Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
79 - 107 A (3)
A ROBERT L. Jaye NARXfiOLV _ ZOUVX a, BOX 08-0 Juno 1979 8t1q,, Co. Planning COMM* CXXXCn, CAXJfgKNtA 930 Tot Hutt, County Administrator JUL �Zg $tate Cownty Planner p�'ovillo CaM0611a. Butte County Planning Coj=,ssion Chico City Council Chico City Manager ChS:a City Planner Chico City Plarning Com eson Subject; Noise Environs ;Southeast of Chico Municipal Airport Hoar: gobert L. Frerienburg , r I Airport ,�,ivirors August 1978 • Prepared by R. Son RefbroncO � Chico Munici.pa7: a Spews Associates, Ince, Los Angeles, Cali.forni.a roups and elected representatives are considering the As the various planning g Airport for housi:'.sg the following development of land esouthead of the Chico Municipallan�+7. are signJ.iios+nt. The area of parts of the Chaco Murii.cipa 1 Airport �virons Flan and north particular concoM is south�aast of the airport, east of Cohaaset RighxaY an ex4, ension of Iapi,n Avon. x1e�. with superimposed CNE (Corr�,ttt+nl,ty NoiV.e Eat�ival©ars �into ,.3.nas CIG -3o pg 4.26: Ti'iis rru p tCN ,� 1OV618 in 19EIS. This is 9 Y indicates, tho projected the futuro and nriSht be questi�M-Ode There is no reason to as- In that the level w,3a `De less tlakn tour knChit ind3crtted by these conee. It would be impossible to project farther into the futui`e3;e but it should be remembered that any houses built there should htav'o a life of over forty years. Accord:t-.zg' to this exhibit the area =dm"0onsideratlon for development would have CNEM of from 60 to 63. Exhibit X1-.5 0 This exhibit indicates that in a coranunity such as Chico ("quiet vity and page 4-34 suburban remote fryom ectionlarge Cfactoitiesr should be addend to thd from indu3trial ecomputed trucking") a +10 core � ation factor added the human to nois®. With this cor�.€s a better predictor Of CNEL to obtain a Normalized CN}� whic: n �.s .�dwould b® non- Lal.ized CNEL level in the area under considera i,on 70 to, 73 If one were ccnvi.ced that the proper description for Chico would be "Quiet suburban or rural cammunitty not located near ihdustrisa activity" the range would be 6a' to �. 6J, L, F ne It should be remembered that these 'correatsio�coctha tactortors are eshouldxed for the nation and. that in an area such probably be larger than wither of these due to the great degree of outdoor living for a large portion of the year. hOR r r. FREDENBURG tU MA1uGOLD AVXNUfC 'l a, BOX "t.o June 27, 1979 C11100, CAJ.P1Y)UNIA 941" gu+}o Co, Planning 'Comm To Butte County Administrator J U L 111979 Butte CoUAty Plannor Butte County Planning Commission Orovilie, California Chico City Council Chico City Manager Chico r,, ty Planned adco City Planning Commission Subject; Noiso Environmill Southeast of Chico mm-lcipal Airport From: i Obert L. Fradenburg 1 l Y Ql�lG 'Arporthvix� ns Plans August 1978 Prepared by R. Dixon Municipal Refbre"eb Chico S Paas Associates, Inc" 1,os Angeles, California As the various planning groups and elected representatives are considering the? development of land southeast of the Chico MmLialipal Airport for housing the following parts of the Chico Mun Lcipal Airpo" t Environs Plan: are sign:3 wicant. The area of particular concern is southeast of the airport, east of Cohasset'. Highway and north of an extorsion of Lapin Avenue. CIC-3, pg 4..26: 'rh.i,s rr1p.p with superimposed CNM, (Cornw,.i.ty Noise Bgllivalant Levels) lines, indicates the projected CNFj,, levels in. V• l -t.s is 9' years into the future and might be q AGsti,O1;aed. Th iia is no reason to Assum© that this level vM be lens ths,n that indicated by these contouv lines- it would be impossible to project farther into the future, but it should be remembered that wiy houses built there should have a life of over forty years. According to this exhibit the area under -consideration for development would have CNEL of from 60 to 63• Exhibit 4-5, This exhibit indicates that in a community such as Chico ("Wuie't page 4-•34 suburban remote from large cities and from industrial activity and trucking") a +10 correction factor should be Added to the computed CNEL to obtain a Normalized CN,M which, is a better, prwdictor of human reaction to noise. With this correction factor added the normalized CNr'3. ].Duel in the area under consideration would be 70 to 73• zf one were cervi ced, that the proper description for Chico would be +r a would be 6d to tial " J a tl . r near indust acti.viy the g t�uz.et suburban or rural community note, located n 6)r, L ,r It should be remembered that those correction factors are generalized, for the nation and that in an area such as Chico the factor should probably be larger than either of these due to the great degree of outdoor living for a large portion of the year. Frode nburg.• pagei 2, Exhibit 4-3 This exhibit Indicates that Aotae levol (CNEL) 'n excels of 45 to Normal construc=tion will not reduce Page 4.32 not acceptable inside home. by more than t 5 An 'out i g4m level of 60 would the outside level highest possible for a satisfactory insides environment. then be then Again, it must be r9memberesd in Chico, with its outside lining, it is the outside level thAt is important. Conclusion., The study indi(:41te3 ea normalized CNEL for the area of from 70 to 13 CNEL for hog s sites in vhi le at the sae time that sn acceptable Chico would have 60 as A maximum. 