CITY OF BIGGS B IGGS GENERAL PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Transcription

1 CITY OF BIGGS B IGGS GENERAL PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Prepared for: CITY OF BIGGS 465 C STREET BIGGS, CA Prepared by: 140 INDEPENDENCE CIRCLE, SUITE C CHICO, CA MARCH 2014

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose of the EIR Type of Document Intended Uses of the EIR Organization and Scope of the Final EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2.1 Introduction List of Commenters Comments and Responses ERRATA 3.1 Introduction Changes and Edits to the Draft EIR March 2014 i Final Environmental Impact Report

4

5 1.0 INTRODUCTION

6

7 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR, FEIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132). The (City) is the lead agency for the environmental review of the General Plan Update (project, proposed project, proposed ) project and has the principal responsibility for approving the project. This Final EIR assesses the expected environmental impacts resulting from project approval and associated impacts from subsequent implementation of the project, and responds to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR, DEIR). 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR OVERVIEW OF CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION OF AN EIR The City, acting as the lead agency, has prepared this EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. As set forth in the provisions of CEQA and implementing guidelines, public agencies are charged with the duty to consider the environmental impacts of proposed development and to minimize these impacts where feasible, while carrying out an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) states that an EIR is an informational document for decision-makers and the general public that analyzes the significant environmental effects of a project, identifies possible ways to minimize significant effects, and describes reasonable alternatives to the project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. Public agencies with discretionary authority are required to consider the information in the EIR, along with any other relevant information, in making decisions on the project. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term project refers to the whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]). With respect to the proposed, the City has determined that the proposed is a project within the definition of CEQA. BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS OF THE PROJECT The following is an overview of the environmental review process for the General Plan project that has led to the preparation of this Final EIR. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of this EIR on July 13, The City was identified as the lead agency for the proposed project. The NOP was sent to all applicable responsible and trustee agencies and the Office of Planning and Research s State Clearinghouse (SCH Number ). The NOP and full text of responses to the NOP were presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Draft EIR The Draft EIR was released for public and agency review from October 29, 2013, to December 13, The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental March Final Environmental Impact Report

8 1.0 INTRODUCTION setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR was provided to interested public agencies and the public and was made available for review at the City Hall. A Notice of Completion (NOC), along with the required 15 copies of the Draft EIR, was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on October 29, In accordance with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section , the, as the lead agency for the update to the, evaluated a range of alternatives. These included three different land use alternatives. The environmental effects of each of these alternatives were identified and compared with the significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project that had been identified in the environmental issue areas in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR. Final EIR Following the close of the public review period, the City received five comment letters from agencies, interest groups, and the public regarding the Draft EIR. A summary of these written comments is included in Section 2.0, Comments and Responses to Comments on the DEIR, of this Final EIR. Section 2.0 also contains written responses to the comments received as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, including textual revisions as necessary to address the comments. Other minor edits to the Draft EIR are included in Section 3.0, Errata, of this Final EIR. Edits to the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR as a result of responding to comments on the Draft EIR, as well as staff-initiated edits, are shown in strikeout (for deleted text) and underline (for added text) in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this Final EIR. This document and the Draft EIR, as amended herein, constitute the Final EIR. Certification of the Final EIR/Project Consideration The City will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the Final EIR is adequate and complete, the City may certify the Final EIR. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified if it: (1) shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and (2) provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project in contemplation of its environmental consequences. Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City may take action to approve, revise, or reject the proposed. A decision to approve the project would be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections and Public Resources Code Section also requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program describing measures to be adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. 1.2 TYPE OF DOCUMENT The State CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. As discussed further below, a program EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168) is appropriate for land use decision-making at a broad level that contemplates further projectlevel review of subsequent individual development proposals. Project EIRs are appropriate for specific proposed projects that will not require additional site-specific environmental review (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15161). Thus, this document has been prepared as a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section Final Environmental Impact Report March

