paradise recreation and park district master plan

Transcription

PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK
DISTRICT MASTER PLAN
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
6626 SKYWAY
PARADISE, CA 95969
PREPARED BY
NOVEMBER 2001
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
FOR THE
MASTER PLAN
BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
6626 SKYWAY
PARADISE, CA 95969
PREPARED BY
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS
140 INDEPENDENCE CIRCLE, SUITE C
CHICO, CA 95973
(530) 894-3469
NOVEMBER 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.0
Aesthetics...................................................................................................................3-2
Agricultural Resources ..............................................................................................3-4
Air Quality ..................................................................................................................3-5
Biological Resources .................................................................................................3-8
Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 3-11
Geology and Soils ................................................................................................... 3-14
Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................... 3-18
Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................ 3-21
Land Use and Planning,.......................................................................................... 3-24
Mineral Resources ................................................................................................... 3-26
Noise......................................................................................................................... 3-27
Population and Housing ......................................................................................... 3-30
Public Services ......................................................................................................... 3-31
Recreation ............................................................................................................... 3-33
Transportation/Circulation...................................................................................... 3-34
Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................... 3-36
Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 3-38
DETERMINATION
4.1
4.2
5.0
Project Summary .......................................................................................................2-1
Project Background ..................................................................................................2-2
Project Characteristics..............................................................................................2-3
Required Project Approvals ................................................................................... 2-11
Assumptions Used in the Environmental Analysis .................................................. 2-11
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
4.0
Introduction and Regulatory Guidance .................................................................1-1
Lead Agency.............................................................................................................1-1
Purpose and Document Organization ....................................................................1-1
Determination............................................................................................................4-1
Mitigation Measures for the Project.........................................................................4-2
REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES
5.1
5.2
5.3
Report Preparation ...................................................................................................5-1
Persons and Agencies Consulted ............................................................................5-1
References.................................................................................................................5-1
Paradise Recreation and Park District
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE NUMBER
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
PAGE
PRPD Facilities.........................................................................................................................2-2
Recommended Repairs and Renovations ..........................................................................2-5
Recommended Facility Development at Existing Parks......................................................2-6
New Park Land Acquisition Recommendations..................................................................2-8
FIGURE NUMBER
2-1
PAGE
PRPD Boundaries and Facilities.............................................................................................2-3
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE
This document is an Initial Study that provides justification for a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) for the Paradise Recreation and Park District Master Plan. This MND has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Section 15000 et seq.
An Initial Study is conducted by a Lead Agency to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an EIR must be
prepared if an Initial Study indicates that the proposed project under review may have a
potentially significant impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration may be prepared
instead, if the Lead Agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons why a
proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore does
not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15070, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to
CEQA when either:
a) The Initial Study shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, or
b) The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1)
(2)
Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the
applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public
review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effects would occur, and
There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the
agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant
effect on the environment.
If revisions are adopted into the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared.
1.2
LEAD AGENCY
The Lead Agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over a proposed project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15051 states that if a project will be carried out by a public agency,
that agency shall be the Lead Agency, even if the project would be located within the
jurisdiction of another public agency. Since the Paradise Recreation and Park District (PRPD)
would implement the Master Plan, PRPD is the Lead Agency for the project for the purposes of
CEQA.
1.3
PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this MND is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
Paradise Recreation and Park District Master Plan. Mitigation measures have also been
provided to reduce or eliminate any identified significant and/or potentially significant impacts.
November 2001
1-1
PRPD Master Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is divided into the following sections:
•
1.0 Introduction - provides an introduction and describes the purpose and organization of
this document.
•
2.0 Project Description - provides a detailed description of the proposed project and the
alternatives considered.
•
3.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures - describes the environmental
setting for each of the environmental subject areas, and evaluates a range of impacts in
response to the environmental checklist. Impacts are classified as "no impact", "less than
significant", "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated", or "potentially significant".
Where appropriate, mitigation measures are provided that mitigate potentially significant
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
•
4.0 Determination - provides the environmental determination for the project.
•
5.0 Report Preparation and References - identifies a list of staff and consultants responsible
for preparation of this document, and persons and agencies consulted. This section also
identifies the references used in preparation of the MND.
November 2001
1-2
PRPD Master Plan
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1
PROJECT SUMMARY
1.
Project Title:
Paradise Recreation and Park District Master Plan
2.
Lead Agency:
3.
Contact Person:
Mike Trinca, District Manager
(530) 872-6393
4.
Project Location:
(see Figure 2-1)
5.
Project Sponsor or Applicant:
6.
General Plan Designation(s):
Various
7.
Zoning:
Various
8.
Project Description:
See Section 2.2.
9.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The Master Plan covers the entire Paradise
Recreation and Park District, which includes the
Town of Paradise, the communities of Magalia,
Paradise Pines, Yankee Hill and others, and
unincorporated areas containing rural residences
and forest lands.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
None for the Master Plan. Specific projects may require approval from other agencies.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Transportation/Traffic
Population and Housing
Biological Resources
Geology and Soils
Mineral Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Air Quality
Noise
Mandatory Findings of Significance
November 2001
2-1
Public Services
Utilities/Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Agricultural Resources
PRPD Master Plan
2.2
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Paradise Recreation and Park District (PRPD) was incorporated as an independent special
district in 1948. The PRPD encompasses approximately 169 square miles in northeastern Butte
County (Figure 2-1). It provides parks and recreation programs to approximately 43,000 people,
including residents of the Town of Paradise, the communities of Magalia and Paradise Pines, the
Concow area and Butte Creek Canyon.
PRPD currently manages approximately 431 acres of park and recreation land, of which
approximately 73.5 acres are developed. PRPD has nine recreational facilities, which are listed
in Table 2-1. In addition, PRPD operates joint use facilities with the Paradise Unified School District
at Paradise High School and Mountain Ridge Middle School. Shared facilities include four
lighted tennis courts, one lighted softball field and one gymnasium.
TABLE 2-1
PRPD FACILITIES
Facility
Acres
Terry Ashe Recreation Center
3.5
Improved
Acres
3.5
Date
Acquired
Leased
Aquatic Park and Pool
6.0
6.0
1958
Bille Park
55.0
15.0
1961
Moore Road Ballpark and Horse
Arena
Coutolenc Park
Crain Memorial Park
Oak Creek Natural Area
Drendle Circle
Paradise Memorial Park
19.0
10.0
1966
320.0
8.0
17.0
0.5
2.0
20.0
0.0
17.0
0.0
2.0
1965
1956
1974
1980
1949
Features
Community center, lighted
basketball court, recreation rooms
Swimming pool, fishing pond, picnic
tables and areas, volleyball court
Picnic tables and areas, horseshoe
pits, trail, nature area
Baseball diamonds, horse arena,
ropes course
Nature area, trail
Creek, picnic tables, backstop
Nature area
Undeveloped
Picnic tables, trail
In addition to park space, the PRPD offers a wide variety of recreation and life enrichment
programs. Program guides are published three times each year and feature a rotating choice
of seasonal activities, individual and group sports, sports leagues and tournaments, and classes
for all age groups. Program choices are targeted for preschool, youth, teens, adults, seniors and
families. Some of the most popular include softball, basketball, aquatics, preschool programs
and seasonal family events. In 2000, PRPD provided 57,084 people with access to facilities or
programs (PRPD, 2001).
November 2001
2-2
PRPD Master Plan
Figure 2-1
N
PRPD Boundaries and Facilities
0
2
4
SCALE IN MILES
way
Sky
Magalia
32
'
,
Coutolenc Park
Magalia
Reservoir
'
,
70
Sk
y
wa
y
Mountain Ridge
Middle School
Moore Road Park
Crain
Bille Park
Concow Memorial
Paradise Reservoir
Park
Terry Ashe Recreation Center Paradise High School
Oak Creek Park
Aquatic Park Drendle Circle
Bu
tte
Clark
Cr
ee
k
Paradise Memorial Park
Chico
Lime Saddle
Recreation Area
Lake Oroville
2.3
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
PURPOSE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN
The PRPD Master Plan provides an overview of PRPD’s existing resources, assesses how well PRPD
is currently meeting its responsibility to meet the recreational needs of the people it serves, and
provides guidance to PRPD operations over the next fifteen years (2002-2016). The Master Plan
provides information that will help establish current priorities for staffing and funding, and it
determines the funding and support that will be required to meet future needs. It also attempts
to predict the future service and resource needs of the community. Such predictions are
subject to change for a variety of reasons; thus, PRPD will periodically review the Master Plan to
determine if guidelines and priorities need to be adjusted. Since the Master Plan is specifically
intended to address PRPD’s need for strategic planning, it does not focus on the detailed design
November 2001
2-3
PRPD Master Plan
of individual parks or programs.
activities.
These concerns will be addressed in separate planning
The Master Plan was developed by combining input from the community and from PRPD staff,
with analyses of data from a variety of sources. The planning process consisted of several
phases:
•
•
•
•
•
An inventory of existing parks and facilities.
Information on people served by PRPD, including a survey and a community meeting.
Establishment of acquisition and development standards for acreage, facilities and
service areas, based upon the above information and national and regional guidelines.
An estimate of costs for proposed acquisition, development and renovation projects.
Compilation of a prioritized summary of recommendations, with suggestions for
acquisition, development, renovations, programs, and PRPD planning and
administration.
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
The PRPD Master Plan provides the following recommendations that are focused on meeting the
recreation needs of PRPD residents over the next fifteen years (2002-2016).
Repairs and Renovations to Existing Facilities
Taking care of the facilities PRPD already owns and operates is considered a high priority. A
variety of repairs and renovations are needed at existing parks of regular use. Table 2-2 lists
recommended repairs and renovations. Renovations typically represent upgrades that are less
expensive in the long run than trying to maintain outdated facilities. The highest priority repairs
and renovations should be implemented in the short term – within three years. The relative
priority of the remaining repairs and renovations should be evaluated annually.
Facility Development at Existing Parks
PRPD staff has identified a number of facility improvements and additional development
opportunities at existing parks and joint-use facilities. Table 2-3 lists these recommended
developments. The most important are recommended for short-term implementation (within
three years). An annual review process for facility development, similar to that recommended
for repairs and renovations, should be undertaken by PRPD, including updates to prioritization
and cost estimates. One short-term priority project – the gymnasium at Paradise Intermediate
School – will likely not be constructed within three years, as the Paradise Unified School District
was unable to provide its share of the funding for its construction (Warner, 2001). However, for
the purposes of this analysis, this project will be treated as a long-term project.
New Facility Development
Based upon the input from PRPD residents, population projections and the number of existing
facilities, there are a variety of additional facilities that PRPD needs to develop in order to meet
the anticipated demand for recreational resources over the next fifteen years. The priority is for
new gymnasiums, indoor basketball and volleyball courts, lighted baseball fields, soccer fields
and multi-use fields. Additional facilities for community centers, group picnic areas, a swimming
pool and a skateboard park are the next level of priority.