4x),3;f `I -y Py'/ -13 Comments: Comparing MEL figures can be confusing du;! to Ilia fart that this As aeyuatd ►R,(W saaaxc*s) W111 a logarithmic scale. A doubling of of only 3. In this ine&tsnce there is 8 resultin a CNEL increase 10 (60 to 70) which represents a many fold thezease variation of in sound power. Our city, and county governing boards wAy wish to re ge,6rch the recent 'heave awt rdod situation in Loa Angela►a wher�o, I aano told, then courts, situati -to be by the city, when tkm recluse levvl. to homeeoa�Angelners, paid has Increased to an unacceptable level sftrea' the houses from plan4a otheir studias in the vicinity of 'thip Los Angeles tediCmteeci' were constructed. airport art stru that the poise levels hadvo pmoducaea. birth X mL+i.9ea auX` defecis, irriteaf�il,ity, eared. anCiMacsatra:l bcahmvior. Loa 9ngaalea One, It is bocau#c situation not es tkix'amti?ning ms tho therauaalit`y t�ses;tk a� can still control this portion of this fact and of our envf re►1crrat;�t for ther�xO vrha Vit), cow to Ci►iccs tl'imt' i -Urges have delta.It tnntes provided careful study` of this report. The emsu,lt these 0AtA ro` "ke sound judgaxa.r►ts ,thatit to our responsibi,lity� ter u_*6 will, -Anent into the future. (100unt v � l CNVYIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEPARTMENT ' FAIL D.NtLSO7V,biractnr ✓' v December 11� � 1197 � Ste» Chico Aj. port Environs Rezone ERIC Log # 79-04-211-01 To Whom It May Concern, The enclosed (Draft) Environmental Impact Report on the above- named applicatioxx is fox your information and review. .A: notice of completion of the Draft E.I.R. has been filed w.Lth the Butte County Clerk and the Resources Agency of California Secretary. Comments concerning the material. contained in the Draft E.I.R. are ,:solicited. Such comments can be submitted to the Butte County Environmental Review Department,at the address listed, below until the close of th.e LI.j clay period of review on Monday, aanuary 28, 1980. Should you have any questions, please contact this department Sincerely, J",10 Co. Earl D. Ne,lsan, Environmental, Review Director C"�r�v►11e; �%`li,.�0r", ESPN:lkt enclosure(s) 18 . F Gaunt. Center Drive Oroville, California 05965 Tolophona (416) 5344717' Inter-Departmolital morandum rot �,�x,�,�►, IllbG Jig: 11 owillu' J)I';,,tjGO L i.r, VVE' Y f.,,v VC116(I1aI irr, y i i . 3g ?� W -K f 7%. ii. OF CHICOU =P"�! FAKIA MUNI01RAL. QUI4,QINp - 1y, C), 6JC)X :$420, 9!39::7 1. PS- D-154. I/chrono February 29, 1980 ms ; PS -D-142 4V��tu�l��a ( N Butte County Board of Supervisors Courthouse Oroville, California 95965 u+�n,: a. lanning Cclnrr5. WORK 18 1980 Dear Board Members: Orovill+i, idulitort" The Airport Commission, at its meeting of January 29 1980was briefed on the proposed Butte County Land Use Plan in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. At the concl-asion of the briefing the Commission asked me to request the County to require the dedica- tion of avigation easements in connection, with the subdivision of all land that is included within the "Chico Municipal Airport Airport Environs Plan" dated August 1978, copies of which have been previously forwarded to you and your staff. The Commission believes that this requirement would provide a method of notification topsons acquiring and/or developing property within the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and would preclude litigation which might arise out of 'the operation of aircraft into and out of the Chico Municipal Airport. In addition, the Commission has asked that you consider alternative land use plans which would preserve p ',.e agricultural land for agricultural use only within the area eluded in the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, If you require any clarification of this recommendation, I know that the City's Planning staff would be pleased to meet with your,' Planning staff to provide a more complete explanation of these requests. A similar letter is being sent to the Butte County Planning Cc -,,,mission so they may be apprised of this requests If you need any additional information, please contact City Manager Fred Davis Very truly yours„ y V%r& Smith, Chairman Airport Commission vs/mb cc: Airport Commission City Planning Director DCM/ACM-B/ ' Info April 17, 1980 Butte County Planning Commission Clay Castleberry 7 County Center Drive Department of public Works Oroville, CA 95969 7 County Center Tyrave Oroville, CA 95965 Re Airport Environs Rezone, Chico and Drainage Plan Gentlemen; Our organization is quite interested in the current plan- ning for zoning and drainage, for the area east of Highway 99 north of Chico, We wish to offer a suggestion to assist you, property owners, and the public in dialing with both drainage and zoning in the most efficient way, without waste of time and duplication of heaxi:ngs and paperwork. Since the subjects of drainage and zoning are so closely related and interdependent, vie suggest that the processes be combined as much as possible. Building it much of the rezone area cannot proceed,. whatever the zoning designation, without adequate drainage. Drainage of some of the area would not be needed unless the zoning permits development. Accordingly, it. makes no sense to view either o:F these planning aspects separately. We understand the environmental review processes are already' being combined. We suggest, therefore, that hearings on zoning and drainage also be combined, after environmental -.impact as- sessments are completed on the drainage plans. There would be no sense in conducting the zoning hearings before the drainage situation is resolved and holding separate later public hearings on the drainage plans alone would be unnecessary