9 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.3 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project to the greatest extent possible. This EIR should be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with projects in Biggs. Subsequent actions that may be associated with the proposed Update are identified in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. 1.4 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE FINAL EIR This document is organized in the following manner: SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION Section 1.0 provides an overview of the EIR process to date and the required contents for the Final EIR. SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIR Section 2.0 provides a list of commenters, copies of written comments (coded for reference), and the responses to those written comments made on the Draft EIR. SECTION 3.0 ERRATA Section 3.0 consists of minor text changes made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments on the Draft EIR and minor staff edits. March Final Environmental Impact Report

10 1.0 INTRODUCTION This page intentionally left blank Final Environmental Impact Report March

11 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR

12

13 2.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR, FEIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.). The (City) is the lead agency for the environmental review of the General Plan project and has the principal responsibility for approving the project. No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR, DEIR) for the proposed project, were raised during the public review period for the Draft EIR. The City, acting as lead agency, directed that responses to the comments on the Draft EIR be prepared. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section LIST OF COMMENTERS Table lists the individuals and representatives of organizations and agencies that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. TABLE COMMENTERS ON THE EIR Letter Agency or Individual Signatory Date A Butte Local Agency Formation Commission Steve Betts, Deputy Executive Director December 16, 2013 B California Department of Transportation David Van Dyken, Chief, Office of Transportation Planning North December 12, 2013 C California Public Utilities Commission Ken Chiang, PE, Utilities Engineer December 2, 2013 D California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Chris Browder, Deputy Chief, Environmental Protection November 5, 2013 E Governor s Office of Planning and Research Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse December 13, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used: Public agency comments are coded by letters and each issue raised in each comment letter is assigned a number (e.g., comment letter A, comment 1 is referred to as A-1). Where changes to the Draft EIR text result from responding to comments, those changes are included in the response and demarcated with revision marks (underline for new text, strikeout for deleted text). Comment-initiated text revisions to the EIR and minor staff-initiated changes are also provided and are demarcated with revision marks in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR. March Final Environmental Impact Report

14 Final Environmental Impact Report March

15 March Final Environmental Impact Report

16 Final Environmental Impact Report March

17 March Final Environmental Impact Report

18 Final Environmental Impact Report March

19 March Final Environmental Impact Report

20 LETTER A STEVEN BETTS, BUTTE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Response A-1: The commenter discusses LAFCo s interest concerning the Draft EIR. The commenter does not raise any issues with the Draft EIR analysis with this comment. Comment noted. Response A-2: The commenter discusses the Biggs Sphere of Influence (SOI) included in the Draft EIR and explains that LAFCo last comprehensively reviewed the City s SOI in The commenter states that the existing SOI may no longer be an accurate representation of the City s projected growth area and may need to be updated by LAFCo to ensure that any future LAFCo actions are supported by a current and legally defensible SOI. The commenter does not raise any Draft EIR inadequacies with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decisionmakers. Response A-3: The commenter states that because the Draft EIR does not contain an analysis of a Sphere of Influence update, LAFCo may be unable to utilize the EIR for any future update to the City s SOI. As a result, the City may need to amend the EIR or prepare a new EIR for future SOI updates. The Draft EIR analyzes the proposed update. This update does not include an expansion of the existing SOI and therefore the Draft EIR adequately analyzes the project as proposed. The commenter does not raise any Draft EIR inadequacies with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Response A-4: The commenter states that the Biggs Municipal Service Review (MSR) was adopted in The MSR is five years old and therefore could result in erroneous information which was used for analysis in the Draft EIR. The commenter recommends that the City utilize more up-to-date information in the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section defines the timing of the environmental conditions for environmental review. This timing is either based on when a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published or in the case when an NOP was not published, when the environmental analysis commenced. The NOP for the EIR was posted for public review in July of At that time, the 2008 MSR was the most up-to-date document providing analysis of the municipal services in the city. According to the California Department of Finance, as shown in Table of the Draft EIR, the population in Biggs actually decreased between the years 2000 and The ability to provide future municipal services is based on a city s expected population growth. While the 2008 MSR might be considered dated by 2013, because of the decrease in population and lack of city growth, the need to provide additional services has decreased. As such, the service conditions described in the MSR are adequate for analysis purposes in the Draft EIR. Final Environmental Impact Report March