November 2001
2-4
PRPD Master Plan
TABLE 2-2
RECOMMENDED REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS
Facility
Short-term
Refurbish basketball slab
Replace floor tiles
Retaining wall - NE parking lot
Parking lots - slurry coat and repairs
Repair concrete walks
Remodel office
Storage building
Replace outdoor overhead electrical wires
Retaining wall on Skyway
Paint exterior/interior
Replace playground equipment
Revamp irrigation system
Replace windows
Remodel kitchen
Electrical system upgrade (inside)
Replace doors/jambs
Replace cooling/heating system
Security system
New roof - metal
Aquatic Park & Pool
Replace concrete slab
Storage for pool equipment
Enclosure for filter pump area
Seal and repair lower parking lot
New roof for recreation building
New fence around swimming pool
East side turf renovation
Upgrade chemical system
Upgrade electrical system
Recreation building repair
Vacuum system upgrade
Bille Park
Trail development
Parking lot improvement
Play area equipment
Drainage and Fibar for playground area
Moore Road Ballpark and Horse Arena
Resurface Moore Rd. (widen)
Resurface parking area
Plant shade trees in planters
Restroom roof
New parking area
Turf renovation (both fields)
Paradise High School (Joint-use Facilities)
Resurface tennis courts
Field improvements
Lighted softball field ADA access
TOTAL
Source: PRPD, 2001 – Cost Estimates are in 2001 dollars.
November 2001
2-5
Long-term
$ 37,000
$ 28,000
$ 18,000
$ 42,000
$ 14,000
$ 12,000
$ 7,000
$ 15,000
$ 12,000
$ 15,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$7,500
$10,000
$247,500
$ 4,500
$ 12,000
$ 15,000
$ 10,000
$ 35,000
$ 15,000
$ 7,500
$ 7,500
$ 15,000
$ 5,000
$
$
$
$
5,100
6,000
3,000
8,500
$ 4,000
$ 15,000
$ 7,500
$ 7,500
$ 2,500
$ 10,000
$ 90,000
$ 30,000
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$
8,000
$ 20,000
$ 10,000
$ 5,000
$362,600
PRPD Master Plan
TABLE 2-3
RECOMMENDED FACILITY DEVELOPMENT AT EXISTING PARKS
Facility
Short-term
Computer hardware/software
Copier
Curtains/blinds for Room A/B
Aquatic Park & Pool
Pool cover
Long-term
$
$
5,000
7,500
$
3,000
$
8,500
Slide for pool
$ 10,000
Trash recptacles
Picnic tables (10)
$
$
Bille Park
12 acre expansion (gazebo, restrooms,
outdoor kitchen, barbeques, access road)
Develop a well and assess irrigation feasibility
$ 200,000
5,000
1,000
$ 150,000
$
25,500
Moore Road Ballpark and Horse Arena
New parking lot near horse arena w/lights
Extend outfield fence (both fields)
New shop building
$
$
$
10,000
10,000
10,000
Crain Memorial Park
Fence and gate field area
$
8,000
Paradise Intermediate School (Joint-use Facilities)
Multi-purpose/Gym Facility
TOTAL
Source: PRPD, 2001 – Cost estimates are in 2001 dollars.
$ 500,000
$ 700,000
$ 253,500
Development of some of these facilities may take place at existing park sites as space permits,
or at new park sites to be acquired in the future. Alternatively, PRPD may pursue joint-use
agreements with the Paradise Unified School District, the Town of Paradise, the Golden Feather
Union Elementary School District, or private providers of recreation facilities to develop some of
these facilities.
Gymnasiums
PRPD currently needs two additional gymnasiums or large multi-purpose facilities and a third will
be needed within fifteen years. One of the gymnasiums should be built at the Paradise
Intermediate School, as indicated in Table 2-3. Because gymnasiums are very expensive
($500,000 to $2,000,000), the location of the other two should be determined based on joint-use
opportunities with existing or proposed schools.
Indoor Basketball and Volleyball Courts
PRPD currently needs two additional indoor basketball courts and volleyball courts, and one
more of each over the next fifteen years. If the multi-purpose/gymnasium facility is built at the
Paradise Intermediate School, some of these facilities will be incorporated into its design. The
multi-purpose/gymnasium building should be arranged to allow at least one of the basketball
courts to be full-sized for adult league play.
November 2001
2-6
PRPD Master Plan
Sports Fields
PRPD currently needs one new lighted baseball field, four new soccer fields, and three multi-use
fields. In another fifteen years, one additional lighted baseball field, one soccer and two multiuse fields may be needed. Two soccer fields and two multi-use fields should be developed in
the Town of Paradise as a Youth Sports Complex, on a minimum of five acres of new property.
The lighted baseball field should be built under a joint-use agreement, possibly at Paradise High
School, because of the high cost of development and operations. The other multi-use field and
soccer fields could be developed at Bille Park, Coutolenc Park, Moore Road Park, Crain
Memorial Park, or at new park sites in the Paradise Ridge area.
Community Centers
At least one new community center is needed to serve PRPD’s current population, and another
is likely to be needed within fifteen years. The most pressing need for a new community center is
in the Magalia area, due to the concentration of population and the lack of comparable
facilities. At a minimum, the Magalia area community center should have a large multi-purpose
room, several smaller classrooms, a kitchen, restrooms, a locker room and parking. PRPD will also
need to acquire acreage in the lower Magalia area for development of the community center.
Depending on the availability of land, it is suggested that an effort be made to acquire enough
property (8 to 10 acres minimum) to allow room for sport fields and a playground in conjunction
with the community center. The location of the other community center should be evaluated in
five to seven years, based upon demand and access considerations.
Group Picnic Areas
There are already three group picnic areas at PRPD parks. Group picnic facilities typically
provide ten or more tables, a covered area, a food preparation area with running water,
barbecues and restrooms. Two more of these facilities are needed to meet the current need,
with still another projected for the next fifteen years. The expansion at Bille Park, already
approved by PRPD, will provide one new group picnic facility. Additional group picnic facilities
should be developed especially in the Magalia area. A group picnic facility in Magalia could
be developed in concert with a new community center, if property is available. If not, a
separate park site should be acquired that would include group picnic facilities along with other
amenities. Additional facilities should also be considered at Coutolenc Park.
Swimming Pool
PRPD residents currently have access to pools at Aquatic Park and Concow School. The
Concow School pool is not a PRPD facility, and is only open to the public from mid-June through
late August for afternoon use on Tuesdays to Saturdays. Due to these limitations, an additional
aquatic facility is needed, particularly in the Magalia area. Two types of aquatic facilities should
be considered. A 25-meter x 25-yard competition pool with shaded seating, rest rooms, locker
rooms, showers, concession area and parking would support high school and college level
meets and water polo. A recreation pool, consisting of a play structure and a water slide
connected by wading and play areas, with supporting amenities, costs about one-third to onefourth the cost of a competition pool. Recreation pools also attract nearly three times as many
visitors and can typically charge higher fees for use. If a competition pool is desired, it should be
built under a joint-use agreement with the schools and used for team practices and meets. A
recreation pool could potentially be developed and operated in a cooperative arrangement
with a private commercial recreation provider.
November 2001
2-7
PRPD Master Plan
Playgrounds
Three additional playgrounds should be added now to the four already located in PRPD parks,
and another three over the next fifteen years. A playground is needed at Crain Memorial Park,
and the proposed community center facility and park in Magalia should also include
playgrounds. The location of the remaining three playgrounds should be determined in five to
seven years, depending on where anticipated development occurs. If new parks are planned
for Butte Creek Canyon, Yankee Hill or Forest Ranch, they should include playgrounds.
Skate Park
Most communities are experiencing a continuing demand for skate parks as a recreation
resource for youth and teens. In the Town of Paradise, volunteers built a skate park called
Skaters’ Paradise that was closed in early 2001 due to design and liability issues. The park was
reopened in the fall of 2001 after it was repaired and remodeled by volunteer help to again
meet insurance requirements. Insurance coverage is provided under the Town of Paradise
liability policy.
PRPD needs to work with the skate park volunteers and the Town of Paradise to find ways to
provide this type of recreational opportunity that would help spread the costs of development
and operation, and the liability with appropriate partners. For example, other communities have
developed skate parks by leasing land to a private skate park developer and operator. Any
facility developed by PRPD or in cooperation with other entities must meet the recognized
industry standards for design and safety. If the PRPD determines that a new skate park should
be constructed, it is recommended that the new park be modest and designed for future
expansion as warranted by demand and resources. The best location for a skate park would be
in the Town of Paradise, in order to serve the greatest number of youth and teens.
ACQUISITION
PRPD currently owns over 400 acres of property, but it is not necessarily located in the best
places to serve the existing and anticipated population of the district. There are several areas
where additional land needs to be acquired, either for current park development or in
anticipation of future needs. The location and estimated acres needed are shown in Table 2-4.
TABLE 2-4
NEW PARK LAND ACQUISITION RECOMMENDATIONS
Estimated
Acreage
Location
Magalia park and community center site
Site for Youth Sports Complex (Town of Paradise)
Town of Paradise park (southeast section)
Site for swimming pool (Magalia)
Butte Creek Canyon land
Crain Memorial site for play area and parking
TOTAL:
Estimated Cost
10 - 15
$ 500,000
5
$ 125,000
3-5
$150,000
3
$ 100,000
2-5
$ 10,000
3
$ 10,000
$ 895,000
Source: PRPD, 2001.
November 2001
2-8
PRPD Master Plan
PRPD should also consider acquisition of additional land in the Yankee Hill and Forest Ranch
areas, in case future population growth demands new parks in these locations. Acquisition of
three to five acres in each of these areas is recommended.
TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS
PRPD will continue to support the Town of Paradise and Butte County in implementation of their
bikeway master plans. When feasible, the District will seek appropriate land for new park
development near existing or proposed bikeways and trails, so that park facilities such as
restrooms and picnic areas will complement the recreational use of the bikeways and trails.
PRPD will also continue to develop trails within parks to provide facilities for walkers and joggers.
Limited use of these park trails will also be available to dirt bikes or skateboards, depending on
the trail surface and pedestrian safety. Signage will identify allowed uses.
RECREATION PROGRAMS
Although PRPD provides a wide variety of recreation and life enrichment programs for all age
groups, there are several program areas that need to be expanded or emphasized in order to
meet the current and projected needs of the community. Adding more programs to PRPD’s
current offerings is constrained by operational costs and access to facilities. Nevertheless, the
Master Plan has identified the following programs for special consideration:
•
•
•
•
•
Softball, basketball and aquatics
Preschool programs
After-school programs for elementary and middle schools
Teen Advisory Council, to provide a mechanism for teens to participate in program,
event and facility planning.