duplication, Furthermore; if drainage plans are changed, after rezoning, some of the zoning may need to be done over again, I; _ a r s Butte County Planning Commission Clay Castleberry Page Department of Public Works April 11, 1980 Z� related concern is traffic solutions. Portions of the coning proposal will create traffic problems which mast be resol,ved, preferably Before congestion and .safety hazards became extreme. Therefore, it would seam reasonable to develop initial road improvement plans and at lease -tenta- tively determine funding sources before the rezoning. Other wise, the county may later find itself in an intolerable and expensive situation which advance planning should prevent. Zoning commitments to landowners . sh.ould not be made if some of -the later development would be prevented by unresol.vable traffic problems. xn •t~hose uncertain economic times, we must be reasonably certain ghat financing will be available, when needed, f03 roads, drainage, and other public improvements. optimism about funding may be a mistake, unless sufficient assessments of the details are made at an Early stage. We suggest that now is the time to make a realistic assessment of road and drainage costs and funding sources, before making the "hidden" commitment to make the improvements later. Please note that we expect: to support large portions of proposed zoning for the area; but our request should not be interpreted as support or opposition for any specific portion of either department's proposal. These are merely procedural suggestions to help everyone and save money, paperwork, and time in the long germ. Thank you. Sincerely yours, CHICO 2 (o 4 OHM UVAAS , JR. President d'T,L pm John D Drake 107 Narame Ro<'id, Sufte 50 a 1'0 Box 1448, Clik.o CA 95927 0 Telej)hone 916 %5-36)31 Ibh,1�1 6, 1080 wrs� v k.4 dt V jq iii Mr. Jere bolster MAY 8 1980 Planning Director PLANNING OFFICE city Of Chico CITY 0 CHiCC� P. 0. Box 3420 Chico, Calif, 95927 Hear dere Please consider this letter our application for a City of Chico General Paan revision to include the acreage north of Sycamore Creek as depicted in our enclosed "Exhib„t All. ,As you know, this parcel was excluded in our original General Plan application some months ago. We would like to have this parcel included at this time so as to make this acreage eligible to be included in the North 'Chico Sewer Assessment District This will enable tis to spread the cost of the main sewer trunk line extension over more acres to make it economically feasible to pro - coed ahead with the North Chico Sewer Assessment Dis- trict. It is my understanding that we likewise have to include this acreage north of Sycamore Creek in the Chico Secondary Sphere ox Influence so that it will become eligible for inclusion in the Sewer Assessment • R41� 1„51�11�G'` [`�GV(!1o��111f`111' h:t i _ y 4 \ 40 NpRTN SYC41q�Q�cG�3� .. 37 \ 43 46, 42 - ._-------- ---- 47 44 36 45 _ / OMF 35 � ntow XPi / � .., .�-_ �, `• - CREAK � k � -` 6 r r. 2. 14 S ' s 26 71 S LP 'x _ 13 IS -----_ 25 28 L _c , r a 2 y 16 2,4 4` 1-2 •_- 21 Y 29 - 31 { _ 17 20 �- r 23 18 19 30 32 !} 3 4E'' 3 3 ,- (,,� {.y r� y /� { St. �U U) �,�o Uou awl. North Portion `3� U uw/ ++�,r, IUCI1.3"LlI 1--.l'-e+t ..,.u11iLls- I1C 1" : -,,..�,_.<.,, l�F)TlS/ is ,,,,,,-,.,,,�• a I17.'L; x 7.. 3.84 OlMee 21. 31,74 OXX.tce"' 35.. 26.09 5.5 1,43 3. 18.46 Oxxiee --- 36. 11. 80 3.5 41 1. 11.22 3.5 y 80 37. 14.09 5.5 77 5. 19.25 3,5 67 J$. 5.28 3.5 :,$ 6. 34.41 3.5 .1.20 39. 4110 5.5 22 7, 17,02 3,5 a9 40. 2:�, G3. x.23. C� [��i�i;� 3F3J .� . 24.60 5.5 135 ^y In ^ ) 4.1, 12 YJ 3 3.5 ` C •,t. 9. $ .10 3.5 28 42. 23.35 3.5 8 11 ' 1.0, 6,33 3.5 22 43. 15.55 3.5 54 1.7.. 17,59 3.5 61 4-• 4-1. 17.83 5.5 98 7.h3. 15.36 3.5 ,5;3 16.06 3.5 5 13; 1:6.3$ 5.5 00 46. JJJl.p) y♦� 9,04 5.5 54 14 . 30.70 3 � 5 1.'39 47. 39.0^0 $.0(INc�l�;l. 912 Ticxr>c 15. 12.07 5.5 Fib TU AL 245.97 11189 16. 16-74 3.5 58 - 1.7; 23.33 3,5 $1 18. 12.44 3.5 43 SUMMA.I3,Y /�C � D. U, `' 19. 1 ,90 3,,7) 55 Res, 8, 5 406.90 1414 34.9 20, 4,14 Church(s) ��..: flus. 5i5 163.13 909 22, Site 21, 11.,35 5,5 62 1105.18.0 54,75 9$4° 24.3. 1� 22 . ry 1 (.. 26 17.26 y �,{� 1ij.. Sch e - v -.r..:... Mufs . p �+, • 1(,Iw- 8 , 0 y 93.39 74C 18A 4 Paris 23. 1.0.1.8 3.5 35 l0"! 24, 10.06 Neigh.f �.�C7]. AL 72.1.:17 4053 1 )0.0 "'hop 25. 7.38 181,0 Apts 132 Non -Ras 26 . 19.28 3.5 67 Sc h/ 27. 0,77 3.5Park 17.26 23. 54.33 8, 0(Mob, Fi0])434 Church 4,14 2110 12.44 18#0 APtS 224_ UrXico Ptu* x4.04 it).' :1.7.96 5.5 98 Neigb, X31. 13:,32 18.0 APtS 239 Shop i�rrt n Area; 10.06 $6.09 324 11.72 5,564 WOJN--R S 'IMAL `""r ___._"'---- 33. 8.46 3.5 x71.59 34 • $-57 3 5 29. F13,O7T�'1? _.. 30 �'�%G 892.76 * 4. Y Y.r __ e. x 4 * 4. Y Y.r __ e. m FIGURE m rr'f «'.%r' r'�'; r ; ' rr. •:«; :'• e��;{.rrr r�rr ;.';�,�? ;; rr..•; , frn r 1« r r f r} frf�► 977 r i1 1995 (E -STI A rr:D ) mak.......... ,cc ...... � ::•:.:: � .. Q � .:.,: CM rj " ^N • pvyf vif hY, • : t , , , `�•. r ` -.. •'7 Wil, •:•1•:, r�1,. + ��,, 11 1 5 ' k , 1 1 1` .i. I• •r , 1 V :•. rf MSri .:� % Y.-..ij:��i .• ,•, 1 •, ••,.I •r. •: , 1 1 •.•..:: r:•: ::::•'• .;, f .•�::•:M.mow. ......:.•.:•.::::..::::::: F� • ... C .,M - ,...::.. .. U.N. .. •...,• ,....• ]n � kY. a., :] .�. . ..'.. .MY• Yi X12: . .•: ........ ....... -Y ... ..oMSi .. ... , ..... ,+arm: .�rvss.» r •-a-:.w.w, ...... ..... .�. ..,: ��s. k.,.:.,.. "�'"� -,.... .. . .:_. .. < _3'•�x7t° ,.,...in �•.Y>�r,r. v .. ........ .... r 1 r rf; ..........•.•.•...•.•. . ::.• :•::.•:.: mr SOUo CAirport Envp"rons Paan �.:,.:.,'.:..;.:;.;;::.•::��;:.:::.