
Construction and operation of a project may produce noise; in turn, a project may place people
within an area of existing noise. The proposed facility would occur in an acoustically hard site.
Existing noise in and around the proposed project site is not excessive and an 8 foot masonry wall
with vegetated barrier exists to the west of the proposed project site (all other directions are
surrounded by brewery warehouses).
The operation of the well requires a pump that could be considered point source of noise
generation. The well is designed with a submersible pump that will be installed approximately
200 feet below the surface. Due to the distance below the surface, it is not expected that the
operation of the submersible pump will contribute to noise levels above ground.
To give noise associated with the project context, it should be noted that the project site is
approximately 1,200 feet of the Silver Dollar Speedway, the largest noise producer in the area.
The speedway conducts stock car and sprint car races from March through October. According
to the 2010 City of Chico General Plan, noise monitoring indicates that worst-case maximum
noise levels associated with racing activities ranges between 55 and 70 dB at approximately 3,000
feet to the north of the race track and noise from races are often heard at much greater distances
throughout the City.
6.12.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed facility may result in temporary levels
of noise. Project contractors will be required to comply with Chapter 9.38 of the Chico Municipal
Code, which sets forth the City's standards for construction-generated noise and limits the hours of
construction activities within the City.
Operation of the proposed facility is not expected to produce significant noise. The noises associated
with the proposed facility are similar to the variable sounds found in the SNBC property. The
proposed well site is located within an area that is surrounded by warehouses, and the closest
residence is 320 feet away and separated by an existing 8 foot sound wall with vegetative barriers.
The approximately 1,400 linear feet of distribution piping would be installed contiguous with
existing SNBC infrastructure on existing pipe racks within the brewery complex. The potentially
56
loudest piece of equipment that would be operated as part of the proposed project is a submersible
pump that will be located 200 feet below the surface, which based on its location will not be audible.
For reference, during the evaluation of a Cal Water Well upgrade in the City of Chico, it was
determined that a similar horsepower (hp) pump (75 hp or less) located above ground and within a
masonry block building would not exceed 30 dBA at property lines located 30 feet away (City of
Chico Use Permit 13-04 California Water Service Co.).
Adherence to the Chico Municipal Code which sets forth standards for construction-generated noise
and limits the hours of construction activities as well as the proposed design and function of the
proposed project will result is less than significant impacts with regards to this topic.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed facility is not expected to involve the use
of any equipment or processes that would generate high levels of ground vibration, such as pile
drivers or blasting. Construction operations would include light construction equipment such as
forklifts and trucks which are consistent with normal SNBC property operations. No noticeable
ground vibration is expected as part of the ongoing well and pump facility operations. Note that the
drilling of the well has already taken place under a separate ministerial permit. Thus, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact with respect to the exposure or generation of
excessive ground-borne noise or vibration levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact. Once constructed, the proposed project would be consistent with
noises already present within the SNBC property. During operation, the project’s generation of noise
below existing ambient noise levels will be at least partially masked by existing noise generated
brewery operations. The design, location and equipment of the proposed project are also not
expected to be noticeable in terms of generating ambient noise. Operation of the proposed facility
would have a less than significant effect upon the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity existing
without the proposed project.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact. As noted in sub-section (b), the drilling of the well has already taken
place under a separate ministerial permit. As discussed in sub-section (c), the proposed facility
would have a less than significant impact in regards to a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
57
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed facility is located approximately 2.8 miles east of the Ranchaero airport,
and 5 miles south of the Chico Municipal Airport, and is not located within an airport land use plan.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest private airstrip (Ranchaero airport) is approximately 2.8 miles west of the
proposed facility. There would be no impact in regards to the exposure of people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
6.13 Population and Housing
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure?
X
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
6.13.1 Population and Housing Setting
According to the Butte County Association of Governments, as of January 2016 Butte County and
the City of Chico had total populations of 224,601 and 92,464, respectively.
As required by state law, both Butte County and the City of Chico are required to plan for
adequate amounts of housing to accommodate anticipated increases in population.
6.13.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
58
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure?
No Impact. The project would result in an independent water supply for the SNBC Chico Brewery.