21 Response A-5: The commenter discusses the acreage totals (4,370 acres) identified in the Draft EIR and states that according to LAFCo s GIS information, the actual total is 4,623 acres. The commenter is correct in stating that the acreage total of 4,370 is an incorrect total for the Planning Area. The additional acres are located in fringe areas of the Planning Area and are identified as an Agriculture land use. Upon further analysis, the City determined that the acreage total is approximately 4,628 acres. Both the Draft EIR and the will be revised to match this total. This change in acreage is merely a text change and does not result in any new or additional environmental impacts, as the actual Planning Area identified in Figure LU-2 of the is correct. In Section 2.0 of the DEIR, page 2.0-1, the third sentence in the second paragraph will be revised as follows: The Planning Area established by the proposed encompasses 4,370 4,628 acres, or 6.8 square miles (see Figure 2.0-1). The commenter also states that the planning boundaries identified in Figure LU-1 and LU-2 of the are not consistent with one another. The commenter does not raise any inadequacies pertinent to the Draft EIR with this statement. However, Figure LU-1 will be revised in the General Plan to show the correct Planning Area. Response A-6: The commenter states while discussing Table that the SOI update for the Lake Oroville Area Public Utility District (LOAPUD) has been approved. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this statement. However, Table (assuming the commenter meant to indicate Table 3.0-2, as there is no Table in the Draft EIR) will be revised to state that the LOAPUD Sphere of Influence update has been approved. Response A-7: The commenter states that Section 3.2 should include a map showing all of the existing agricultural uses within the City s existing and proposed Planning Area. Additionally, the Draft EIR should include a map showing farmland types as identified in Table This comment does not raise any inadequacies in the Draft EIR analysis. While the Draft EIR does not include farmland maps, the California Department of Conservation s Butte County Important Farmland Map 2010 was consulted to identify important farmlands in the Planning Area. Additionally, there is only one Williamson Act contract in the Planning Area, which has been in a state of nonrenewal for approximately seven years at the time of this writing. A map showing two properties with Williamson Act contacts is not considered necessary. March Final Environmental Impact Report

22 Response A-8: The commenter states that the City should consider removing the Agricultural designated areas for the City s existing and proposed Planning Area as shown on the commenter s attached map. The commenter does not raise any inadequacies with the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Response A-9: The commenter identifies one Williamson Act contract parcel that was not included in the Draft EIR Williamson Act analysis. This parcel is located on the northwest corner of State Route 99 and South Avenue in the southeastern corner of the Planning Area. This parcel is identified as Agriculture on the land use map. Because the parcel is located in an area surrounded by agricultural land and approximately 1.5 miles from the Biggs city limits, the probability of converting this land to urban uses during the life span of the is considered remote. As such, this additional information regarding Williamson Act contract lands will not change the level of impact resulting from adoption of the. Nonetheless, the following revisions will be made to the Draft EIR. The last paragraph on page will be revised to include this parcel in the Williamson Act discussion as follows: There are no Williamson Act contracts within the existing city limits of Biggs. However, one parcel is under Williamson Act contract currently (2012) in the Biggs Planning Area. The approximately 120-acre parcel is located west of and adjacent to the existing city limits, north of the City wastewater treatment plant and south of Afton Road, and has been in a state of nonrenewal for approximately five years at the time of the writing of this EIR. Typically, a property is required to wait ten years after nonrenewal before further development can occur. Additionally, a second parcel located at the northwest corner of State Route 99 and South Avenue and currently used for an agricultural purpose is also under a Williamson Act contract. The third paragraph on page will be revised as follows: As previously discussed, there are no Williamson Act contracts within the existing city limits of Biggs. However, one parcel under Williamson Act contract currently (2013) is within the Biggs Planning Area. The approximately 120-acre parcel is located east of and adjacent to the existing city limits, north of the City wastewater treatment plant and south of Afton Road, and has been in a state of nonrenewal for approximately seven years at the time of writing of this EIR. Typically, a property is required to wait ten years after nonrenewal before further development can occur. Additionally, a second parcel located at the northwest corner of State Route 99 and South Avenue and currently used for an agricultural purpose is under a Williamson Act contract. Final Environmental Impact Report March