Mature adult programs
DISTRICT OPERATIONS
The Paradise Recreation and Park District currently employs eight staff to handle all aspects of
District administration and operations including program development and management. The
full-time staff positions include the District Manager, three Recreation Supervisors, and two
administrative support staff. Two other administrative support staff are part-time. An additional
administrative staff position, Recreation Services Coordinator, is needed to enhance existing
program coordination and facilitate implementation of the various program recommendations
outlined in this Master Plan. This position would have direct responsibility for a portion of the
PRPD’s programs and related facilities, oversee short-term and long-term program planning in all
service areas, and provide supervision of existing recreation staff.
Park maintenance is handled by the equivalent of eleven full time staff, including the Park
Supervisor and fourteen full-time and part-time maintenance workers. The current level of
maintenance staffing is not adequate to care for all of the developed and natural areas under
District ownership. Care of the natural areas has been especially inconsistent because priority is
given to keeping developed parks attractive, functional and safe. In order to determine the
number of additional maintenance staff required, PRPD first would need to develop a Natural
Areas Maintenance Plan. The goal of this plan is to determine which park areas are to remain as
natural areas, and to define the appropriate maintenance practices for the particular
circumstances of each area. Once a Natural Areas Maintenance plan is completed, current
maintenance staffing levels can be reviewed for all PRPD properties to determine the number
November 2001
2-9
PRPD Master Plan
and type of additional positions needed. The review of staffing levels should also project
anticipated new park or facility development associated with implementation of this Master
Plan and its maintenance impact.
Most of PRPD’s administrative functions are carried out in offices at the Terry Ashe Recreation
Center. At present, the District has about 970 square feet of space spread throughout the
Center. This space does not include a conference room, staff restrooms, a workroom or a staff
room. Additional space is needed to support existing administrative staff as well as future
additional staff. Due to slope and property line constraints, any expansion of the District offices
would result in the loss of space currently used for recreation programs or outdoor facilities.
Butte County has proposed giving PRPD the Veterans’ Memorial Hall and the property on which
the Terry Ashe Recreation Center is located, if the District would assume operation and
maintenance responsibilities. Pending improvements to the Veterans’ Memorial Hall, this
arrangement would allow the District to shift some programs from the Recreation Center to the
Veteran’s Memorial Hall and enable expansion of District offices. The estimated cost of
renovating the Veterans Memorial Hall is approximately $500,000, and provides for
improvements such as new roofing, electrical wiring, windows and accessibility. The estimated
cost of expanding the District offices is $400,000. Ongoing maintenance of the facilities will also
be significant. While these are major expenditures, they are much less than the cost to acquire
comparable property and develop new facilities. PRPD is currently negotiating an appropriate
agreement with Butte County and other interested parties to possibly facilitate this transfer of
property.
Improvements to the District Maintenance Shop are needed to make the facility more efficient
and functional. These improvements include a new septic system, a storage unit, and a
covered structure for yard equipment. These improvements may be implemented in phases
over five years. Also, PRPD owns nine vehicles used for maintenance and operations of park
facilities. It is anticipated that all these vehicles will need to be replaced during the next ten
years. PRPD also needs a mobile concession stand trailer that can be used at special events,
and a maintenance trailer to haul materials to and from job sites.
PLANNING
The PRPD Master Plan mentions plans and policies that address several long-term planning
considerations and provide PRPD with strategic direction. As previously mentioned, one of these
plans is a Natural Areas Maintenance Plan, which would include a policy on nature preserves.
PRPD proposes to designate the Oak Creek Nature Area as a nature preserve, which would limit
the recreational uses at that facility. Other PRPD properties may be reviewed for a similar
designation.
Another plan is the Coutolenc Park Master Plan. This plan is needed in order to specify what
future improvements will be implemented at this park, the priority of these improvements, costs
and locations. This plan should be coordinated with the Natural Areas Maintenance Plan, to
determine which portions of Coutolenc Park should be nature areas, and whether any preserves
should be designated.
There are several recommendations in the Master Plan that call for the acquisition of additional
parkland, either in anticipation of future development or to meet existing needs. PRPD needs to
develop a long-range acquisition plan that identifies preferred locations as specifically as
possible. Early identification of preferred areas will make it possible for PRPD to begin discussions
with key property owners, and will give PRPD more flexibility as to which sites are ultimately
November 2001
2-10
PRPD Master Plan
selected. The acquisition plan will also identify areas where future acquisition may be
problematic or impractical.
2.4
REQUIRED PROJECT APPROVALS
Since the Paradise Recreation and Park District is an independent special district, the Master
Plan can be approved by the PRPD Board of Directors, with no other agency approvals
necessary. However, individual projects may require approvals from other agencies, depending
on their location and potential environmental effects. These individual projects would be
evaluated in separate planning and environmental review processes, and are not evaluated in
this analysis. This analysis provides a program-level evaluation of potential environmental
impacts only.
2.5
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the PRPD Master Plan, it is assumed that the
projects proposed in the Master Plan are those contained in the Draft Master Plan prepared by
Foothill Associates. Any significant changes to the Master Plan as depicted within the draft
document may significantly alter the conclusions of the analysis concerning environmental
impacts, and may require further study of potential impacts.
Although it is mentioned in the Master Plan, this analysis does not include an evaluation of the
potential impacts of the proposed Bille Park expansion. A separate environmental review had
previously been conducted for this project, and the resulting Mitigated Negative Declaration
was certified by the PRPD Board of Directors on June 14, 2001. Therefore, no further review of this
project is necessary.
November 2001
2-11
PRPD Master Plan
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This Initial Study is a public document to be used by the Paradise Recreation and Park District,
designated the Lead Agency for CEQA purposes, to determine whether the project may have
a significant effect on the environment. If the Lead Agency finds substantial evidence that any
aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may have a significant effect on the
environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the
Lead Agency is required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), use a previously
prepared EIR and add a supplement, or prepare a subsequent EIR to analyze the project at
hand. If the Lead Agency finds no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects
may cause a significant impact on the environment, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared.
If, in the course of the analysis, it is recognized that the project may have significant impacts on
the environment, but these impacts can be reduced to a level that is less than significant with
specific mitigation measures, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared.
This Section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project, followed by the CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance. There are 16 specific
environmental issues evaluated in this Section. The issues evaluated satisfy CEQA requirements.
The environmental issues evaluated in this chapter consist of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
For each issue, one of four conclusions is made:
•
No Impact: No project-related impact to the environment would occur with project
development.
•
Less Than Significant Impact: The impact would not result in a substantial and adverse
change in the environment. This impact level does not require mitigation measures.
•
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that is "potentially
significant" as described below; however, the incorporation of mitigation measures
would reduce the project-related impact to a less-than-significant level.
•
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that may have a "substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected
by the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382); however, the occurrence of the
impact cannot be immediately determined with certainty.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.1
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect 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?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is located in northeastern Butte County, within a region that is predominantly hilly
and interspersed with canyons. Most of the area within PRPD boundaries is covered with
forests. The West Branch of the Feather River and Butte Creek flow through the project site
within canyons, with the Butte Creek Canyon being a particularly scenic landmark.
Communities located within the PRPD, including the Town of Paradise, contain a mix of urban
and forested area. The area within the PRPD is considered to have high scenic value.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a)
No Impact. Projects proposed as part of the Master Plan are not expected to obstruct or
otherwise alter any scenic vistas.
b)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Most of the projects proposed in the
Master Plan would have no impact on scenic resources. However, the Master Plan does
propose the construction of larger recreational facilities, such as community centers and
swimming pools, for which land may have to be acquired. If the land used for these
facilities contain trees, some trees may be removed as a result of project construction.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.1.1 is recommended:
MM 3.1.1
Whenever feasible, project construction shall avoid removal of existing
mature trees on the project site. If removal of mature trees is necessary,
trees shall be replanted at a minimum ratio of two trees replanted for
every one tree removed. Onsite mitigation is preferred, but trees can be
replanted offsite if onsite mitigation is not feasible. PRPD shall monitor the
progress of the replanted trees for a period of three years and replace
replanted trees that are not viable. Trees that are removed as part of
normal fuel load and forest management practices shall not included in
this mitigation requirement.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-2
Implementation of the mitigation measure would compensate for the loss of trees due to
project construction and ensure the viability of replanted trees. Impacts after mitigation
would be less than significant.
c)
Less Than Significant. The Master Plan proposes further development of some existing park
areas that are currently undeveloped. It also proposes the acquisition of more land for
development of recreational facilities. Although some of these projects might have
impacts on specific scenic resources, they are not expected to significantly alter the
overall scenic character of the PRPD area, which is a mix of urban and forested lands.
Most of the projects in the Master Plan would have no impact on scenic character.
d)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Among the projects proposed in the
Master Plan are lighted sports fields. If the fields are located near residential areas, light
from the fields could disturb nearby residents. Also, some of the structures proposed in the
Master Plan could use reflective materials that would produce glare. Therefore, the
following mitigation measures are recommended:
MM 3.1.2
All outdoor lighting fixtures, including those used to illuminate sports fields
and parking lots, shall be shielded or constructed so that light rays
emitted by the fixture are focused on the surface to be illuminated.
MM 3.1.3
Lighting on the project site shall not indirectly illuminate adjacent
residences at a level greater than one foot-candle in intensity when
measured from the portion of the residence facing the project site. If
indirect illumination at a residence is greater than one foot-candle, PRPD
shall ascertain the cause of the indirect illumination and, if necessary,
implement appropriate measures to reduce such illumination.
MM 3.1.4
Reflective materials, including reflective windows, shall be limited to areas
of facilities and building surfaces such that glare from the reflective
materials does not unduly impact adjacent residences.
Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the amount of light and glare
that would be potentially produced by projects. Impacts after mitigation would be less
than significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Some of the projects in the Master Plan may have significant impacts on trees and could result
in light and glare impacts. However, incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce such
impacts to a less than significant level. No other significant aesthetic impacts were identified.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-3
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.2
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Because of the hilly terrain and the lack of suitable soils, there is very limited agricultural activity
in the PRPD. The most significant agricultural farmland in the area are the Noble Orchard
apple orchards and the Heinke grape vineyards, both in the Town of Paradise.
a)
No Impact. None of the projects proposed in the Master Plan would affect existing
agricultural operations.
b)
No Impact. None of the projects proposed in the Master Plan would affect existing
agricultural operations. Therefore, the project would be consistent with existing agricultural
zoning. There are no known lands within PRPD boundaries under Williamson Act contracts.
c)
No Impact. None of the projects proposed in the Master Plan are located in or near
existing agricultural lands.
CONCLUSIONS
The Master Plan would have no impact on agricultural resources.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-4
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.3
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is in non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
PRPD, along with the rest of Butte County, is located in the Northern Sacramento Valley Air
Basin (NSVAB), which also includes Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter and Yuba Counties.