The project does not involve any residential development or the extension of roadways or other
infrastructure, which could induce population growth in an area. The facility would address the
water needs of the brewery and would not increase the availability of water for regional water
needs, therefore there is a no direct or indirect impact on population growth in the area.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project does not involve the displacement of existing housing; no construction
of replacement housing elsewhere is necessary. No housing will be affected by the proposed
project.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project does not involve the displacement of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere, therefore there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
6.14 Public Services
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
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 public services?
X
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police Protection? X
c. Schools? X
59
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
d. Parks? X
e. Other public services? X
6.14.1 Public Services Setting
Policies, programs and regulations to ensure the provision of adequate public services are largely
within the domain of State and local government. The proposed project would be within the City
of Chico but owned and managed by the SNBC. Electric service for the independent water supply
would be provided by the SNBC and augmented by PG&E as necessary. Water would be provided
by the proposed project and augmented by Cal Water as necessary; Cal Water supplies would
still be used to supply the on-site restaurant, certain small/isolated users within the brewery, and
fire protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Chico Fire Department. Police
protection would be provided by the City of Chico Police Department. Schools services are
provided through the Chico Unified School District and parks are provided by the City of Chico
and Chico Area Recreation and Park District. Emergency medical service is provided by Enloe
Medical Center and First Responder EMS, Inc..
6.14.2 Impact Analysis
Would construction and operation of the facility result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services?
a) Fire protection.
No Impact. The proposed facility would be in the existing SNBC property serviced by the Chico
Fire Department. The proposed facility, which is not in a wildland fire hazard area or State
Responsibility Area, would be built and regularly inspected to all applicable fire codes. The
proposed facility would have no impact upon the need for new or physically altered fire
protection facilities that could, in turn, cause a significant environmental impact.
b) Police protection.
No Impact. The project involves a water supply facility within the SNBC property. Proposed
facilities will not result in the need for additional police protection, therefore there is no impact.
60
c) Schools.
No Impact. The project involves a water supply facility within the SNBC property. Proposed
facilities will not result in the need for additional schools or education services, therefore there
is no impact.
d) Parks.
No Impact. The project involves a water supply facility within the SNBC property. Proposed
facilities will not result in the need for additional park services, therefore there is no impact.
e) Other public services.
No Impact. The project involves a water supply facility within the SNBC property. Proposed
facilities will not result in the need for additional public services, therefore there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
6.15 Recreation
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
6.15.1 Recreation Setting
Parks and recreational open space are generally regulated through park planning standards
related to the per capita need, the distribution of active and passive types of recreation, safety,
maintenance and other factors. The project site is located in the City of Chico and the Chico Area
Recreation and Park District (CARD) and there are a number of substantial recreational
opportunities within and near the Chico Urban Area.
6.15.2 Impact Analysis
Would construction and operation of the proposed facility:
61
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
No Impact. The project involves a water supply facility within the SNBC property. As discussed
in Section 6.13 - Population and Housing, the proposed project does not involve the construction
of residences and would not induce population growth in the area. Proposed facilities will not
result in an increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, therefore there is no
impact.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The project involves a water supply facility within the SNBC property. Proposed
facilities will not include recreational facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the
environment, therefore there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
6.16 Transportation/Traffic
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
X
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
X
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
62
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X
6.16.1 Transportation Setting
There will be no public access to the proposed project site. During construction of the proposed
project, construction personnel may contribute to additional trips to and from the SNBC site. The
number of trips by construction personnel are expected to be minimal and short in duration. The
operation of the proposed project will not generate additional traffic.
6.16.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impact. The operation of the proposed project will not generate additional
trips for any mode of transportation. Construction of the proposed project will contribute
minimal trips to and from the site and will be short in duration. The proposed facility will have a
less than significant impact in regards to a potential conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
63
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. The operation of the proposed project will not generate additional
trips for any mode of transportation. Construction of the proposed project will contribute
minimal trips to and from the site and will be short in duration. The proposed project would have
a less than significant impact in regards to any individual or cumulative exceedance of a Level of
Service D established by the City of Chico for arterial and collector roadways.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed facility has no relation to a change in air traffic patterns, including an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. Due to the nature of the proposed project and its lack of transportation related facilities,
there would be no impact in regards to an increase in hazards due to a design feature.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project will not alter nor interfere with existing emergency access for the
SNBC property. Due to the nature of the proposed project and its lack of transportation related
facilities, there would be no impact in regards to emergency access.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project will not reduce existing parking facilities at the SNBC property nor
restrict their use. Due to the nature of the proposed project and its lack of transportation related
facilities, there would be no impact in regards to parking capacity.