•�:•::..:•;:::� :•� � : •::.; •.: •:''''�. 4 Municipal Airport Chico 1000~ O. 2000 3000 4000 •::::�::•i;:::..v.; r: •. •,• • r......,... �ti + , Yez�, d4' "� i� r✓;i? Y i e r. w.�',7 t4 t�1 yti;., r^!A+ 7 5+;:'I � k '•::1 a e N e r. ...� ,., .�. re . t. .. ..::.. r7! • f: .. r... n. xc�. 4i r ��e''r. v?�p i.A ;�e1,`d: �f Ii i'R. t4 l..^h' i+ v `.y'r:' A z 'ii f,� 1_',•':q r:,n:� rr r ,. r. .. t!, � ,..,. .,. rb .i.. � Y r. +n. ,. r .i. ,..Y. .�+ ...: A+,: ...r. -,,, ✓,^,. ,r {ra jr ,s 1'P->�`;xr1 .a. .r ar- v ';Jrrt rev. v'. n ; .,. : n .. i � �i. ., .�.. , 3. ., ,. � .:1.. 1. .rY. tti: .�r ., .. n ,i, r � :,.. �,., k,. ,n: _5•. .orf w ,:•u�p-j �.:I r .:. :a .., ✓ :. r : .. ,. . o.. .. +., .. -; .. r, t.. .. ,..1 , „ r , . � � �„ .w r.. � ... R 9 . •,B,. b•;�, ��. .I 'r"+ ✓• •'Y /s e+ t. ,•,e; A -. .,..+i....... r. .:.n.. '..:,, .W '.t'. i at,-. .r: u., .�.. +i.......0 iw ,. w� �+. i. x„A.. ,� i.. .. .. r,� 1. >, b,,. ,x v :`,7 A. 1 •! '.'.nr u M ,. v :, r.. . ., .. ., ., u ..• .. .,. ,>•.,. .4,w. ,f., .,.. �,J`.k � :.,�. .,. a; '. 5. r, ,r .y'.^, aW-r n �,.- r� 4'71 5� a `w S'. t. .b'; #' 1�: I. r'�✓•.�n:.d! . j: ':r' V w \ r v :t. ! H i. '�ft'.�"'.s .',+4`. 5 ti %„• .. ,. „}�. i..i.. .� ,�. Y,. ,. ,.�•, r k. .. .'�>< .. .. �.y..... i ✓. .x. _, r�. 'r �� a ... .. .t ,r .. bau, ... i. ,.. ,.r, `,A"• ,s.i 3, '+ � t : a..; • ,, '"� '� tl "j.' , ^'M �t. > �+'w "<'•� s 'l ''< r t ••1 +? ,. r. v .r.. ,, ..0 .W ..,•..: + .,.. ... p. ,. ., +Y ,.. •,1. r :.., v;,. � •� '', , . 5 �.r.. . ..:4 r ..z 9. e 'o� ,,. ,,�:,.. :.n •s. 1.. i,( .,�+ � v 3. ,Y. 4. R` SA' r ...._,�... ,. .. .. .... _.':. �..,. �.,.: u...:.<. ... ..e,x��..l. _s .L,J�i.s �,.�:...•.y...._...:._.>`_r �... .".. tx i._d:n...e._.....11 ....�._.. I,_�..'!. .7r .,..... _ai.v .: fr _., u.... .-..�.!_ ..._.._ .... .z.. ,.. :��4l16a. __......_ ,. "_t ii,,:.._.m. 17.. 1..s ..Y.... ... .. .�.,'a..: ._ ..� '* .. � ...'s.1+., ..... l . A,.. ,_ �... .. Mrs. Betty Blair Butte County Planning Director Dear Mrs. Blair: 0 wig Qo, r(Gnning Comb. MAY 2 g 1980 CQroy[wA POUPtAct May 27, 1980 Attached are photo copies of Butte County North, area (airport) pro- posed general plan zoning changes. Under the proposed general plan your department is proposing the following zone changes for parcels: 44-02-19, 44-02-20, 44-02-28 as commercial and parcel 44-02-29 as A. R. We are requesting the above parcels all be zoned as Iii. I. (7 -fight in - Parcel zoning). Parcel 44-02-20 currently has a farm equipment company and an agri- cultural packaging plant that packages nut meats, rice and ;jeans. Parcel 44-02--28 has a,,, agricultural; chemical company located on it which stores liquid chemical fertilizers. Parcel 44--02-29 is now being used as a Christian until the end of this current school. year. it contains a 70a 00sgscft. building and 9 acres of ground. Tt is being sold to a company who intends to di vide the parcel. into 3 parcels. Z am one of the purchasers and tentatively intend to expand my operation onto one of these parcels. These parcels parcels is via Highway 99 wild. blend into the other parcels west of it very nicely. Access rc these E plus Headstrom Way with no other'' possible access. With all, parcels (44-02--19, 20 28, and 29) being groxped. -together aE I`1• 1;. zoned,, you iwould have an area bordered by highway 99 E on the south d on east and private Land on the 'h side. and west sides and public lan We are requesting that your Planning Department change ti zoning from A 2 to M 1 zoning instead of the proposed C zonir- We hope you will submit this zoning change at our li Wednesday, Nano 4, 1980. Under the proposed C zoning the current businesses already established on the above even with a use permit, parcels would not comply with this C zoning Sincerely, Thomas A. Moore fy ,Enc/ j ".PAM/lir A MARKETPLACE COMPANY FOODSERVICE RETAIL INDUSTRIAL .� ♦ 1. has Planning Commission FRIDW .i;'nviror=en'1;al Review i su13JCIcrr 1"laps of agricultural land in the Chl oo Airport Bnv' , ons Rezone project area DATE., June 111 1.960 In response to your request of 6/4/80 the enclosed map was compiled showing the location of the better agricultural soils in relation to the proposed zoning pa-Utern for.. the Chico Airport .environs Rezone. These maps are based on the 1925 U.S. :Dept. of Agrict0 Lure maps and the 1967 Soil Conservation Service maps and are herefore somewhat general. They do give a goneral ;idea of hoar the agricultural, soils lie in this vicinity. For purposes of this map, Vino loam and V:i.na clay loam soil locations have been marked with the gravelly soil locations omitted T hope this information is helpful in your review of this project. If ;you have any questions, please do not hesitato to contact Me. Sincerely, Earl U. Nelson Environmental Review birector ri�a9COMM- Cirri EDN : a. k tU Enc. ,Abe * Bettye Blair I i Y linter-Departmenial Memorandum orandu To: Butte County Advisory Agency FnOMi Planning Directov, SU04EXT: Report on Tentative Parcel 1Jap of G. P. Olson on AT) 48-01-1,5 OATM July 14, 1980 This is a P-oposal, to divide 40 acres into 4parcels Tito Present zoning is "A-211 (General) . The Land U:sq Plan Map of, the Butte County General Plan designates this area. as Agricultural-, Residential. There are no specific Or community plans for the area. The proposal does' not conflict with Counter zoning nor any adopted, or proposed element of the Butte County General Plan nor any County, specific or community PIC-in. Property is proposed -for Agricultural -Residential designation Find "A_40" (Agricultural- 