Butte County has been designated a nonattainment area for both Federal and State
standards for ozone. The County is also designated a nonattainment area for State particulate
matter (PM10) standards. Butte County is designated as an attainment or unclassified (data
insufficient to support any designation) area for State standards for other pollutants, such as
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide and visibility reducing
particles. The County is designated as attainment or unclassified for all other Federal air
pollutant standards.
Under the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several air pollutants, referred
to as "criteria pollutants." The six criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), PM10,
nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead. The specific standards are based on
medical evidence that indicates that exposure to certain air pollutants is harmful to public
health. The ambient standards are two-tiered. Primary standards are designed to protect
public health, while secondary standards are designed to protect the environment (e.g.,
damage to vegetation or property). In 1998, the EPA issued new standards for ozone and for
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In May 1999, the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the application of the Clean Air Act, in setting the
new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter, was unconstitutional. On
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-5
appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2001 ruled that the development of the new
standards was constitutional, but also rejected the EPA's policy for implementing the new rules.
The EPA has not implemented the new standards as it reviews its policies.
In 1988, California passed the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). Like its federal counterpart, the
CCAA establishes ambient air quality standards. The state standards differ from the federal
standards in two ways: (1) the state standards are more stringent; and (2) the state list of criteria
pollutants includes sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing
particles. As with federal standards, California standards are keyed to certain averaging
periods. The CARB is responsible for establishing the air quality standards. CARB also regulates
mobile emission sources and oversees the activities of the air pollution control districts (APCDs)
and the air quality management districts (AQMDs).
Within Butte County, the air quality regulating authority is the Butte County Air Quality
Management District (BCAQMD). The BCAQMD monitors air quality at several sites throughout
the county, and it serves as the lead agency responsible for implementing and enforcing
federal, state and county air quality regulations. Principal air pollution sources in the County
include seasonal burning of rice fields and dust from agricultural operations. Within the PRPD
boundaries, principal air pollution sources include seasonal burning of yard waste and smoke
from wood stoves and fireplaces. Also, smoke from nearby wildfires occasionally contributes to
air quality problems.
a)
No Impact. In 2000, an updated Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) was prepared for the
NSVAB. The plan proposes rules and regulations that would limit the amount of emissions of
ozone. The projects proposed in the Master Plan would not make any significant
contribution to ozone emissions in the area. Therefore, the Master Plan would be
consistent with the provisions of the AQAP.
b)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Construction work associated with
some of the projects in the Master Plan may include grading, fill, demolition and repaving.
These activities would generate dust. The County is currently in nonattainment status for
PM10, which includes dust. Although construction impacts are temporary and would
cease once construction is completed, they nevertheless would have a potentially
significant impact on air quality while such activities occur. For this impact, Mitigation
Measure 3.3.1 shall be implemented.
MM 3.3.1
The following measures shall be implemented during the construction
phase of individual projects:
§
§
Grading and excavation activities shall be suspended if wind
conditions at the construction site exceed 20 mph and would create
dust emission problems. Also, such activities will be suspended if
BCAQMD determines that wind conditions would create dust emission
problems.
Trucks hauling dirt, sand, gravel, soil or other loose material shall be
covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard, in
accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code
Section 23114. This provision shall be enforced by the appropriate
law enforcement agency.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-6
§
§
§
Construction sites with exposed soils shall be watered to keep dust
movement at a minimum. Dust that is tracked off the construction
site onto public roadways or is wind-blown offsite may be deemed a
nuisance by BCAQMD and subject to enforcement action. As an
alternative to watering, soil stabilizers or palliatives may be used.
Prior to final occupancy, all disturbed soil areas except those areas
that are to remain permanently exposed, such as baseball infields,
shall be repaved, planted or otherwise treated to prevent potential
erosion and dust.
If visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public paved roads,
such roads shall be swept at the end of the day. A water sweeper
with reclaimed water is recommended.
Except where otherwise noted, the BCAQMD shall ensure compliance
with the mitigation measure.
Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce dust emissions from construction
activities to a level that is less than significant.
c)
Less Than Significant. Most of the projects in the Master Plan involve the construction
and/or maintenance of park and recreational facilities. These facilities would generate an
insignificant amount of criteria pollutants. A few projects include parking improvements,
which may lead to an increase in traffic volumes and their associated emissions. However,
increases in traffic volumes are generally a result of an increase in population, which would
occur independently of the projects set forth in the Master Plan. Moreover, by providing
additional recreational opportunities within the PRPD, overall trip lengths required to
access particular recreational activities could be reduced.
d)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Master Plan proposes new
construction of or improvements to park facilities. Construction associated with these
activities would generate dust. If these activities are located near residential areas, nearby
residents could be exposed to dust. However, with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.3.1, potential impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
e)
Less Than Significant. The construction equipment used for projects in the Master Plan may
generate odors, principally from exhaust fumes. However, such odors are easily dissipated
and would cease to be generated once construction work is completed. Therefore, odors
from construction would not have any significant impacts. Completed projects are not
expected to emit any significant odors.
CONCLUSIONS
Projects proposed in the Master Plan would have mainly temporary air quality impacts,
originating from construction work. Potentially significant impacts from construction work can
be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. The Master Plan would have no other
significant impacts on air quality.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.4
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.),
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
The PRPD area contains a variety of vegetation communities. However, the predominant
community is evergreen forest. At the lower elevations, pine trees are mixed with varieties of
oak. In the higher elevations, ponderosa pine is the dominant tree species. Riparian
vegetation, which includes trees such as cottonwood and willow, are found along many of the
streams in the PRPD area. Landscaped vegetation and non-native grasslands are found in the
more developed areas.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-8
A biological survey conducted for the Town of Paradise identified several special-status species
within the PRPD area. Special-status species include those listed on state and/or federal
endangered species lists, those receiving special state and/or federal protection, and those
considered "species of concern" by state and/or federal agencies. Identified special-status
species included six plants: Butte County checkerbloom, white-stemmed clarkia, Jepson's
onion, Butte County fritillary, Red Bluff dwarf rush and California beaked rush. In addition, Little
Butte Creek was identified as habitat for the spring-run Chinook salmon, a candidate species
for listing (Town of Paradise, 1999).
a)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As previously described, specialstatus species have been identified as occurring within portions of the PRPD area. New
facilities proposed in the Master Plan could potentially encroach upon the habitat of these
species, depending upon the location of these projects. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
3.4.1 is recommended:
MM 3.4.1
Prior to approval of the final site plan of a new facility, a survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any special-status
species or sensitive communities exist on the proposed project site. If
special-status species or sensitive communities are found on the project
site, PRPD shall implement all feasible mitigation measures recommended
by the biologist or other regulatory authority as necessary to avoid
significant impacts. Alternatively, PRPD may select another project site
that has no special-status species.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce or eliminate impacts on specialstatus species. Impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.
b)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) maintains a list of terrestrial natural communities recognized by the
California Natural Diversity Database. Some of these natural communities are denoted as
"sensitive" because of their rarity and/or imminent threat of elimination. It is possible that
new projects proposed in the Master Plan may encroach upon some of these sensitive
communities. It is also possible that certain projects may encroach upon riparian areas,
although encroachment in these areas would likely be limited. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.4.1 would reduce potential impacts on these sensitive natural
communities to a level that is less than significant.
c)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. "Waters of the U.S." include a range of wet
environments such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats,
sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows. Boundaries between jurisdictional waters
and uplands are determined in a variety of ways depending on which type of waters is
present. It is possible that some of the new projects proposed in the Master Plan may
encroach upon areas subject to Section 404 jurisdiction. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
MM 3.4.2
conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any jurisdictional
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-9
waters, including wetlands, are located on the proposed site.
If
jurisdictional waters are located on the project site, they shall be
delineated on a map.
Depending upon the location of these
jurisdictional waters, PRPD may redesign the project to avoid these
waters, or may select an alternate site for the project. If PRPD decides to
construct the facility within the jurisdictional waters, it shall obtain the
appropriate Section 404 permit from the Corps, and shall comply with
any conditions attached to the permit.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would avoid or reduce impacts on jurisdictional
waters. Impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.
d)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
The PRPD area contains a
considerable amount of forests, along with canyons and hillsides. These areas may
provide suitable habitat for migratory birds, including raptors (birds of prey). Many of these
birds, including raptors, are specially protected by state and federal regulations. Some of
the projects proposed in the Master Plan may encroach upon forest land, where these
specially protected bird species may have nests. Also, some of these projects may
encroach upon foraging habitat for these species. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.4.3 is
recommended:
MM 3.4.3
conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any raptors or other
specially protected migratory birds exist on the proposed project site, or
have nests or foraging habitat. If these birds, their nests or foraging
habitat are identified on the project site, PRPD shall implement all feasible
mitigation measures recommended by the biologist or other regulatory
agency as necessary to avoid significant impacts. Alternatively, PRPD
may select another project site that has no special-status species.
Implementation of the mitigation measure would avoid or minimize direct and indirect
impacts on migratory birds. Impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.
e)
Less Than Significant. The Town of Paradise has an ordinance regulating the cutting of
trees. Although PRPD is an independent special district, it is expected to comply with the
provisions of this Town ordinance. Concerning the unincorporated portions of the PRPD
area, Butte County has no policies or ordinances explicitly protecting biological resources.
f)
No Impact. No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans or
similar plans apply to the PRPD area.
CONCLUSIONS
Projects proposed in the Master Plan could have potentially significant impacts on specialstatus species, including migratory birds. They could also have impacts on waters of the U.S.
and other sensitive natural communities. However, the mitigation measures presented in this
section would reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-10
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.5
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The PRPD area is generally located within territory formerly occupied by the Northwestern
Maidu, or Konkow, Indians. However, the area is also close to the territory of the Yana Indians
to the north. The basic social unit of the Maidu and Yana was the family. But the village may
also be considered a social as well as a political and economic unit. The village typically
consisted of a scattering of bark houses, numbering from four or five to several dozen for larger
villages. Each house contained a single family with three to seven members. Larger villages
might also have an earth lodge. Villages were usually located on flats adjoining streams and
were inhabited mainly in the winter, as it was necessary to go out into the hills and higher
elevations to establish temporary camps during the food gathering seasons of spring, summer
and fall. Especially large villages were known to be present along Butte Creek and Dry Creek in
the Messilla Valley, south of the Town of Paradise (Town of Paradise, 1999).
As with all northern California Indian groups, economic life for the Maidu and Yana revolved
around hunting, fishing and the collecting of plant foods. Deer, acorns, and salmon
represented the primary staples. The collection and processing of these various food resources
was accomplished with the use of a wide variety of wooden, bone and stone artifacts.
Moreover, these peoples were very sophisticated in terms of their knowledge of the uses of
local animals and plants, and of the availability of raw material sources that could be used in
manufacturing an immense array of primary and secondary tools and implements. Only
fragmentary evidence of their material culture remains, due in part to perishability and in part
to the impacts on archaeological sites resulting from later historic land uses. Nevertheless,
prehistoric sites have been identified within the PRPD area (Town of Paradise, 1999).