g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. Due to the nature of the proposed project and its lack of transportation related facilities,
there would be no impact in regards to alternative transportation programs, plans or policies.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
64
6.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and this is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k) or
X
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In apply the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public
Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
X
6.17.2 Impact Analysis
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and
this is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No impact. The proposed project site is within a modernly constructed brewery. The project site has been
extensively disturbed by past grading, construction of adjacent buildings and previous paving of the well
site and surrounding area. No features exist on the property, including objects, sites, or landscapes that
could be considered as having cultural value to California Native American tribes, or be eligible for listing
in the California Register of Historic Resources.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section 5024.1. In apply the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public
Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe?
No impact. See discussion under 6.17(a). The brewery and its associated buildings are less than 35 years
old, therefore none of the buildings or structures would be considered historically significant nor of cultural
significance to California Native American Tribes.
65
6.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Previous
Document
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X
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?
X
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?
X
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which 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?
X
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and
regulations related to solid waste? X
6.18.1 Utilities and Service Systems Setting
The proposed project will be served by the exiting utility services of the SNBC complex, including
Electric/Solar Panel, stormwater, and sanitary sewer. See Figure 3: Site Plan.
Water
The primary purpose of the proposed project is the establishment of an independent water
supply for the SNBC Chico brewery. Currently, water is supplied to the brewery by California
Water Service Company (Cal Water). The brewery itself has been constructed in phases since
1986, and as a result, the internal plumbing is not separated into separate domestic and
plant/process networks. For this reason, SNBC is pursuing a Public Water Supply (noncommunity
nontransient) (PWS) for the brewery. This PWS would supply quality water to most users within
66
the brewery, both domestic and plant/process. The exceptions would be that Cal Water supplies
would still be used to supply the on-site restaurant, certain small/isolated users within the
brewery, and fire protection.
Wastewater
The SNBC will continue to utilize the connection to the City of Chico’s Waste Water Treatment
Plant (WWTP) for wastewater
Stormwater
The SNBC will continue to utilize their General Industrial Permit for storm water.
Solid Waste
Solid waste disposal is not required for the proposed project.
6.18.2 Impact Analysis
Would the proposal:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not expected to violate any water quality standards
or degrade water quality. Necessary discharges to wastewater systems occurred during the initial
well development (purging) phase, and may occur infrequently in the future for maintenance or
water quality testing. A Wastewater Discharge Permit was obtained from the City of Chico for
discharges of initial well development waters.
The SNBC will continue to utilize the connection to the City of Chico’s Waste Water Treatment
Plant (WWTP) for wastewater and their General Industrial Permit for storm water. All future
(operational, infrequent) discharges from the well to the distribution system and storm drain
system are expected to meet or surpass Federal and California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) drinking water standards promulgated under Title 22 of the California Code of
Regulations.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. Developing the new well on the project site required obtaining
permits from the City, County and State as necessary. To maintain compliance for all local and
regional discharge permits, the applicant will be required to test water quality to ensure
applicable standards are met prior to discharging waste water into the sanity sewer system or
67
storm drain system. Adherence to local and state regulations regarding the construction and
operation of the proposed facility will ensure there would be a less than significant impact on
the environment.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the installation of storm drain piping
within the small (300 square foot project) site. This storm drain piping will connect to existing
infrastructure within the SNBC property. The project site has been extensively disturbed by past
grading, construction of adjacent buildings and previous paving of the well site and surrounding
area. The construction and operation of the storm drain piping in the project area will have a
less than significant impact on the environment.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the development of an independent
water supply to serve the SNBC water needs. As described in Section 6.9 Hydrology and Water
Quality, there is adequate groundwater available in the sub basin and no new entitlements are
needed, therefore there is a less than significant impact with regards to water supplies.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater from the SNBC is already conveyed to the City of Chico
WWTP. Future (operational, infrequent) discharges from the well constitute a less than
significant impact with regards to the provider’s existing capacity and existing service
commitments.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact. Butte County’s Neal Road Recycling and Waste Facility is the
principal handler of solid waste in Butte County. It is currently permitted to accept 1,500 tons of
material per day with an estimated closure date of 2034. The construction of the proposed facility
is expected to result in minimal generation of solid waste. Operation of the proposed facility is
not expected to produce waste. The Neal Road Recycling and Waste Facility is expected to
accommodate the incremental increase in solid waste from the construction of the proposed
68
facility with a less than significant impact upon its permitted capacity.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The operation of the proposed facility will not produce solid waste, therefore there
is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None required with construction and operation of the project as
described.