40 acre parcels) zoning in the Chaco Airport. environs Rezone. There is existing 1:SR-3" (Suburban Residential - 3 acre parcels) zoning adjacent to the north. The area immediately to the south is proposed for 11SR-10" (Suburban Residential 10 acre parcels) and the developer is currently in discussion with the City of Chico for inclusion in the Seiver Assessment District and sub- Sequent annoxat; on to the City of Chico. /1r Applicant,rB�utte CoUnty Planning Commission Chico Airport Area . General Plan Chane from AR, GOL, r, I ) MDR to A ., _ change � I� I) R �; MDR to A R , GOA+, P, I r C F LDR .aoratie.r t bounded generally by Rack Creep air N, tC►vy. 99 on tV, Sycamore ` Creek on S, and, LCA agreements on B., ' Date A.ctiozl Requc sted.; 4/24/79 Number of Parcel;-43: Acrong4o,, 6,180 acres l?laraiinf; COmMiDs ioa %'ind:i Ga: An Environmental Impact gepaft has been reviewed d PlamiinS OuMmission Actioii: adopt a resolution recommending approval of the amendment oI the 'band Use Element of the Genera. Plan for the Chaco Airport Area, as shown on Exhibit Map A (rile 79-107A) with a. black border, prepared by staff, recommending the change from Open and Grazing remain Agricultural Residential, recommend 9.ng the arca at � """"i�Tie"�' nom" x n o , s �,n a e an: • tiny ,. Iti eT-U"cl: for 4-0 Commercial be Industrial A'Yh SCamm�,si Chairman sioners Lambert, Wheeler, Max, and C Gilbert 7C Q ABS -ITT x Q A "ISTAIII Commissioner Bennett �4¢y�efCq��s .3 BOARD .0F SUPERVz'.QRS_4_���, a ? xo.�, � CCU►",4TY OF BUTTE, 5 3 ATE QFC LiFaRAq E\fEA'� s �¢�®��i�i COjUN-ao�� Rcsoiu ion No80-154 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, this Board recei�7ed from the Butte County Planning Commission, an amendment, as shown on Exhibit "A", Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C",, attached hereto, to the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the Butte County General Plan; and WHEREAS, areas shown on Exhibit "A", Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" are noncontiguous. and were not considered simultaneously by the Planning Commission, thus requiring separate environmental i studies for several of the areas shown on Exhibit "A Exhibit 1131" I and Exhibit ''C`t and CV'HEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the negative declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit .D`% for the Lee Colby petition, and determining that no significant impacts would result froL this change of land use; and N WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the.environmental impact report, attached hereto as Exhihi;t "E", prepared for the Chico Airport Environs, and determined that no significant impacts Would result from the change of land use in this area;. and F. WHEREAS, the. Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the environmental impact report, attached hereto as Exhibit "F". prepared for the area covered by the petition submitted by Richard Horton, and determined that the change in laid use for this area would not have a significant impact on the environment in that Potential significant impacts due to subdivisions can be mitigated by imposing conditions at the time of approval of the subdivisions T to mitigate the impacts; and WHEREAS the, Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the- environmental impact report„ attached hereto as Exhibit prepared for the area covered by the petition submitted by Ron Imhoff, and determined, that the change in land use for this area would nos_ have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS,' this Board finds that the proposed ar�tenaent will be consistent with.the land use now in the area and will conform to the 'text of the General Plan and be in conformity with the pol c -i es and the other elements of the General Plan, this finding being #ti:s d upon information presented. at the hearing thereon before this Board and the research and studies on which the amendment was based. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board.of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, that theamendmentto the Land Use Map as shonw on Exhibit 'tA", Exhibit "B and Exhibit be adopted and incorporated within the :,nd Use Map of the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the Countv of Butte. BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED that, pursuant to Government Code §65359, the %neral Plan of the County of Butte be endorsed to show that the above amendment has been approved by this Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Government Code. §653:60, a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the city councils of the cities, of Butte County_ PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 22nd day of July 1980, by the following vote: AYES:: Supervisors; Dolan, Hoseley, ITheeler, Ninst'on. anti Chairman, iemi{a NOES: ivonS ABSENT: -,,q-one NOT VOTING: None ROBERT E. LE11KE, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST, CLARK A. NELSON, County Clerk/Recorder and ex -officio Clerk of the Board B 2. 1. CHICO AIRPORT ENVIRONS REZONE' 's DRAFT VNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Prepared far: COUNTY OF BUTTE + ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEPARTMENT Prepared by; OTT WATER ENGINEERS 2400 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 121 REDDTNO� CA 96001 e °r?�q —r NOVEMBER 1979 A R1064�00 ERU Lo g '# Revised FIarch 1980 �. 1.