23 The fourth paragraph on page will be revised as follows: While future annexation of current zoned agricultural lands to the city would involve the rezoning of these lands to a nonagricultural use in order to be consistent with the, the nonrenewal of the Williamson Act contract associated with this parcel was instigated prior to the proposal of the. Therefore, the this lands under a Williamson Act contract are is scheduled to be removed from contract with or without the proposed. Further, the second parcel under Williamson Act contract is identified as Agriculture on the land use map. Because the property is located in an area surrounded by agricultural land and approximately 1.5 miles from the Biggs city limits, with no development proposed for the area, the probability of converting this land to urban uses during the life span of the is considered remote. Thus, this impact would be less than significant. Response A-10: The commenter states that the Butte LAFCo definition of Prime Agricultural Land comes directly from California Resources Code Section The commenter does not raise any issues with the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decisionmakers. Response A-11: The commenter identifies Butte LAFCo s policies regarding agriculture and states that these should be noted in the Draft EIR. The commenter states that any future SOI update or amendment request will need to be consistent with LAFCo s policies. This comment does not raise any inadequacies with the Draft EIR and the inclusion of the requested LAFCo policy statements does not change the impact, analysis or determination of impact significance and is incorporated only for the purposes of providing information to document users. The Draft EIR will be revised to include those LAFCo policies listed by the commenter as part of the Regulatory Framework narrative detailing LAFCo policies on agricultural lands. The revision will be added to page following the description of Prime Agricultural lands. The following text shall be added: Additionally, LAFCo has a number of agricultural-related policies that are designed to protect agricultural land. These policies include: Conditions for Approval of Prime Agricultural/Open Space Land Conversion. LAFCo will apply a heightened level of review when considering proposals for changes of organization or reorganization that are likely to result in the conversion of prime agricultural/open space land use to other uses. Only if the Commission finds that the proposal will lead to planned, orderly, and efficient development, will the Commission approve such a conversion. For purposes of this standard, a proposal March Final Environmental Impact Report

24 leads to planned, orderly, and efficient development only if all of the following criteria are met: The land subject to the change of organization or reorganization is contiguous to either lands developed with an urban use or lands within the sphere and designated for urban development. The proposed development of the subject lands is consistent with the Sphere of Influence Plan, including the Municipal Service Review of the affected agency or agencies and the land subject to the change of organization is within the current 10-year Sphere of Influence boundary. The land subject to the change of organization is likely to be developed within five years. In the case of very large developments, annexation should be phased wherever feasible. If the Commission finds phasing infeasible for specific reasons, it may approve annexation if all or a substantial portion of the subject land is likely to develop within a reasonable period of time. Insufficient vacant non-prime or open space land exists within the existing agency boundaries or applicable 10-year Sphere of Influence that is planned and developable for the same general type of use. The proposal will have no significant adverse effect on the physical and economic integrity of other agricultural/open space lands Approved Sphere of Influence Plan Required. The Commission will not make the affirmative findings that the proposed development of the subject lands is consistent with the Sphere of Influence in the absence of an approved Sphere of Influence Plan, containing all of the elements required by item 3.2 below Finding with Respect to Alternative Sites. The Commission will not make the affirmative findings that insufficient vacant non-prime or open space land exists within the Sphere of Influence Plan unless the applicable jurisdiction has identified within its Sphere of Influence all prime agricultural land and open space land ; enacted measures to preserve prime agricultural/open space land identified within its Sphere of Influence for agricultural or open space use; and/or adopted as part of its specific measures to facilitate and encourage in-fill development as an alternative to the development of agricultural/open space lands Determining Impact on Adjacent Agricultural/Open Space Lands. In making the determination whether conversion will adversely impact adjoining prime agricultural or open space lands, LAFCo will consider the following factors: Final Environmental Impact Report March