69
6.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065)
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Reviewe
d Under
Previous
Docume
nt
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b. 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)?
X
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
6.18.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance Discussion
Would the proposal:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
No Impact. Given the lack of suitable habitat within and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
70
project, and as discussed in Section 6.4, there would no impact special-status or otherwise
important biological resources, either by reducing habitat, causing a species to drop below self-
sustaining levels or through a restriction in range of a plant or animal. Examples of major periods
of California history or prehistory are not present on the surface of the proposed project site
which is in a highly disturbed and completely developed area of the SNBC property. The proposed
project will be developed in an area that has been extensively modified by past development
activities, therefore there is no impact with regards to this topic.
b) 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, “’Cumulative impacts’ refers
to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which
compound or increase other environmental impacts
a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of
separate projects
b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts
can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a
period of time.”
This project has the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable, with respect to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (see Sections 6.3 and 6.7,
respectively). Cumulative impacts to these areas would be mitigated to a less than significant level
due to the inclusion of Mitigation Measure #1
As discussed in Section 6.9.2, the project will not 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. The new well, by itself would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies, but it will be one of many wells drawing groundwater
from the region for agricultural, domestic and industrial use. For this reason, the following discussion
addresses drawing groundwater in general to meet the demands of the Chico area.
Cal Water has recorded over 28 years of water levels in Cal Water wells; over that period the level
has declined about 30 feet. Short periods of groundwater elevation decline and recovery have
occurred during this period. The extended multi-year drought from 1987-1992 reduced the
availability of replenishment water, and coupled with higher-than- normal withdrawals, caused a
15-foot decline in static groundwater elevation. Drought recovery began to become apparent in
71
1995, with a 15-foot increase in the average static groundwater elevation by 2000. Groundwater
levels have also declined in response to the drought that occurred between 2007 and 2009. Some
recovery occurred when precipitation returned to pre-drought levels. The current drought (2014 to
present) has further reduced water levels. It is expected that once normal rainfall returns there
should be a corresponding recovery in groundwater levels.
In 2008, an in-depth Water Supply and Facility Master Plan (WSFMP) was completed for the Cal
Water Chico District by West Yost Associates (WSFMP 2008). The WSFMP analyzed historical water
level trend data from 1988 to 2005, to assess the effects of Cal Water’s pumping of groundwater
supplies. The WSFMP utilized the definition and criteria for overdraft conditions set forth by
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 and found that the rate of water level decline within
the Chico district that would be indicative of overdraft conditions would probably be greater than 1
to 2 feet per year (ft./yr.). Overdraft in this context means pumping out more water than can be
recharged into the basin over a period of years that approximate average conditions.
The project site is located in the West Butte sub-basin. The WSFMP analysis of Cal Water wells in
the Vina and West Butte sub-basins showed average water level declines ranging from 0.09 ft./yr.
to 0.10 ft./yr., with some variations attributable to rainfall (WSFMP 2008). This equates to
approximately 1/10th to 1/20th the amount estimated to result in potential overdraft conditions
using the methodology from the Department of Water Resources. Based on these levels of
groundwater elevation change, and that the independent water supply is intended to meet most of
SNBC’s existing water demand, the proposed project is considered to have a less than significant
impact in regards to the cumulative depletion of groundwater supplies or the interference with
groundwater recharge.
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As indicated in the preceding impact
analysis, the proposed project does has the potential to result in impacts to air quality (construction
related exhaust emissions) and greenhouse gas emissions. However, feasible mitigation measures
have been proposed and, with their implementation, substantial direct or indirect adverse effects
would be less than significant.