�5 '79- 04-�24--01 Revised 4r� 0 ,�. .. WA P BOTTE COUNTY REZONS AIRPORT ENVIRONS DRAVT E1R Pae No. 11 REPORT SUMMARY 1 11. INTRODUCTION 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 Purpose - 4 Project Location 4 Project Details 7' Papulation 8 Commercial Facilities 10 Utilities and Services 10 IV. EN'V nONMBNTAL SETTING 12 Topography 12 Climate 12 Geology, 13 Seismic Activity 13 Liquification Potentia] 14 Soils 14 Tuscan Series 17 Vina Series 17 Anita Series, 17 Air Quality 18 Hydrology 20 Ground Water 25 Water Quality 25 Noise Quality 26 Vegetation 29 Rare Plant Species 30 Wildlife 31 Archaeological/Historical 33 w CLIA Page No. VII EFFECTS POUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 57 Climate 57 Topography 57 Goolog ► 57 Vegetation 58 Wildlife 55 Air Quality 58 Water Qixality 60 Noise Quality 62 Viewshed 63 Solid Waste; Disposal. 68 Hospitals 64 Power 64 Fire Protection 64 Police Protection 65 Conflict With Existing General Plans 65 Public Hazards 66 Recreation 67 VIII.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 68 Conclusion 72 IX. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ' 74- xo ENVIRONMENTAL E PECTS WHICH CANNOT BE - AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED 76' XI IRREVERSIBLEENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 78 X.II. t THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SRORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE; AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 75 L P fy P BUTTE COUNTY - REZONE - AIRPORT ENVIRONS DRAFT RSR 'ago No. I. REPORT SOMMARY I It. INTRODUCTXON 3 x; Ill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION q Purpose 4 Project Location 4 Project Details 7 Population g Commercial Facilities 10 Utilities and Services 10 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 12 Topography 12 Climate 12 Geology 13 Seismic A�ctiv'ity 13 Liquification Potential 14 Soils lA Tuscan Series 17 Vina Series 17 Anita Series 17 Air Quality 18 Hydrology, 20 Ground Water 25 Water Quality 25 Noise Quality 26 Vegetation 29 Rare Plant Species0 Wildlife 31 Archaeological/aistoricaJ 33 z, 1 Pf � d w n Power 40 Water 40 Telephone 41 Sewage 41 Solid Waste 42 Police Protection 42 Fire Protection 42 Hospitals 43 Schools 43 Hazards to Public Health _ 44 4irport Operation 44 Toxic Substances 4'5 Compliance with Existing Genera. Plans 45 Community Character 47 Recreation 48 VT. EFFECTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT 4 Traffic 49 Schools 50 Hydrology 5l. Archaoological/Historical 5 soils {53 Vegetation 54 Water Quality i 4 p r 55 Page No VII EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO .HE SIGNIFICANT 57 Cl Mate 57' Topography 57 Geology 57 Vegetation 59 Wildlife _ 559 Air Qualit 59 Water Quality 60 Noise Quality 62 Viewshed 63 Solid Waste Disposal 63 Hospit,�,ls 64 Power 64 Fixe Protection 64 Police Pzoteccic n 65 Conflict. With Existing General Plans 65 Public Hazards 56 Recreation /a7 VIII -ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 08 Conclusion 72, U. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 74 X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED 76 XI. IRREVER818LE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN';THE ,`PROPOSED ACTION I' SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMrINTED 78 XII. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE V AINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 419 r ERS2. N0 XZII .ALTERNATIV.SS TO THE PROPOS:�,'b PROaECT SO Alternative I -- No Project Sp Alternative 2 - Lone Specific Portions Qj, the Project for PA -0 (Planned Area Cluster) Zone 81 Alternative 3 - Lower Denai ty. Development, from SR -1 and SR -3 to 23R-3 and A-*nning Class 82 Alternative 4 - Residential Development at Urban Densi'tJ eo (1-12 Dwelling Units Per Acre) 83a Al'terna'tive 5 - Preservation of Prime Agricultural Land 83b XIV, KITZGATION MEASURES gtN Traffic and Circulation 84 School$: t36 Hydrology 87 Water Quality 89 Soils 69 Vegetation 90 Ground Water 91 Noise Quality 91 Archaeology 92 Hazards 92 Recreation 93 Air Quality 93 XV. OR.GANIZATIOTIS An -PERSMTS CON'SLlLTM 95 Butte Counter 95 City of Chaco 95 Consultat s 96 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I Vicinity Map 5 riguxe 2 Project Arca 6 Figure 3 Rezone. Districts 9 Figure 4 Soils on the Project Area 15 Figure 5 Surface Stream Drainages 21 Figure ,6 Noise Levels on the Project Area 28 Figure 7 Unique or Sensitive Areas 32' Figure 8 Traffic and Circulation 37 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Expected Population by Zone class 1:0 Table 2 Spit. characteristics 18 Table 3 Air Quality Data 19 Table 4 Drainage Characteristic 23 Table 5 1.00-Year Peak Flows 23 Table 6 Expected Surface Water Quality Data 26 Table 7 Noise Level. Measurements at Specific Sites 27 Table 8 Average Daily Traffic Counts 38 Table 9 Capacities of Selected Chaco Schools 44 APPtVVTCBS A Allowable Uses for the Different zoning Designations 13 Explanation of Soil Capabilities C Airport Area Planting Criteria (Inter--departmental_ memo) D Letters Received' from State Agencies from the Notice of Preparation x, Ca:IIAPTER REPORT S>rMM This dacum,r,nt dcscr.i bes the potential environmental impacts that are expected to result from the rezoning of '6,180 acres of general agricultural land (A-2) to several rural resi- dential designations and the subsequent development which would be allowed under the proposed land uses. The project area, located north of the City of Chico, will eventually contain- approximately 2,025 residential Units on approximately 2,940 acres, ranging from 1 acre to 10 