CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potentially significant effects on the environment resulting from the proposed City of Citrus Heights City Hall and Medical Office Building Project (proposed project). The proposed project consists of two primary components construction of a new City Hall and a new Medical Office Building and associated entitlements. Both project sites are located in the southwest portion of the City of Citrus Heights (City) in the County of Sacramento. The proposed Medical Office Building would be located at 7115 Greenback Lane on the Fountain Square site, which is the location of the City s existing City Hall complex. The proposed City Hall would be constructed on the Stock site, located at 6360 Fountain Square Drive, approximately 800 feet north of the existing City Hall. As detailed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project includes the following elements: Demolition of six existing structures at the Fountain Square site; Construction of a three-story, approximately 69,000-square-foot medical office building; Construction of a single-story, approximately 35,000-square-foot City Hall building and approximately 1.2-acre Utility Yard including an approximately 4,000-squarefoot building, 5,000 square feet of screened outdoor storage, and secured parking for vehicles; Planning approvals for the Fountain Square site include a lot-line adjustment, General Plan Amendment, Design Review Permit, demolition permit, tree permit, and building permit; Adoption of a new Civic Center Special Planning Area zoning district to be applied to the Stock site, the existing Police Department Services Building, Community Center, and U.S. Post Office; and Planning approvals for the Stock site include a General Plan Amendment, Design Review Permit, tree permit, building permit, and annexation of the site to the Citrus Heights Water District. In addition, if the project is approved, the City would enter into leasing and financial agreements with the project applicants/developers for each project site and would consider releasing the owner of the Stock site from a former Redevelopment Agency Inclusionary Housing Reimbursement Agreement. December

2 1.2 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THIS EIR The City has prepared this EIR for the following purposes: To satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Section et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR et seq.), and the City s procedures for implementing CEQA. To inform the general public, the local community, responsible agencies, trustee agencies and other interested public agencies, and the City s decision-making bodies (Planning Commission and City Council) regarding the potential significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed project as well as possible measures to mitigate those significant effects and alternatives to the proposed project. To enable the City to consider the environmental consequences when deciding whether to approve the proposed project and the requested discretionary actions necessary to support the project. In summary, this document is intended to provide City decision makers, other agencies, and the general public with information that enables them to consider the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The document identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects ( impacts ) and ways in which those impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels, whether through implementation of mitigation measures adopted by the lead agency or through the implementation of an alternative to the project. In a practical sense, an EIR functions as a method of fact-finding, allowing an applicant, the public, other public agencies, and agency staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure. Additionally, this EIR provides the primary source of environmental information for the lead agency to consider when exercising any permitting authority or approval power directly related to implementation of this project. 1.3 TYPE OF EIR This EIR provides a project-level analysis for the proposed project focus[ing] primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project (14 CCR 15161). As further stated in Section of the CEQA Guidelines, a project-specific EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. 1.4 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES As required by CEQA, this EIR defines lead, responsible, and trustee agencies. The City is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project. A responsible agency is a public agency, other than the lead agency, that has discretionary approval December

3 over the project. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) is a responsible agency for this project as each construction component will require approval from the CVRWQCB and preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan. A trustee agency is defined as a state agency that has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the state. For example, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is a trustee agency with respect to any potential impacts of the project on fish and wildlife resources. Prior to approving the project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency. The EIR will be reviewed by the City Planning Commission for its recommendation to the City Council, and will be reviewed by the City Council for certification in accordance with CEQA. Written findings of fact for each significant environmental impact identified in the EIR will be prepared by the lead agency to: Determine if the proposed project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; Find that changes to the proposed project or mitigation measures are within another agency s jurisdiction, and such changes have been or should be adopted by such other agency; or Find that specific economic, social, or other considerations make mitigation measures or proposed project alternatives infeasible. The findings of fact prepared by the lead agency must be based on substantial evidence in the administrative record and must include an explanation that demonstrates that evidence in the record supports the conclusions required by CEQA. The lead agency must also prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the project approval process if the decisionmaking body elects to proceed with a project that would have significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. If required, the statement explains the agency s decision to balance the benefits of the project against the environmental impacts identified as significant and unavoidable consequences of project construction and operation. 1.5 SCOPE OF THE EIR The scope of this EIR includes analysis of environmental issues identified as potentially significant in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS), comments on the NOP, and meetings held with the public (see Appendix A for the NOP and comments received in response to the NOP, including a summary of verbal comments received at the City s EIR scoping session). The IS prepared for the project (see Appendix B) evaluated all the issue areas identified in the Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines). The IS is a tool for the December