72
7 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Mitigation Measure #1: Minimize Combustion Emissions from Construction Equipment
Plan Requirements: The following note shall be included on (or on an additional page to) building
and site development plans:
“The applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures to mitigate combustion
emissions from construction equipment:
• Diesel-powered equipment shall be compliant with all applicable State of California air
quality regulations for on and off-road vehicles.
• Maintain all equipment in proper tune and regularly serviced according to manufacturer’s
specification.
• Electrify equipment where feasible.
• Substitute gasoline-powered for diesel-powered, where feasible.
• Use alternative fueled construction equipment on site where feasible, such as
compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel.
Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all construction phases of
the project (clearance, grading, compaction, paving, construction).
Monitoring: The Environmental Health Division of the Butte County Department of Public Health
shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #1 note is included on (or on an additional page to)
building and site development plans. The Sierra Nevada Brewing Company shall ensure that
contractor(s) have the requisite California Air Resources Board compliance certificates for on-
and off-road vehicles. Butte County Air Quality Management District inspectors will respond to
nuisance complaints.
73
8 ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL
Butte County Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. October 23,
2014. Accessed at:
http://bcaqmd.org/wp-content/uploads/CEQA-Handbook-Appendices-2014.pdf
Butte County Association of Governments. Butte County Long-Term Regional Growth
Forecasts 2010 – 2035. January 26, 2011. Accessed April 22, 2014 at:
http://www.bcag.org/Demographics/Population-Estimates---2016/index.html
Butte County, 2010a. Butte County General Plan 2030. Available at the Department of
Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA between the hours of 8:00
am and 3:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and at the following web site:
http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/
Butte County, 2010b. Butte County General Plan Draft EIR. Available at the Department
of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA between the hours of 8:00
am and 3:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and at the following web site:
http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation. Assessment Of
Stakeholder Perspectives: Options for Implementing The Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act in Butte County. (prepared by Kearns & West) May 2, 2016. Butte
County, CA
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), July 2009. Model Policies
for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans: A Resource for Local Government to Incorporate
General Plan Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Accessed April 24, 2014 at:
http://www.capcoa.org/documents/
California Division of Mines and Geology, (2008). California Geological Survey
Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special
Publication 117. Accessed June 30, 2017 at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/webdocs/Documents/sp117.pdf
Cal EPA. Climate Action Team Report. 2010. California Environmental Protection Agency.
Sacramento.
City of Chico General Services Department, 2012. City of Chico 2020 Climate Action Plan.
Accessed June 30, 2017 at:
http://chicosustainability.org/documents/ClimateActionPlan.pdf
PMC, 2014. Butte County Climate Action Plan. Accessed June 30, 2017 at:
74
http://www.buttecap.net/component/edocman/butte-county-climate-action-plan-
adopted-march-25-2014/download
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2007). Wildland Fire Hazard Maps.
City of Chico General Plan, 2010
Department of Water Resources. 2016. Map of Critically Overdrafted Groundwater
Basins. Accessed February 2017 at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/GW_basinsCriticalOverdraft_CA.pdf
Department of Water Resources. 2016. List of Critically Overdrafted Basins. Accessed
February 2017 at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/COD_BasinsTable.pdf
National Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Butte Area, California, Parts of
Butte and Plumas Counties. 2006. United States Department of Agriculture. Washington,
D.C. Accessed April 24, 2014 at:
http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/california/
Smith, Brandon, Engineering Manager, Sierra Nevada Brewing Company. Personal
communication regarding proposed construction techniques and operations. January -
February, 2017.
75
9 CONSULTED AGENCIES:
[X] Environmental Health [ ] Public Works [X] Water and
Resource
Conservation
[ ] Building Manager
[X] BCAG [ ] ALUC [X] LAFCo
[ ] Air Quality Management [X] City of Chico [ ] City of Biggs
[ ] City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise
[ ] CA Department of Forestry [ ] CalTrans (Traffic) [X] RWQCB – Redding
[ ] Department of Conservation [ ] Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highway Patrol
[ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] National Marine Fisheries [ ] US Fish & Wildlife
Service Service