acres in size; 75 dwelling units on approximately 3,130 acres, ranging from 20 to 160 acres in fUze; 30 acres designated for commercial use 83 .acres designated for limited industrial u:-e; and 30 acres for quasi-public use. Critical issues identified during this study includes v. CHAPTER 11 INTRODUCTION This brat Vavironmental Impact Report (MR) is prepared under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CLQ.A) for proposed projects -that may have: signi- ficantly adverse effects on the environment This report describes the environmental, setting, potential impacts, and mitigation measures which are associated w:Lth the rezoning of 6,180 acres of land north of the City_ of Chico. The rezoning action will change the land use designation of the arca :from Art (General Zone) to several. Rural Residential./ Agricultural designations. The A-2 c:la.ssiicatiot is the eesignation for areas within unincorporated areas of Butte County that have not been designated for any other residential, agricultural, indus- trial or commercial use. This document is prepared in a. manner which evaluates and discusses the potential environmental effects as the result of development in the rezoned area. This report also concen- trates on the.Cumulative effect which may occur to the study area and surrounding vicinity resulting from full buildout of the project area. 1 f CUAPTVR III PROJ9CT OBSCRIPTION PURPOSt 'the goals of this rezoning aotion are threefold. The first is to prevent development in the vicinity of the Chico municipal Airport which would be incompatible with the operations of that facility. The second is to, eliminate inconsistencies between the Butte County General Plan and existing zoning designations. The third objective of this action is to provide space for future growth derptand that may occur in the Chico community. PROJECT LOCATION The project area is located adjacent and north of the City of Chico in the County of Butte, The rezoning, areencompasses 'o a approximately 6,180 acres which surround -the Chico Municipal Air- port. The boundaries of the study, area include: m'�e, I -look Creek, drainage, to the north; State Highway 99, to the west; wle Sycamore Creek drainage and the Chico City limits to the, south; I and specific lands that have been reserved for agricul.,ural ut,,e under the Land, Conservation Act, to the east.The center of the project area excludes land required for the. opera,.Aon of the Chico Municipal Airport because this property i;3owned and maintained by the City of Chico, in addition to the structures, runway, and other facilities on the airport site, a !'free z0ftelt designated fOr,open space,, is present I to maintain approach and departure paths for aircraft. PigUre I depicts the general vicinity of the 'project while riqtire 2 illastrates the detailed project area. ! , IS ` � ✓.. �utr..C�' A t � � r� .LS ` �1��• 1 4� 1J�'r 1 e . .1 . '1f/. t: .i ,y\I t 1 t t.S ♦ , 0 a The legal description of the project area encompasses Township 22 N., P,. It E., Section(s) 2, 3, 4, S, portions of land 8, 9 1.0; Township 23 N., Ro 10 E_:, Sections 26, 27, 28, 29 30, 31., 32, 33, 34, and 35 In addition, unsurveyed lands lying south- west of Township 23 N. , R, 1„ Bio. , Section l and bordering Bidwell Park are included in the project a -ea. PR0,7ECT DETAIL, The rezoning action proposed by the County of Butte will define and delineate specific zoning districts around the Chico Municipal. Airport. The types of uses which are proposed under this zone change are listed below with the approximate acreage which they will encompass. o SR -1: Suburban Residential. Zone with I -acre minimum parcel, size; total acreage is approximately 2,000 acres.. Q 8R-3: Suburban Residential Zone with 2 -acre minimum parcel size;: total acreage is approximately 700 acres. o SR -10: Suburban Residential with 10 -acre minimum parcel size; -total acreage is approximately 130 acres o A-20: Agricultural uses with minimum allowable parcel of 20 acres; total area is approximately 320 acres n A-40; Agriculture uses with minimum allowable parcel of 4,0 acres; total area is approximately 2,250 acres. o A-160: Agriculture with 160 -acre parcels as minimum allowable size; total area encompasses 560 acre",;, -7 i c ASR: Agra cul. urali./Stiburban/Residential,, l.,acro minimum size; total arra encompasses approximately 250 acres, o C-2; Cenoral. Commercial Zone. No minimum parcel size; total area encompasses approximately 25 nacres. o L-1.; Limited industrial. No minimum parcel size; total area encompasses approximately 80 acres. o . P -Q; Public Quasi 'Lone. No minimum lot size; total area encompasses approximately 30 acres. The exact locations of these various proposed zones are shown in Figure 3. Full descriptions of allowable lases and other requirements for each zone are presented in Appendix A. POPULATION The project area at complete_ development is expected to provideresidences for an estimated 5,670 people. This figure is based on the county estimate of 2800 potential residential, units with an average 2«7 persons per: unit. Table 1 presents the estimated potential: population and number of units associated with each zone class. 