The first European-Americans known to enter the PRPD area were three men who arrived in the
vicinity of Magalia in the spring of 1850. One year later, gold was discovered in the area, which
attracted miners and other business people. The placer lodes of regional streams, particularly
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-11
along the Feather River at Ophir (now Oroville), Butte Creek, Little Butte Creek, Dry Creek, and
the West Branch of the Feather River, were vigorously mined from the early 1850s. Between
1852 and 1855, mining grew so rapidly that virtually all aspects of traditional Native American
life disappeared as Indians were either forced out of the area completely or, in some cases,
conscripted as laborers on white-owned operations. One of the early settlers who so exploited
local Native American labor was Sam Neal, who settled near Durham on the Esquon Land
Grant. Later, Neal established the road which was to bear his name by driving sheep and
cattle from his valley lands to more upland pastures near and above Paradise. In 1848, Neal
struck a rich gold deposit on the Feather River, and later established one of the County’s first
lumber mills near present-day Magalia. A few miles north of Magalia, R.P. Powell founded the
community of Powellton, an area which contained rich diggings and which attracted a large
number of miners. A large sawmill was erected at this location by Charles Clark, after whom
Clark Road was named. The Town of Paradise had its beginnings in 1860, when William
Leonard built a sawmill within the present Town limits (Town of Paradise, 1999).
Once the easily extracted gold deposits diminished, residents within the PRPD area turned to
farming, ranching, logging and other enterprises. Two of the most significant of these
enterprises were the construction of the Centerville Powerhouse with associated electrical
transmission line within Butte Creek Canyon and the emergence of the Diamond Match
Company, which began to acquire land along and near the ridge in 1902. Diamond
constructed an immense sawmill in Stirling City in 1904, and that same year began construction
of the Butte County Railroad along Magalia Ridge to connect the new sawmill to Diamond’s
match plant and headquarters in Chico. An important impetus to growth was the formation of
the Paradise Irrigation District (PID) in 1916, stimulating not only agricultural expansion but also
more intensive residential and related settlement in the Paradise area. Another major event
was the construction of the Skyway during the late 1940s. Several historical structures and sites
are located in the PRPD area, many of which are in the Paradise-Magalia area (Town of
Paradise, 1999).
a)
Less Than Significant. Most of the projects in the Master Plan would have no impact on
existing historical resources. Future land acquisitions under the Master Plan may contain
historical resources; however, this is speculative. Since there are few historical resources, as
defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, located within the PRPD boundaries, it is not
likely that any PRPD projects would affect such resources.
b)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. It is possible that construction
associated with some of the projects in the Master Plan may uncover previously unknown
cultural resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.5.1
is recommended:
MM 3.5.1
If any archaeological or historical sites are uncovered during grading or
other construction activities, then work shall cease at the uncovered site.
PRPD shall comply with all federal and state regulations pertaining to the
preservation of cultural and historical resources. At a minimum, a
qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the site, then prepare a report
describing the significance of the site and making recommendations on
its disposition. Work shall not resume at the uncovered site until final
disposition of the site is completed.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-12
Implementation of this mitigation would avoid significant damage to any undiscovered
cultural resource sites. Impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.
c)
No Impact. There are no known unique paleontological resources in the area. Projects in
the Master Plan would not disturb any unique geological features.
d)
Less Than Significant. It is not likely that any burial sites would be affected by projects in the
Master Plan. If human remains are unearthed during project construction, the provisions of
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall apply. Under this section, no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin and disposition, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
CONCLUSIONS
Construction of projects proposed in the Master Plan may have a significant impact on
undiscovered cultural resources. However, Mitigation Measure 3.5.1 would reduce potential
impacts to a level that is less than significant. No other significant impacts on cultural resources
were identified.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-13
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.6
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death, involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
PRPD is located in a region where the Sierra Nevada and the Cascade mountain ranges meet.
The topography of this region consists of ridges and canyons. Most of the communities within
the PRPD are located on the ridges, with elevations varying from approximately 1,200 feet to
over 3,500 feet above mean sea level. Soil types vary throughout the region, with some areas
having no soil at all.
PRPD is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity. As such, the area has been
accorded a category of low potential earthquake hazard. However, PRPD is located in a
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-14
region whose very existence is due primarily to the active mountain-building processes of
volcanism and uplifting along fault zones. Two significant earthquakes have occurred relatively
close to the PRPD area. The Ghost earthquake of 1940, with a magnitude of 5.7, was centered
roughly 25 miles north-northeast of the Town of Paradise. In 1975, the Oroville earthquake
occurred, also with a magnitude of 5.7. In August 2001, an earthquake on the Mohawk Valley
Fault in Plumas County, with a magnitude of 5.5, was felt in the PRPD area.
a)
i)
ii)
Less Than Significant. The only designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone in Butte
County is the Cleveland Hills Fault, located south of Lake Oroville. The 1994 Fault Activity
Map of California indicates that there are a plethora of faults in the PRPD area. The
Magalia Fault is a northwest-southeast trending fault that passes through the community of
Magalia northeast of the Town. The Paradise Fault is located approximately 1.5 miles
northeast of the Magalia Fault, and it also trends from the northwest to the southeast. Both
faults show evidence of activity within the last 1.6 million years, but neither has been active
in historical times. The Big Bend Fault is located in the Concow area. The Fault Activity
Map has classified the fault as inactive. The faults are generally located in more hilly
regions, where it would be more difficult to develop recreational facilities. Therefore,
hazards from fault rupture are not considered significant.
Less Than Significant. The PRPD area is subject to potential groundshaking, generated by
earthquakes both within and outside of Butte County. Groundshaking would have little
impact on recreational facilities such as trails and picnic tables. However, for more
substantial facilities such as community centers and swimming pools, groundshaking could
have a potentially damaging impact.
The PRPD area, as well as the rest of Butte County, is located within the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Seismic Zone 3. Seismic Zone 3 is defined as an area of potentially major
damage from earthquakes that corresponds to intensity VII and higher of the Modified
Mercalli Scale. At intensity VII, loose bricks, stones, tiles and plaster fall from buildings, and
certain types of masonry suffer damage. There are also some slides and cave-ins along
sand or gravel banks, damage to concrete irrigation ditches, and difficulty for people to
stand. Structures constructed in Seismic Zone 3 are subject to strict seismic safety
standards. Adherence to these standards in the construction of recreational facilities
would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
iii)
Less Than Significant. Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated granular soils lose their
strength due to a sudden buildup of water pressure, which is induced by a seismic event.
Soils near rivers and streams may be especially prone to liquefaction. However, the
probability of liquefaction occurring within the PRPD is low, given the likely intensity of any
seismic activity in the area. Also, although future improvements may occur near streams,
no significant structures would be built in these areas.
iv)
Less Than Significant. PRPD is located in a region that contains steep slopes. However,
most of the significant recreational facilities are located in areas of relatively level terrain. It
is possible that trails and nature areas proposed in the Master Plan may be located in or
near areas with steep slopes, and thus prone to landslides. However, the probability of a
landslide occurring that would lead to harm of people is low at a given time.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-15
b)
some projects in the Master Plan may include, but are not limited to, grading, excavation,
fill and repaving. These activities, by disturbing the soil, could increase the potential for
erosion. To reduce this potential, Mitigation Measure 3.6.1 shall be implemented.
MM 3.6.1
Prior to commencement of grading or other earthmoving activities for a
project, PRPD shall prepare an erosion and sediment control plan. The
plan shall include measures to minimize soil erosion during and after
construction activities, and may include, but is not limited to, the
following measures:
§
§
§
§
§
Minimize ground disturbance to areas immediately planned for
grading activities.
Preservation of existing natural features that provide erosion control.
Placement of hay bales, silt fences and/or other appropriate erosion
control measures to prevent siltation of adjacent streams.
Revegetation of disturbed areas immediately upon completion of
construction work.
Incorporation of any additional water quality requirements set forth
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as part of the project's
Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Details of the erosion and sediment control plan shall be incorporated
into the final project improvement plans and shall be implemented prior
to and during project construction activities.
Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce the potential amount of soil
erosion caused by the project to a level that is less than significant.
c)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. PRPD is located in a region with a
variety of soil types. It is conceivable that some of the projects proposed in the Master
Plan could be located on soil ill-suited to support recreational facilities, particularly larger
structures. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.6.2 is recommended:
MM 3.6.2
d)
Prior to selection of a site for construction of a large recreational facility,
a soils report shall be prepared by a qualified soils specialist or certified
engineering geologist. The report shall evaluate any potential constraints
on developing the project site, including but not limited to suitability for
structures, expansive soils and suitability for a septic system. The report
shall include recommendations for development in areas where potential
constraints exist, including design and engineering changes. Should
PRPD select a site containing development constraints, PRPD shall
incorporate all feasible recommendations into the final site plan.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Soils containing a significant amount
of clay tend to increase in volume when wet and shrink when drying. Structures built on
this type of soil can suffer structural damage from differential movement of foundations
and cracking of roadways and foundations. A soil survey conducted for the Town of
Paradise in 1991-92 identified some soil types within the Town limits that have a moderate
shrink-swell potential. Given the variety of soil types within the PRPD area, other soils where
projects may be constructed may have a shrink-swell potential. Implementation of
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-16
Mitigation Measure 3.6.2 would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than
significant.
e)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Most of the residents within the PRPD
area, including those of the Town of Paradise, use septic systems. Currently, there are no
plans to install a sewer collection system within the PRPD area. Therefore, some of the
larger projects, such as a community center and a swimming pool, would have to use a
septic system. Given the variety of soil types, some projects may be located in areas that
are unsuitable for the operation of a septic system. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.6.2 would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Potential soil erosion problems may occur during the construction phase of projects proposed
in the Master Plan. However, Mitigation Measure 3.6.1 would reduce these impacts to a level
that is less than significant. There are also potential impacts with expansive soils, soils unsuitable
for placement of structures, and soils unsuitable for septic systems. These impacts would be
reduced with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6.2. The project would have no
other significant impacts on geology and soil issues.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-17
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.7
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan area or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere
with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
PRPD is located in an area with no significant urban development, except in the Town of
Paradise and the community of Magalia. No significant industries that use or store substantial
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-18
quantities of hazardous materials are located in the area. However, a significant amount of
housing and other development is located near or within forested land, which makes such
development vulnerable to wildfires. Two destructive wildfires that have occurred recently
within the PRPD area were the Concow fire in 2000 and the Poe fire in 2001. Wildfires have also
occurred in recent years in Butte Creek Canyon.
a)
Less Than Significant. Hazardous materials may be used during the construction phase of
new projects. However, the transport, use and storage of such materials would occur in
accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations, including California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements. Once completed, new
projects may require the use of chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and
chlorine. The use and storage of these substances would be in accordance with
manufacturer specifications and with applicable regulations.
b)
Less Than Significant. The amount of hazardous materials that would be used and stored
as a result of projects proposed in the Master Plan would be limited. Any spill of such
materials would not be extensive, and would be managed by the appropriate authorities.