4 lead agency to use in order to determine where the project may result in potentially significant impacts. Based on the NOP and IS, the City found that construction and/or operation of the proposed project could result in significant impacts in the following issue areas: Aesthetics Air quality Biological resources Cultural resources Hazards and hazardous materials Land use and planning Noise Transportation and circulation. As discussed further in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, the analysis in the IS found that the project would have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts in the following resource areas: Agricultural and forest resources Geology, soils, and seismicity Greenhouse gases Hydrology and water quality Mineral resources Population and housing Public services Recreation Utilities and service systems. The EIR addresses issue areas that could result in significant impacts in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis. The evaluation of these effects is presented on a resource-by-resource basis in Sections 4.1 through 4.8. Each section is divided into two main subjects: (1) Environmental Setting and (2) Impacts and Mitigation Measures. A discussion of cumulative impacts is included at the end of each technical section. This EIR evaluates the direct impacts, reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project using the most current December

5 information available and in accordance with the provisions set forth in CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR et seq.). In addition, the EIR recommends potentially feasible mitigation measures, where possible, and project alternatives that would reduce or eliminate significant adverse environmental effects. The project s demand for energy and increase in energy consumption, as required by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, is addressed in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations. The alternatives chapter of the EIR (Chapter 5, Project Alternatives) was prepared in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition to the proposed project, the following alternatives are analyzed in this EIR: Alternative 1a: No Project/No Build Alternative. This alternative assumes no development would occur, and both sites would remain in their current condition. The Fountain Square site would remain as the current City Hall, no buildings would be demolished, and the Stock site would remain undeveloped. Alternative 1b: No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative. This alternative assumes the Fountain Square site would remain as the current City Hall, and the Stock site would be developed with 160 multifamily residential units, consistent with the underlying land use designation and zoning and the development entitlements granted in 2006 for that site. Alternative 2: Two-Story Medical Office Building. This alternative assumes the existing buildings at the Fountain Square site would be demolished, and a two-story Medical Office Building would be constructed and that a new City Hall would be constructed at the Stock site, consistent with the proposed project. Alternative 3a: Stock Site Medical Office Building Alternative. This alternative assumes the Fountain Square site would remain as the current City Hall, and the Medical Office Building would be developed at the Stock site. Alternative 3b: Stock Site Medical Office Building Alternative with Rehabilitation of Existing City Hall. As in Alternative 3a, it is assumed that the Fountain Square site would remain as the current City Hall, and the Medical Office Building would be developed at the Stock site. In addition, it is assumed that the existing City Hall buildings would be rehabilitated to improve building operations. Alternative 4: Winding Way Medical Office Building Alternative. This alternative assumes the Fountain Square site would remain as the current City Hall, and the Medical Office Building would be developed at a vacant site located at 5900 Winding Way in the unincorporated Sacramento County community of Carmichael. December