25 The agricultural/open space significance of the subject and adjacent areas relative to other agricultural/open space lands in the region; The use of the subject and the adjacent areas; Whether public facilities related to the proposal would be sized or situated so as to facilitate the conversion of adjacent or nearby agricultural/open space land, or will be extended through or adjacent to any other agricultural/open space lands which lie between the project site and existing facilities; Whether natural or man-made barriers serve to buffer adjacent or nearby agricultural/open space land from the effects of the proposed development; and Applicable provisions of the County s Agricultural Element, Open Space and Land Use Elements, applicable growthmanagement policies, or other statutory provisions designed to protect agriculture or open space. (Refer to to locate Butte County s.) Comment on Prime Agricultural/Open Space Projects. LAFCo will comment upon, whenever feasible, Notices of Preparation for Environmental Impact Reports or projects which involve the development of large tracts of open space or agricultural land. Response A-12: The commenter mentions Action CR-2.2.5, which prohibits urban growth to the south and west of the city, and asks why there is not a similar line to the north and east. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues relative to the Draft EIR with this comment. However, the commenter is advised that the urban growth lines contained in the Plan were established after considerable discussion and deliberation by the City Council before, during and after multiple public meetings on the topic. As a result of those deliberative efforts, urban growth limits to the north and east were considered to not conform to Biggs future growth needs and were not identified as necessary or desirable by the City Council and area landowners. Response A-13: The commenter states that the use of the word robust in Policy CE-3.4 is very subjective and should be removed to prevent any ambiguities in the application of this policy. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Response A-14: The commenter states that impacts to agricultural resources can be mitigated through various means, including the use of agricultural March Final Environmental Impact Report

26 conservation easements, and provides an example of a policy that required this type of easement. The commenter does not raise any issues with the Draft EIR with this comment. However, in order to further assist in the protection of agricultural land and in an effort to further recognize both the importance and value of agricultural land to the City, the following additional actions have been added to the and to page of the DEIR: Action CR (Agricultural Conversion) Discourage detachment from irrigation and agricultural drainage districts and the discontinuation of irrigation and farming activities until such time as nonagricultural use is imminent. Action CR (Agricultural Conversion) New urban development requiring annexation and occurring in areas previously used for commercial agricultural purposes shall mitigate for the conversation of prime agricultural land and agricultural lands of statewide importance. Mitigation may include in-lieu fees to acquire like agricultural lands or easements or the placement of agricultural easements on similar quality and quantities of land. Participation in regional conservation efforts is encouraged where practical and feasible. Action CR (Agricultural Support and Enhancement Activities) A portion of the City s land conservation and mitigation requirements should include participation in regional agricultural support, education, research, and productivity programs and activities. Action CR (Regional Land Conservation Programs) Where appropriate, the City will encourage the utilization of and participation in local and/or regional land conservation and agricultural mitigation programs to implement the policies of this plan. Response A-15: The commenter discusses Action CR-2.2.4, which states that development requiring annexation to the city should consider the agricultural buffer guidelines established by LAFCo. The commenter states that LAFCo has no such guidelines but will determine the design of the buffer at the time of annexation. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Response A-16: The commenter states that Section of the Draft EIR does not mention the Biggs-Gridley Area of Concern (AOC). The Draft EIR will be revised to include a discussion of the AOC. Narrative text on page will be revised as follows: Final Environmental Impact Report March

27 Butte Local Agency Formation Commission (Butte LAFCo) Butte LAFCo promotes efficient governmental organization and service delivery while protecting agricultural and open space lands, approves changes to local governmental boundaries (incorporations, annexations, etc.), and prepares spheres of influence designating the logical physical boundary and service areas for each city and special district. Under the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000, et seq.), Butte LAFCo is the agency responsible for coordinating, directing, and overseeing logical and timely changes to local governmental boundaries, incorporation of cities, reorganizations, and the formation of special districts. Under state law, Butte LAFCo is charged with ensuring orderly growth by the annexation of land within an adopted SOI; promoting logical and efficient public services for cities and special districts; streamlining governmental structure; and discouraging urban sprawl through the premature conversion of prime agricultural and open space lands to urban uses. Biggs-Gridley Area of Concern (AOC). The Biggs-Gridley AOC lies between the cities of Biggs and Gridley. This +/-2,700-acre area was established by Butte LAFCo in 2004 to facilitate coordinated land use planning between the two cities, the County of Butte, and the affected special districts. Approximately 2,287 acres of the Biggs Planning Area lie within the AOC. The commenter continues and identifies that the Biggs Planning Area overlaps the Gridley Sphere of Influence and the should consider removing the overlapped area from the Planning Area. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Response A-17: The commenter discusses the fire protection and emergency medical services for the area west of the railroad tracks in the Planning Area. The commenter disagrees with the Draft EIR determination of a significant and unavoidable impact resulting from inadequate emergency access to this area. The commenter believes that this impact could be completely avoidable by not allowing any new development west of the railroad tracks. The commenter may be correct in reducing this impact to less than significant by not allowing new development west of the railroad tracks. However, the responsibility of an EIR is to analyze a project as it is proposed, which it does. As a result, the determination was made of a significant and unavoidable emergency access impact to those areas west of the railroad tracks. The only way to mitigate this impact, as the commenter suggested, is not to allow new development in this area. However, this does not meet the objectives of the proposed project. The City discussed many land use alternatives prior to accepting the Preferred Land Use Alternative as shown in Figure LU-2 of the. The Preferred Land Use Alternative depicts the City s desire to expand in this area. Not permitting new March Final Environmental Impact Report