As previously stated, the transport of such materials would occur in accordance with
applicable federal, state and local regulations.
c)
Less Than Significant. The Master Plan proposes that some projects be implemented on
school lands as part of a joint-use agreement with the Paradise Unified School District.
These projects, as previously described, may involve the use of particular hazardous
substances. The use and storage of these substances would be in accordance with
manufacturer specifications and with applicable regulations. It is anticipated that any
hazardous materials used by the PRPD in the maintenance of these joint-use facilities
would not be stored on the school site.
d)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The State of California Hazardous
Waste and Substances List (also known as the "Cortese list"), prepared by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, provides a list of sites where hazardous materials
are known to exist. This list is prepared in accordance with California Government Code
Section 65962.5.
A review of the most recent list, updated in 2000, indicates that there are no hazardous
substance sites at existing PRPD facilities. Also, existing Cortese list sites within PRPD
boundaries are in areas where future park or recreational facility development is unlikely to
occur, because of the expense in acquiring and developing these properties. However,
one Cortese list site is the Veterans Memorial Hall in Paradise. A leaking underground tank
has been reported at this facility. PRPD is currently considering negotiating with the
County and other parties to take over management and maintenance of the Veterans
Hall. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.7.1 is recommended:
MM 3.7.1
If Paradise Recreation and Park District does assume the management
and operation of the Veterans Memorial Hall, an agreement shall be
reached between PRPD, the County, and the other parties involved in
the transaction to provide for the cleanup and replacement of the
leaking underground tank, including the financing of these actions,
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-19
Implementation of the mitigation measure would clean up a contamination site, and thus
eliminate a potential hazard to users of the Veterans Memorial Hall. Impacts after
mitigation would be less than significant.
e)
Less Than Significant. The only public use airport within PRPD boundaries is the Paradise
Skypark Airport, located south of the Town of Paradise and west of Clark Road. In 1999,
the Town considered acquiring property north of and including the Tall Pines Golf Course
for the construction of a business park. One proposal for development of the proposed
business park included the construction of recreational facilities to be managed by PRPD.
Ultimately, the Town was unable to obtain the necessary financing to purchase the
property. However, it is still potentially available for recreational development. The
southernmost portion of the property is within the Area of Influence of the Paradise
Skypark, which means that development proposals within this area must be submitted to
the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review and comment. Since the
southern portion of the property is occupied by the golf course, it is anticipated that PRPD
would not develop any recreational facilities within the Paradise Skypark's Area of
Influence.
f)
No Impact. There are no known private airstrips within PRPD boundaries.
g)
No Impact. Construction of the projects proposed in the Master Plan would occur in areas
that would not interfere with established emergency evacuation routes, particularly those
for evacuation from wildfires.
h)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. PRPD is located in an area that has a
significant amount of forest. As previously described, the area has been subject to
wildfires. Some of the projects proposed in the Master Plan may be placed in areas where
the risk of wildfire is particularly acute.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.7.2 is
recommended:
MM 3.7.2
Prior to approval of final site plans for a project, PRPD shall assess the risk
of wildfire hazard on a proposed project site, in coordination with the
appropriate fire protection agency. Should a potentially significant
wildfire hazard be identified on the project site, PRPD shall either select
an alternate site if feasible, or implement mitigation measures
recommended by the fire protection agency to reduce the potential
wildfire hazard.
Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce the potential wildfire hazard to
users of PRPD facilities to a level that is less than significant.
CONCLUSIONS
One of the projects in the Master Plan may involve renovation work on a Cortese list site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7.1 would reduce potential impacts to a level that is
less than significant. Also, the potential wildfire hazard at some proposed facilities may be
significant, but Mitigation Measure 3.7.2 would reduce potential impacts to a less-thansignificant level. No other significant hazard and hazardous material issues were identified.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-20
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.8
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-21
The PRPD area contains several streams of varying size and flow characteristics. Some of the
most significant streams include Butte Creek, Little Butte Creek, Concow Creek and the West
Branch of the Feather River. Most of the larger bodies of water in the area are reservoirs. They
include Magalia Reservoir, Paradise Lake, De Sabla Reservoir, Concow Reservoir and Lake
Oroville to the south. Groundwater conditions in the PRPD area reflect those of many other
foothill and mountain communities. The layered geology of the area has led to the formation
of several aquifer zones. Depending on local conditions of permeability, weathering and
fracturing, the aquifers may have some continuity. Water quality in the region is generally
good; however, high fecal coliform counts have been noted in some streams adjacent to
areas with septic systems.
a)
Less Than Significant. Many of the projects proposed in the Master Plan would be subject
to waste discharge requirements (WDRs), since some facilities would have kitchens and
restrooms. PRPD facilities are subject to the water quality standards and requirements of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Central Valley Region. Compliance
with the standards and requirements of RWQCB would reduce potential impacts to a level
that is less than significant.
b)
Less Than Significant. Projects proposed in the Master Plan would likely place additional
demands on water supply. Since much of the water supply in the PRPD area is provided
by groundwater, implementation of the projects could have an impact on groundwater
supply. Projects within the Town of Paradise would be supplied by the Paradise Irrigation
District (PID), subject to its approval and possible conditions. PID uses surface water for
much of its supply. Projects outside of the Town of Paradise would be subject to the
requirements of the local water agency.
c)
Less Than Significant. The projects proposed in the Master Plan would not involve the
alteration of streams or changes in the watersheds of streams that could substantially
increase erosion or siltation.
d)
Less Than Significant. The projects proposed in the Master Plan would, at most, contribute
a limited amount of runoff to streams, since they would add relatively little impervious
surface, which would generate additional runoff. The projects would not increase flood
hazards associated with streams in the PRPD area.
e)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. While the projects proposed in the
Master Plan would not generate substantial runoff overall, some projects may generate a
significant amount of runoff in a localized area. Such projects include the gymnasiums
and the community centers. The localized runoff may exceed the capacity of storm
drainage facilities in the area, causing localized flooding. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
MM 3.8.1
For projects that would include a significant area of impervious surfaces
(e.g., parking lots, community center, gymnasium), an evaluation shall
be made of the potential runoff generated, and the capacity of the
storm drainage facilities in the area to accommodate this runoff. If the
runoff exceeds the capacity, mitigation measures shall be implemented.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-22
Measures may include, but are not limited to, onsite detention basins and
improvements to offsite drainage facilities.
Implementation of the mitigation measure would assist in identifying potential drainage
problems and mitigating adverse effects. Impacts after mitigation would be less than
significant.
f)
projects proposed in the Master Plan may include, but are not limited to, grading,
excavation, fill and trenching. These soil-disturbing activities, if conducted adjacent to
streams, could increase sedimentation in these streams to significant levels. Mitigation
Measure 3.6.1, in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, would control the amount of sediment
that would be generated by project construction. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.8.2
shall be implemented.
MM 3.8.2
Construction vehicle maintenance and fueling shall not occur in areas
within 100 feet of a stream.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure and Mitigation Measure 3.6.1 would
reduce the amount of sedimentation generated by the project to a level that is less than
significant.
g)
No Impact. Projects proposed in the Master Plan would not involve the construction of
housing.
h)
Less Than Significant. There are no significant 100-year floodplains in areas where projects
proposed in the Master Plan would likely be constructed.
i)
Less Than Significant. Structures proposed in the Master Plan would not be located in
areas prone to flooding.
j)
No Impact. Projects proposed in the Master Plan are not located near any large bodies of
water or any volcanoes. Therefore, they are not subject to any hazards of seiche, tsunami
or mudflows.
CONCLUSIONS
Certain projects in the Master Plan could have significant localized impacts on storm drainage.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8.1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Projects located near streams could have impacts on water quality during the
construction phase. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8.2 would reduce potential
impacts to a level that is less than significant. The Master Plan would have no other significant
impacts on hydrology and water quality.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-23
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.9
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to, the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Most of the PRPD is within the unincorporated area of Butte County. The primary land use plan
for this area is the Butte County General Plan, which sets forth goals, policies and programs
concerning land use development in the unincorporated areas of the County. To implement
the provisions of the General Plan, the County has enacted a zoning ordinance and a
subdivision ordinance, among others. For the portion of the PRPD that is within the Town of
Paradise, the primary land use document is the Town of Paradise General Plan. The Town has
also enacted ordinances to implement the General Plan, including a zoning ordinance and a
subdivision ordinance.
a)
No Impact. The Master Plan proposes some projects that would require the acquisition of
land. Such acquisitions would be relatively small in acreage and compact, and would not
divide existing communities. Other projects would take place on existing parkland, and
would have no physical effects on the communities within PRPD boundaries.
b)
Less Than Significant. Most of the projects proposed in the Master Plan would take place
within existing parkland, which is appropriately designated and zoned under the
applicable General Plans and zoning ordinances.
Future acquisitions of parkland
proposed in the Master Plan may involve parcels that currently are not designated or
zoned for park uses. It is the intention of PRPD to coordinate with the appropriate authority
(Butte County or the Town of Paradise) during the acquisition process. As part of the
coordination process, park sites would have the appropriate General Plan designation
and zoning, either by acquiring property which have the appropriate designations, or by a
General Plan Amendment and rezoning of acquired property.
c)
No Impact. As previously mentioned in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, no Habitat
Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans are applicable to this
project.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-24
CONCLUSIONS
The Master Plan would have no significant impacts on land use issues, nor would it conflict with
applicable land use plans and regulations.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-25
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.10
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Mining had been a significant economic activity within the PRPD area at one time, particularly
in the Magalia area. However, little mining activity occurs in the area at present. Mineral
activity in Butte County is limited mainly to sand and gravel extraction.
a)
No Impact. There are no significant known mineral resources within the PRPD area.
Projects proposed in the Master Plan are unlikely to affect mineral resource areas.
b)
No Impact. The Butte County General Plan indicates areas where mining activities
currently occur. Projects proposed in the Master Plan would not be placed within or next
to any mining area.
CONCLUSIONS
The Master Plan would have no impact on mineral resources.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-26
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.11
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance or of
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan area or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Generally, the PRPD area is relatively quiet, given the lack of development and predominance
of forest land. Much of the noise is generated within the more developed areas, such as the
Town of Paradise and the community of Magalia. The most significant noise sources in the
PRPD area are transportation corridors, principally roadways. Some of the more significant
roadways include State Highways 32, 70 and 191, and the Skyway. Other noise sources include
industrial and heavy commercial operations scattered throughout the PRPD area.
a)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Some of the projects proposed in the
Master Plan may generate significant increases in noise levels during periods of use,
particularly the sports fields. Locations of these types of facilities could subject residents in
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-27
nearby areas to noise levels exceeding those set forth in the applicable General Plan or
noise ordinance. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.11.1 is recommended:
MM 3.11.1
Prior to approval of final site plans for that have the potential to either
generate new noise or increase the noise associated with an existing
facility, a noise study shall be conducted to determine the potential noise
effects on nearby residences, including traffic generated by such
facilities. The study shall include recommendations as needed to ensure
the proposed facility is in compliance with applicable noise standards.