6 1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS This EIR has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA. As the lead agency, the City has primary responsibility for conducting the environmental review and approving or denying the project. As a first step in complying with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City examined whether or not any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment. For this project, the IS (provided in Appendix B) demonstrated that potentially significant impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, and transportation and circulation could result associated with project implementation. Based on the conclusion that potentially significant impacts could occur, the City determined that it is necessary to prepare an EIR to analyze the impacts. The NOP was released on September 26, 2014, for a 30-day public review period that closed on October 27, The City received a total of five comment letters including comments from the CVRWQCB and from four city residents. In addition, the City held a public scoping meeting on October 14, 2014, during which four city residents provided comments. All comments received in response to the NOP are provided in Appendix A to this Draft EIR. Agencies and interested persons will also have an opportunity to provide public comment during the public review period for the Draft EIR and at public hearings on the project. As required by CEQA, this Draft EIR will be publicly circulated for a 45-day period for public review and comment. During the comment period, the general public, organizations, and agencies may submit comments to the City on the Draft EIR s accuracy and completeness. Comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 26, 2015, to the following: City of Citrus Heights Planning Division 6237 Fountain Square Drive Citrus Heights, California Colleen McDuffee planning@citrusheights.net After the public review period is complete, a Final EIR will be prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Final EIR will include comments on the Draft EIR received during the public review period, including comments received at any public hearings, and responses to those comments, as well as any revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to agency or public comments. The Draft EIR and Final EIR together will compose the complete EIR for the project. December

7 A Planning Commission hearing will be scheduled during the 45-day public review period; this public hearing will provide another opportunity to submit comments on the Draft EIR either verbally or in writing. After preparation of the Final EIR, and in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will be presented to the City Council to review and certify that the EIR provides an accurate and complete record. Certification of the EIR does not, however, constitute approval of the project but establishes the City s conclusion that the EIR meets the requirements of CEQA. Upon certification of the EIR, the City will make a separate determination as to whether to approve the various entitlements and the proposed project. Additionally, according to CEQA Section (a)(1), for projects in which significant impacts will be lessened or avoided by mitigation measures, the lead agency must prepare a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, to be adopted at the same time the lead agency s decision-making body makes its CEQA Findings addressing the disposition of all significant environmental effects disclosed in an EIR (see 14 CCR 15091). The purpose of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program is to ensure compliance with required mitigation during implementation of the project. EIR Adequacy The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, which states the following: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. 1.7 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This EIR has been designed for easy use and reference. To help the reader locate information of particular interest, a brief summary of the contents of each section of the EIR is provided. This report includes seven principal parts: Introduction (Chapter 1). Provides a brief background description for the project and description of the EIR, including its purpose, intended use, type, scope, and standards for December

8 adequacy; and identification of lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; a description of the environmental review process; and a summary of how the document is organized. Executive Summary (Chapter 2). Includes a summary of impacts and mitigation measures proposed by the project in a table format. Project Description (Chapter 3). Includes a discussion of the existing conditions at each project component site; a statement of project objectives; a general description of the project site s environmental characteristics, including onsite and adjacent land uses and proposed plans for development; and required agency approvals. Environmental Analysis (Chapter 4). Includes a topic-by-topic analysis of baseline environmental conditions without the project and impacts that would or could result from development of the project. It also identifies potentially feasible mitigation measures that, if adopted, would reduce the level of significance of environmental impacts. The results of field visits and data collection, and the findings of technical reports are included in the analysis. Project Alternatives (Chapter 5). Includes an assessment of alternative methods for accomplishing most of the basic objectives of the proposed project while avoiding or substantially lessening at least one significant impact of the project. This assessment provides information for decision makers to make a reasoned choice among potentially feasible alternatives based on comparing the impacts of the alternatives to the impacts of the proposed project. Other CEQA Considerations (Chapter 6). Includes a discussion of additional issues required by CEQA, including significant unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible environmental changes, energy consumption, and growth inducement. The analysis of cumulative impacts is included in the technical sections contained in Chapter 4. References (Chapter 7). Identifies the author, title, and publication information for each document referenced in support of the EIR analysis. EIR Preparers (Chapter 8). Identifies the environmental professionals who have contributed to preparation of this EIR. Appendices. Contains a number of reference items and reports providing support and documentation of the analysis performed in the EIR. December