28 development in this area would be inconsistent with the City s desired growth, and as such, the determination of a significant and unavoidable impact as a result of inadequate emergency access is correct and no reasonable and feasible mitigation is available at this time to reduce the impact determination. Response A-18: The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not contain any information on the private ambulance services in the city that are funded through County Service Area (CSA) No. 37 (Gridley-Biggs Ambulance Service District). The commenter states that the Draft EIR should analyze potential impacts to this service. Private ambulance service funded through CSA No. 37 is partially funded through property taxes collected in Biggs and the areas surrounding Biggs. Any future growth in the city would have to occur on lands outside the existing city limits due to the limited supply within the City. This would involve annexation by the City and result in additional required environmental analysis at that time. Because the EIR is a programmatic analysis, determination of impacts is based on the goals, policies, and programs listed in the and their ability to reduce impacts. While private ambulance services were not directly discussed in the Draft EIR, impacts to fire and emergency services were discussed. Impacts to these services were determined to be less than significant. As a result, analysis of potential impacts to private ambulance services is not considered necessary. Response A-19: The commenter states that the data in Table is old and may not reflect an accurate representation of the number of Fire Department emergency incidents. CEQA Guidelines Section defines the timing of the environmental conditions for environmental review. This timing is either based on when a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published or in the case an NOP was not published, when the environmental analysis commenced. The NOP for the EIR was posted for public review in July of At that time, this was the most up-to-date information available regarding fire incidents. This data is provided for informational purposes only, and updated information does not result in a change in environmental significance. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Response A-20: The commenter notes that the Draft EIR states that the City s wastewater treatment facility is in compliance with state wastewater discharge regulations. The commenter continues and identifies that the City wastewater treatment facility exceeded ammonia discharge limits 155 times between 2009 and Further, the commenter states that the City received an Administrative Civil Liability Complaint (R ) on September 6, None of this is mentioned in the Draft EIR. As stated previously, timing of environmental conditions is based on the release of the NOP. The Administrative Civil Liability Complaint (R Final Environmental Impact Report March

29 0577) was received after the NOP release date and as such, is not included in the Draft EIR. The commenter is correct in stating that the wastewater treatment facility exceeded ammonia discharges. However, this does not result in a different impact level of significance, as implementation of the proposed policies and associated actions would ensure that adequate wastewater services would be available, thus reducing wastewater service impacts to a less than significant level. Furthermore, new or expanded wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities needed to serve new development would undergo site-specific, projectlevel CEQA analysis at such time as they are proposed for development and when their design and alignment are known. Therefore, although the wastewater treatment facility has exceeded ammonia discharge limits in recent years, impacts caused by implementation associated with discharge requirements, wastewater conveyance, and treatment facilities would still be considered less than significant. Response A-21: The commenter notes that the Draft EIR does not mention that the City had one sanitary sewer overflow in While this information may be helpful in understanding the status of the wastewater system in the city, the information does not result in greater environmental impacts than those identified in the Draft EIR. Response A-22: The commenter discusses LAFCo s responsibility in the provision of services, impacts to other agencies, and logical growth management based on the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 and LAFCo s own policies. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. March Final Environmental Impact Report