These recommendations shall be incorporated in the final site plan for the
new facility. This mitigation measure shall apply to new or expanded
active recreational facilities (e.g., sports fields, gymnasiums) and not to
passive recreational facilities (e.g., trails, nature areas).
Implementation of the mitigation measure would assist in identifying potential noise
problems and in mitigating such problems to a level consistent with applicable noise
standards. Impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.
b)
Less Than Significant. Groundborne vibrations typically are associated with projects that
operate heavy equipment or use heavy transportation vehicles. The projects proposed in
the Master Plans are unlikely to use either heavy equipment or heavy transportation
vehicles. At most, light trucks would be used, and these trucks would be used infrequently
and generate very little groundborne vibration.
c)
As previously described,
construction of particular recreational facilities could generate increases in noise levels in
the vicinity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11.1 would reduce potential impacts
to a level that is less than significant.
d)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There would be a temporary
increase in noise levels associated with project construction. Although the noise would
cease once construction is completed, it could be disturbing to nearby residents.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.11.2 is recommended:
MM 3.11.2
Construction on a project site within 500 feet of a residence shall only
occur during the hours set forth by applicable noise regulations. If no
hours are set by the applicable noise regulations, then work shall occur
only between the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.
Implementation of the mitigation measure would ensure that nearby residents would not
be disturbed during evening and nighttime hours, when they would most likely be
particularly sensitive to noise. Impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.
e)
Less Than Significant. As previously described, future PRPD projects would be located
outside the Area of Influence of the Paradise Skypark Airport. The airport serves mainly
private aircraft, and there are no scheduled commercial flights. Therefore, future
recreational facilities would not likely experience significant exposure to airport noise.
f)
No Impact. There are no known private airstrips within the PRPD area. Projects proposed
in the Master Plan would not be located near any private airstrips.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-28
CONCLUSIONS
Certain facilities proposed in the Master Plan may have an adverse impact on noise levels in
the vicinity, particularly on residences. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11.1 would
assist in reducing these potentially adverse impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Temporary noise increases may occur during construction work. Mitigation Measure 3.11.2
would reduced construction noise impacts, and these impacts would cease once construction
work is completed. No other significant noise impacts were identified.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-29
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.12
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
PRPD serves approximately 43,000 people residing within its boundaries as of 2000. Over half of
these residents live within the Town of Paradise. Most of the remainder live in unincorporated
communities such as Magalia, Paradise Pines and Yankee Hill. The PRPD Master Plan estimates
that the number of residents within PRPD boundaries will increase to approximately 54,000 by
2015.
a)
No Impact. The Master Plan was prepared for the purpose of providing recreational
services to a population that is anticipated to grow. The facilities and programs proposed
in the Master Plan are in response to anticipated growth in demand. None of the facilities
and programs in the Master Plan are expected to generate or facilitate growth.
b)
No Impact. Projects proposed in the Master Plan are not expected to lead to a reduction
in housing. In its future acquisitions of land, PRPD would be looking for vacant lands rather
than those with housing, since vacant lands would be less expensive to acquire and
develop.
c)
No Impact. Since projects proposed in the Master Plan would not affect housing, no
people would be displaced.
CONCLUSIONS
The Master Plan would have no impact on population and housing issues.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-30
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the following public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
The PRPD area is served by various public service agencies. The Town of Paradise is served by
its own Fire and Police Departments. Law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas
are provided by the Butte County Sheriff's Department. Fire protection services in the
unincorporated areas are provided by local fire districts or the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). The Paradise Unified School District provides schooling for
most students in the PRPD area, with other districts providing schooling in outlying areas.
a)
Less Than Significant. The Master Plan proposes the construction of additional facilities that
may require fire protection services. However, these projects by themselves are not
expected to lead to additional personnel, equipment or facility needs. Fire protection
service requirements would be more dependent on population increases than on
recreational facility construction. In addition, structures that would be built as part of the
Master Plan would be required to conform to applicable fire safety regulations and
building codes.
b)
Less Than Significant. The Master Plan proposes the construction of additional facilities that
may require police protection services. However, these projects by themselves are not
expected to lead to additional personnel, equipment or facility needs. Police protection
service requirements would be more dependent on population increases than on
recreational facility construction.
c)
No Impact. The projects proposed in the Master Plan would not increase demand for
school facilities or services. In fact, the Master Plan may make additional facilities available
for schools that otherwise might not be provided.
d)
No Impact. The Master Plan proposes the construction or improvement of parks,
recreational facilities and programs to serve a projected growing population. Therefore,
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-31
the Master Plan would guide the development of recreational facilities in response to an
anticipated increase in demand for park services, rather than generating an additional
demand.
e)
No Impact. The projects proposed in the Master Plan are not anticipated to increase
demand for other public services.
CONCLUSIONS
The Master Plan would have no significant impact on public services.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-32
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.14
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The PRPD manages park and recreational facilities and programs in a section of northeastern
Butte County. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, PRPD maintains nine park
facilities, has joint-use agreements for facilities at two schools, and provides a variety of
recreational programs for all age groups.
a)
No Impact. The Master Plan proposes construction of or improvements to recreational
facilities in response projected growth within its service area. The projects proposed in the
Master Plan are intended to satisfy the anticipated demand for park and recreational
facilities and programs during the planning period 2001-2016.
b)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Master Plan proposes the
acquisition of land and the development of additional recreational facilities. These actions
could have significant environmental impacts. Some of these impacts, such as noise,
traffic and air quality, are addressed by mitigation measures presented in this document.
Other impacts would be more site-specific, and would be addressed in the environmental
review process for specific projects when such projects reach the design stage.
CONCLUSIONS
The Master Plan could have significant impacts on environmental issues related to the
construction of recreational facilities. Some of these impacts are addressed by mitigation
measures presented in this documents. Other impacts would need to be addressed by the
environmental review process for specific projects.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-33
Potentially
Significant
Impact
3.15
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results 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)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The primary mode of transportation within the PRPD area is motor vehicle. State Highways 32,
70 and 191 serve portions of the PRPD area. Another significant roadway is the Skyway, a
County road that originates in Chico and runs through Paradise, Magalia and other
communities before ending at the community of Butte Meadows (The paved portion of the
Skyway ends at Inskip). Numerous local roads of varying size and construction serve residents
throughout the PRPD area.
a)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Master Plan proposes the
construction of recreational facilities that could expect heavy usage, such as sports fields,
gymnasiums, swimming pools and community centers. Because of this usage, traffic is
expected to be generated by these facilities. This additional traffic could affect traffic
volumes on local streets and roadways.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.15.1 is
recommended:
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-34
MM 3.15.1
Prior to approval of final site plans for new facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, a traffic study shall be conducted to determine the
potential effects on roads and streets.
The study shall include
recommendations on reducing the potential adverse impacts of project
traffic. This mitigation measure shall apply to new or expanded PRPD
facilities.
Implementation of the mitigation measure would assist in identifying potential traffic
problems and in mitigating such problems to a level consistent with applicable State or
local standards. Impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.
b)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As previously described, some of the
projects proposed in the Master Plan could increase traffic volumes. The increased traffic
could lower levels of service (LOS) on particular roadways and intersections.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.15.1 would reduce potential impacts to a level
that is less than significant.
c)
No Impact. As previously described, projects proposed in the Master Plan are expected to
have no impacts on public airports or private airstrips within the PRPD area. No increases in
air traffic would result.
d)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Some projects proposed in the
Master Plan may be located on or near streets and roadways that may be inadequate to
handle increased traffic volumes. Reasons may include inadequate width, inadequate
line of sight at intersections, or inadequate traffic controls. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.15.1 would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant.
e)
Less Than Significant. Existing PRPD facilities, where most of the proposed projects in the
Master Plan would be implemented, are considered to have adequate emergency
access. New facilities would take into consideration access for emergency vehicles. The
appropriate agencies that provide emergency services would be given an opportunity to
review site plans during the environmental review process for specific projects.
f)
Less Than Significant. In constructing new facilities or expanding existing facilities, PRPD
would ensure that projects are in compliance with applicable parking space standards,
either of Butte County or of the Town of Paradise, depending upon project location.
g)
No Impact. Implementation of the projects proposed in the Master Plan would not
discourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as public transportation
and bicycles.
CONCLUSIONS
Certain projects proposed in the Master Plan could have significant adverse impacts on
transportation, depending upon the location. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.15.1
would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-35
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand, in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Within the PRPD area, water is supplied by sources ranging from private wells for individuals
residences to water companies and districts. The largest of the water districts is the Paradise
Irrigation District (PID), which provides water to most of the Town of Paradise. Another water
agency, the Del Oro Water Company, provides water to Magalia, Paradise Pines and the Lime
Saddle area southeast of Paradise. Wastewater throughout the PRPD area is disposed by
private onsite septic systems. Solid waste collection and disposal service is provided by private
firms that contract with the County or the Town of Paradise. The collected waste is transported
to the Neal Road Landfill in central Butte County for disposal.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-36
a)
Less Than Significant. As previously described in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality,
projects proposed in the Master Plan would be required to comply with RWQCB standards
and requirements concerning waste discharges.
b)
Less Than Significant. As previously, described, implementation of some of the projects in
the Master Plan could place additional demands on water. Within the Town of Paradise,
PID operates the water distribution system. Projects within the Town requiring connection
to the water system must first be approved by PID. PID may attach conditions to its
approval, such as requiring an alternate water sources such as a well. PRPD would comply
with any PID requirements and conditions. Projects outside the Town would comply with
the requirements of the water agency within which the project is located, or would utilize
the local water source. No wastewater system has been constructed within the PRPD
area.
c)
As described in Section 3.8,
Hydrology and Water Quality, some of the projects proposed in the Master Plan could
generate additional surface runoff, due to the increase in impervious surfaces.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8.1 would reduce potential impacts to a level that
is less than significant.
d)
Less Than Significant. As previously described, PRPD would be required to comply with the
requirements of water supply agencies for service, or it would utilize its own water sources.
e)
No Impact. No wastewater treatment system exists within the PRPD area.
f)
Less Than Significant. As the projects proposed in the Master Plan are implemented, more
solid waste would gradually be generated. The solid waste would be taken to the Neal
Road Landfill for disposal. The County is currently proposing an expansion of the landfill
that would allow it to accommodate additional waste volumes generated within the
County to the year 2034. Construction of the expansion is expected to begin during the
early part of the planning period for the PRPD Master Plan. Adequate capacity should be
available at the Neal Road Landfill for the proposed projects.
g)
No Impact. Projects proposed in the Master Plan would comply with all applicable solid
waste regulations.