30 Final Environmental Impact Report March

31 March Final Environmental Impact Report

32 Final Environmental Impact Report March

33 LETTER B DAVID R. VAN DYKEN, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Response B-1: The commenter states that Caltrans requested a traffic impact study (TIS) be prepared for the in their response letter to the NOP. The commenter continues and states that it appears a traffic impact study was prepared although it wasn t included in the Draft EIR. Caltrans would like a copy of the TIS in order to determine potential impacts to the State Highway System. A full-scale traffic impact study was not completed for the ; however, a traffic analysis based on existing and cumulative conditions was completed by Fehr & Peers as part of the update process. This analysis was included as Appendix to the Draft EIR. Response B-2: The commenter states that the Draft EIR relies on an outdated SR 99 Transportation Concept Report (TCR) and that a more recent version was completed in The traffic analysis for the proposed was started in the early stages of the update process in 2008, prior to the release of the 2010 TCR. The traffic level of service (LOS) analysis completed for the determined that State Route (SR) 99 would operate at LOS E under cumulative no project conditions. This is consistent with the 2010 TCR Segment 16 LOS for this roadway section. Additionally, the 2010 TCR states that it would not be feasible to re-attain or maintain LOS D for this segment because current funding would not support expanding the segment to four lanes. The includes Policy CIRC-1.4, which would ensure fair-share funding toward roadway impacts. However, the Draft EIR determined there is no guarantee that Caltrans will agree to new funding mechanisms or construct roadway capacity expansion projects to reduce the identified impacts. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. While the Draft EIR uses traffic information for SR 99 based on an earlier TCR, the resultant determination of significant and unavoidable is consistent with the level of service projections provided by Caltrans in the 2010 TCR and consistent with the 2010 TCR determination that it would not be feasible to re-attain or maintain LOS D. Therefore, revising the Draft EIR based on the 2010 TCR is not considered necessary. Response B-3: The commuter states that Caltrans applauds the City s decision to support the collection of fair-share fees for impacts to the state highway system. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision makers. Response B-4: The commenter states that single or small development and rural lot divisions often go through the CEQA process without assessment or collection of mitigation fees and that this type of segmented development has cumulative impacts to the transportation system. The March Final Environmental Impact Report

34 commenter would like confirmation on the City s ability to assess and collect fees for impacts to the state highway system. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. However, as a point of clarification, at this time, the City does not collect roadway impact fees for the state highway system. The roadway impact fee is designated for the city s internal roadway system. Response B-5: The commenter states that Caltrans would like the City to consider revising Policy CIRC-2.1 to include language to clarify that the state highway system should be included in roadway impact studies. Further, the commenter recommends using the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Studies. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Response B-6: The commenter discusses Policy CIRC 1.4 language that states, Caltrans accepts direct fair share costs contributions from developers. The commenter states that while this is technically correct, the commenter clarifies that as a matter of procedure, the local agency collects the prescribed fair share funds and accounts for them until the mitigation measures are implemented. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Response B-7: The commenter disagrees with the Draft EIR direct and cumulative determinations of significant and unavoidable impacts to state highway system facilities. The commenter continues and provides examples of ways to reduce impacts to the highway system. The significant and unavoidable impact determination relative to the state highway system in the Draft EIR impact is based on Policy CIRC-1.4, which requires the collection of fair-share fees to offset impacts to State Route 99. However, there is no guarantee that the actual construction of roadway improvements would be completed. While the examples provided by the commenter would assist in reducing the impacts to the highway system, there is still no guarantee that the roadway improvements would occur. As such, the significant and unavoidable determination is a reasonable outcome. Final Environmental Impact Report March

35 March Final Environmental Impact Report

36 LETTER C KEN CHIANG, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Response C-1: The commenter recommends that the City add language to the General Plan so that any future development adjacent to or near the railroad right-of-way is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. The commenter provides a number of recommendations to protect the rail corridors, including grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade crossing, and continuous vandalresistant fencing. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Final Environmental Impact Report March

37 March Final Environmental Impact Report

38 LETTER D CHRIS BROWDER, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION Response D-1: The commenter states that the proposed did not result in any issues for response by the County Fire Marshal, nor were there any forest practice or forest natural resources issues. The commenter does not raise any adequacy issues in the Draft EIR with this comment. The comment is noted for the consideration of the decision-makers. Final Environmental Impact Report March