CONCLUSIONS
Some projects proposed in the Master Plan may have impacts on storm drainage systems.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8.1 would reduce potential impacts to a level that is
less than significant. No other significant impacts to utilities and service systems were identified.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-37
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or
animals, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
"Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
a)
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, the project could have potentially significant impacts on special-status species,
migratory species, and waters of the U.S. Also, as discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural
Resources, previously unknown archaeological resources could be uncovered during the
construction phase of a project. However, mitigation measures presented in those
sections would reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.
b)
Less Than Significant. The most significant cumulative impact of the Master Plan would be
the cumulative contribution it would make to increased impervious surfaces, with its effect
on open space and on storm drainage. Storm drainage impacts of the projects proposed
in the Master Plan would be mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.8.1. The reduction in open
space area caused by the projects would be compensated by an increase in recreational
open space, with the addition of sports fields and picnic areas. Overall, the cumulative
impacts of the Master Plan would not be significant.
c)
Less Than Significant. Projects proposed in the Master Plan would be constructed to
applicable building codes and regulations. The facilities would pose no health or safety
hazards for humans.
November 2001
PRPD Master Plan
3-38
4.0 DETERMINATION
4.0 DETERMINATION
4.1
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project (see
following pages). A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Nothing further is
required.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
For
November 2001
4-1
PRPD Master Plan
4.0 DETERMINATION
4.2
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT
3.1
Aesthetics
MM 3.1.1
Whenever feasible, project construction shall avoid removal of existing mature
trees on the project site. If removal of mature trees is necessary, trees shall be replanted at a
minimum ratio of two trees replanted for every one tree removed. Onsite mitigation is preferred,
but trees can be replanted offsite if onsite mitigation is not feasible. PRPD shall monitor the
progress of the replanted trees for a period of three years and replace replanted trees that are
not viable. Trees that are removed as part of normal fuel load and forest management
practices shall not included in this mitigation requirement.
MM 3.1.2
All outdoor lighting fixtures, including those used to illuminate sports fields and
parking lots, shall be shielded or constructed so that light rays emitted by the fixture are focused
on the surface to be illuminated.
MM 3.1.3
Lighting on the project site shall not indirectly illuminate adjacent residences at a
level greater than one foot-candle in intensity when measured from the portion of the residence
facing the project site. If indirect illumination at a residence is greater than one foot-candle,
PRPD shall ascertain the cause of the indirect illumination and, if necessary, implement
appropriate measures to reduce such illumination.
MM 3.1.4
Reflective materials, including reflective windows, shall be limited to areas of
facilities and building surfaces such that glare from the reflective materials does not adversely
impact adjacent residences.
3.3
Air Quality
MM 3.3.1
The following measures shall be implemented during the construction phase of
individual projects:
•
Grading and excavation activities shall be suspended if wind conditions at the construction
site exceed 20 mph and would create dust emission problems. Also, such activities will be
suspended if BCAQMD determines that wind conditions would create dust emission
problems.
•
Trucks hauling dirt, sand, gravel, soil or other loose material shall be covered or shall maintain
at least two feet of freeboard, in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle
Code Section 23114. This provision shall be enforced by the appropriate law enforcement
agency.
•
Construction sites with exposed soils shall be watered to keep dust movement at a minimum.
Dust that is tracked off the construction site onto public roadways or is wind-blown offsite
may be deemed a nuisance by BCAQMD and subject to enforcement action. As an
alternative to watering, soil stabilizers or palliatives may be used.
•
Prior to final occupancy, all disturbed soil areas except those areas that are to remain
permanently exposed, such as baseball infields, shall be repaved, planted or otherwise
treated to prevent potential erosion and dust.
November 2001
4-2
PRPD Master Plan
4.0 DETERMINATION
•
If visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public paved roads, such roads shall be
swept at the end of the day. A water sweeper with reclaimed water is recommended.
Except where otherwise noted, the BCAQMD shall ensure compliance with the mitigation
measure.
3.4
MM 3.4.1
conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any special-status species or sensitive
communities exist on the proposed project site. If special-status species or sensitive communities
are found on the project site, PRPD shall implement all feasible mitigation measures
recommended by the biologist or other regulatory authority as necessary to avoid significant
impacts. Alternatively, PRPD may select another project site that has no special-status species.
MM 3.4.2
conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any jurisdictional waters, including wetlands,
are located on the proposed site. If jurisdictional waters are located on the project site, they
shall be delineated on a map. Depending upon the location of these jurisdictional waters, PRPD
may redesign the project to avoid these waters, or may select an alternate site for the project. If
PRPD decides to construct the facility within the jurisdictional waters, it shall obtain the
appropriate Section 404 permit from the Corps, and shall comply with any conditions attached
to the permit..
MM 3.4.3
conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any raptors or other specially protected
migratory birds exist on the proposed project site, or have nests or foraging habitat. If these
birds, their nests or foraging habitat are identified on the project site, PRPD shall implement all
feasible mitigation measures recommended by the biologist or other regulatory agency as
necessary to avoid significant impacts. Alternatively, PRPD may select another project site that
has no special-status species.
3.5
Cultural Resources
MM 3.5.1
If any archaeological or historical sites are uncovered during grading or other
construction activities, then work shall cease at the uncovered site. PRPD shall comply with all
federal and state regulations pertaining to the preservation of cultural and historical resources.
At a minimum, a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the site, then prepare a report describing
the significance of the site and making recommendations on its disposition. Work shall not
resume at the uncovered site until final disposition of the site is completed.
3.6
Geology and Soils
MM 3.6.1
Prior to commencement of grading or other earthmoving activities for a project,
PRPD shall prepare an erosion and sediment control plan. The plan shall include measures to
minimize soil erosion during and after construction activities, and may include, but is not limited
to, the following measures:
§
Minimize ground disturbance to areas immediately planned for grading activities.
November 2001
4-3
PRPD Master Plan
4.0 DETERMINATION
§
Preservation of existing natural features that provide erosion control.
§
Placement of hay bales, silt fences and/or other appropriate erosion control measures to
prevent siltation of adjacent streams.
§
Revegetation of disturbed areas immediately upon completion of construction work.
§
Incorporation of any additional water quality requirements set forth by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, as part of the project's Water Quality Certification under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act.
Details of the erosion and sediment control plan shall be incorporated into the final project
improvement plans and shall be implemented prior to and during project construction activities.
MM 3.6.2
Prior to selection of a site for construction of a large recreational facility, a soils
report shall be prepared by a qualified soils specialist or certified engineering geologist. The
report shall evaluate any potential constraints on developing the project site, including but not
limited to suitability for structures, expansive soils and suitability for a septic system. The report
shall include recommendations for development in areas where potential constraints exist,
including design and engineering changes. Should PRPD select a site containing development
constraints, PRPD shall incorporate all feasible recommendations into the final site plan.
3.7
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM 3.7.1
If Paradise Recreation and Park District does assume the management and
operation of the Veterans Memorial Hall, an agreement shall be reached between PRPD, the
County, and the other parties involved in the transaction to provide for the cleanup and
replacement of the leaking underground tank, including the financing of these actions.
MM 3.7.2
Prior to approval of final site plans for a project, PRPD shall assess the risk of wildfire
hazard on a proposed project site, in coordination with the appropriate fire protection agency.
Should a potentially significant wildfire hazard be identified on the project site, PRPD shall either
select an alternate site if feasible, or implement mitigation measures recommended by the fire
protection agency to reduce the potential wildfire hazard.
3.8
Hydrology and Water Quality
MM 3.8.1
For projects that would include a significant area of impervious surfaces (e.g.,
parking lots, community center, gymnasium), an evaluation shall be made of the potential
runoff generated, and the capacity of the storm drainage facilities in the area to
accommodate this runoff. If the runoff exceeds the capacity, mitigation measures shall be
implemented. Measures may include, but are not limited to, onsite detention basins and
improvements to offsite drainage facilities.
MM 3.8.2
Construction vehicle maintenance and fueling shall not occur in areas within 100
feet of a stream.
3.11
Noise
November 2001
4-4
PRPD Master Plan
4.0 DETERMINATION
MM 3.11.1
Prior to approval of final site plans for that have the potential to either generate
new noise or increase the noise associated with an existing facility, a noise study shall be
conducted to determine the potential noise effects on nearby residences, including traffic
generated by such facilities. The study shall include recommendations as needed to ensure the
proposed facility is in compliance with applicable noise standards. These recommendations
shall be incorporated in the final site plan for the new facility. This mitigation measure shall apply
to new or expanded active recreational facilities (e.g., sports fields, gymnasiums) and not to
passive recreational facilities (e.g., trails, nature areas).
MM 3.11.2
Construction on a project site within 500 feet of a residence shall only occur
during the hours set forth by applicable noise regulations. If no hours are set by the applicable
noise regulations, then work shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.
3.15
Transportation/Circulation
MM 3.15.1
Prior to approval of final site plans for new facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, a traffic study shall be conducted to determine the potential effects on roads and
streets. The study shall included recommendations on reducing the potential adverse impacts
of project traffic. This mitigation measure shall apply to new or expanded PRPD facilities.
November 2001
4-5
PRPD Master Plan
5.0 REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES
5.0 REPORT PREPARATION AND REFERENCES
5.1
REPORT PREPARATION
PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Chris Stabenfeldt, AICP
Project Manager
Terry Farmer
Associate Planner
FOOTHILL ASSOCIATES– MASTER PLAN PREPARATION
Kate Kirsh, ASLA
5.2
Project Manager
PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED
Mike Trinca
5.3
District Manager
REFERENCES
Butte County. 1996. The Butte County Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1: Master Environmental
Assessment. Oroville, Calif., May 20, 1996.
Paradise Recreation and Park District. 2001. Initial Study for Bille Park Expansion. Paradise, Calif.,
March 23, 2001.
Paradise Recreation and Park District. 2001. Paradise Recreation and Park District Master Plan
2001-2016. Foothill Associates, Roseville, Calif.
Town of Paradise. 1994 (amended to 1998). Town of Paradise 1994 General Plan, Volume III:
Environmental Setting Document. Quad Consultants, Roseville, Calif.
Town of Paradise. 1999. Final Master Environmental Assessment for the Paradise Park Master
Plan. Pacific Municipal Consultants, Oroville, Calif., August 30, 1999.
Warner, Trevor. 2001. "PRPD Drops Gym Plans." Paradise Post, September 29, 2001.
November 2001
5-1
PRPD Master Plan

paradise recreation and park district master plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Remington Model 700 ADL VARMIT Bolt Action Rifle 308 WIN w

Discover Paradise Today www.bellalagoresort.com

paradise city - Barton Family Wines

Explore summer fun with our river recreation maps.

A Day`s Work A Driving Lesson A Final Dance St A Line in the Sand

Daishowa-Marubeni

Paradise Press

Diapositiva 1

Youth Sports Programs

Where to find us Planning your unforgettable camping vacation