39 March Final Environmental Impact Report

40 This page intentioally left blank Final Environmental Impact Report March

41 3.0 ERRATA

42

43 3.0 ERRATA 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section includes minor edits to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR, DEIR). These modifications resulted from responses to comments received during the Draft EIR public review period as well as City staff initiated edits to clarify language and implementation of mitigation measures. Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section Changes are provided in revision marks, with underline for new text and strikeout for deleted text. 3.2 CHANGES AND EDITS TO THE DRAFT EIR 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION On page 2.0-1, the third sentence in the second paragraph is revised as follows: The Planning Area established by the proposed encompasses 4,370 4,628 acres, or 6.8 square miles (see Figure 2.0-1). 3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Table 3.0-2, Large-Scale Development Projects, is revised as follows: Lake Oroville Area Public Utility District Sphere of Influence (SOI) Update The Lake Oroville Area Public Utilities District proposes an update to their existing SOI to add 1,956 parcels totaling approximately 10,643 acres, which represents a doubling of the LOAPUD's current SOI. The SOI addition areas are generally to the west, south, and east of the current LOAPUD SOI and include the proposed Rio D' Specific Plan area along SR 70 south of Oroville, the Power House Hill Road/Lone Tree Road area, the future South Ophir Specific Plan area, the unincorporated community of Palermo and surrounding area, the Miners Ranch Road area, and the Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan area. Proposed Approved 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The last paragraph on page is revised as follows: There are no Williamson Act contracts within the existing city limits of Biggs. However, one parcel is under Williamson Act contract currently (2012) in the Biggs Planning Area. The approximately 120-acre parcel is located west of and adjacent to the existing city limits, north of the City wastewater treatment plant and south of Afton Road, and has been in a state of nonrenewal for approximately five years at the time of writing of this EIR. Typically, a property is required to wait ten years after nonrenewal before further development can occur. Additionally, a second parcel located at the northwest corner of State Route 99 and March Final Environmental Impact Report

44 3.0 ERRATA South Avenue and currently used for agricultural purposes is under a Williamson Act contract. The third paragraph on page is revised as follows: As previously discussed, there are no Williamson Act contracts within the existing city limits of Biggs. However, one parcel under Williamson Act contract currently (2013) is within the Biggs Planning Area. The approximately 120-acre parcel is located east of and adjacent to the existing city limits, north of the City wastewater treatment plant and south of Afton Road, and has been in a state of nonrenewal for approximately seven years at the time of writing of this EIR. Typically, a property is required to wait ten years after nonrenewal before further development can occur. Additionally, a second parcel located at the northwest corner of State Route 99 and South Avenue and currently used for agricultural purposes is under a Williamson Act contract. The fourth paragraph on page is revised as follows: While future annexation of current zoned agricultural lands to the city would involve the rezoning of these lands to a nonagricultural use in order to be consistent with the General Plan, the nonrenewal of the Williamson Act contract associated with this parcel was instigated prior to the proposal of the. Therefore, the this lands under a Williamson Act contract are is scheduled to be removed from contract with or without the proposed. Further, the second parcel under Williamson Act contract is identified as Agriculture on the land use map. Because the property is located in an area surrounded by agricultural land and approximately 1.5 miles from the Biggs city limits, with no development proposed for the area, the probability of converting this land to urban uses during the life span of the is considered remote. Thus, this impact would be less than significant. Information is added to page as follows: 5) Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for three of the previous five calendar years. Additionally, LAFCo has a number of agricultural-related policies that are designed to protect agricultural land. These policies include: Conditions for Approval of Prime Agricultural/Open Space Land Conversion. LAFCO will apply a heightened level of review when considering proposals for changes of organization or reorganization that are likely to result in the conversion of prime agricultural/open space land use to other uses. Only if the Commission finds that the proposal will lead to planned, orderly, and efficient development, will the Commission approve such a conversion. For purposes of this standard, a proposal leads to planned, orderly, and efficient development only if all of the following criteria are met: The land subject to the change of organization or reorganization is contiguous to either lands developed with an urban use or lands within the sphere and designated for urban development. Final Environmental Impact Report March