8 i i d t ZONE DWELLING ONTTS POPULATION SR -1 1.,741 4,700 SP3 208 561 SRIO 1.1 30 A20 16 43 A40 56 151 A160 3 1,0 ASR 65 175 TOTAL 2,100 5,670 COMMERCIAL FACILITIES Due to the nature of this zoning action, the exact type of commercial facilities that will be constructed in the project area are undefinable; however, Appendix A presents the allowable uses which may occur in this zoninq area, UTILITIES AND -SERVICE' Developers of the project area for residential., commercial, and limited industrial activities will be responsible for arranging the required services to meet the individual sub- division or facilities ;needs. The following list indicates the private and public firms which will be most likely involved with providing such services: o Power and t'l.ectricity : Pacific Gas, and Mectric Company o Telopho.n.e; Pacific Telephone Company o Water. Individual Domestic Wells 10 }\� K� \ � ' \ qj\ TOPOGRAPHY The project area 18 relatively flat and has a general south western gradient. Slope$ on the site range from .4 to 5 percent inthe western portion, of the project area and increasing to a range of 2 to 9 percent on the eastern boundary. The eastern portion of the project area possesses a rolling quality due to the combination of stream flows and geologic formations which underly that portion of• the project area. The elevation of the project area ranges from approXimately 170 feet above mean sea level along the south western portion of the project site to over 31.0 feet in the extreme southeastern cornet. CLIMATE Theclimate of the project area is characterized by mild rainy winters and warm to hot dry summers. This type of climate is classified as Mediterranean with warm summers. Average annual precipitation in this area equals 23 inches per year, with 85 percent falling between October and March. Nearly all of the precipitation falls as rain and only occasional snowfall may occur. Average daily temperatures range from 45or in January to 79 0 1? in July. The minimum winter temperatures have been recorded in the vicinity as 160F while maximum summer temperatures,have reached 1170'. The frost-Pree growing season averages from 7 to 8 moipths in length which is suitable for a wide variety of qraint orchard, and truck crops. Prevalent winds are from the south during winter months and from the northwest during the summer. Lverage wind velocities are 7 to 8 knots during summer. GEOLOGY Three major geologic formations underlie the project area. Along the eastern portion of the site, the Tuscan formation is found. This formation, is composed of volcanic mudflow deposits, gravel beds, and sands. These deposits contain high grouhd-wator holding potential in gravel -sand lenses, which are located at depths up to 1,200 feet. older alluvial and terrace deposits make up the second formation. These deposits consist of sandstones, shale, and other noni-aarine sediments. This formation overlies the Tuscan formation and also contains high ground -water aquifer potential. The third formation is composed of more recent alluvial deposits composed of sands, gravel, silts, and clay. The formations are found along floodplains, channels, and natural levees of major streams. StISMIC ACTIVITY No known earthquake faults exist on the project area, however, several earthquake epicenters have been located in the vicinity of this area. The closest seismic epicenter occurred on the western boundary of the project area near the intersection of Highway 99and Wilson tandin(j Road; however., as reported in the Butte County General Plan, Seismic Safety Element, the Richter 13 magnitude did not surpass 3.4. Four epicenters have been located within one mile north and northwest of the project area. Three of these were of magnitudes ranging from .1 to 3.9 while the fourth ranged from 4.0 to 4.9 on the Richter Scale, East of the project area, an area or high -past seismic activity exists. This area; which lies approximately 1.5 to 2 ftiile6 northwest of the projected area, contains several fragmented fault tracesi The general orientation of these traces are In a northwest -southeast direction. The Tuscan Monocline lies para- llel to these faults and delineates a division between different Levels of volcanic -related formations. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL The areas on the project area which are generally moderately susceptible to liquefaction, that is, the loss Of soil structure and bearing strength due to seismic shaking and high water content of the soils, are located to the southeast, south, west, and northwest of the Chico municipal Airport. Certain areas within. this moderate liquefaction potential zone can be con 8idered to be of high liquefaction potential where loose granular sediments, such as sand, lie below the water table and possess relative densities less than 65 percent, SOILS Eight soil series have been located in the project area. Each series possesses certain characteristics which are based on parent material, age, and slope. Within each series, soil types attributes can be delineated, Each has specif'ic ibutes, such as soil depth, stoniness, and presence of unique features', such as impermeable soil layers. Figure 4 and Table 2 illustrate and describe the soil, types and their characteristics found in the project area. Appendix B describes the soil capability units Utilized in Table 2. 14 TAgbr, 2; SOIL CIWRACTERISTICS nX? `,rtt►; p1(()dECT AREA surface Subsurface e-mbvl 5 Depth Ara-ILOinnPermer�bil�t Erosion Susceptibility Capability (lniL **PresentIndexes Storia Septic Tusesn 2"-g'r... Suit---ab`i Hnmrirlcs Surface Stony Clay Loam -TS Av - " G 4 Pair Subsurface Fair Low VTI S-8 6 Low Nonnrable None Pasture Vine 21-3' Surface Olay Loam -VG 6' Poor Subsurface Slow Low I-1 S5 Good. Good Irrigated, Poor moisture grain., and Vina2 r-3 , Surface retention pasture Loam -VI: 61 Good Subsurface Good Low x-1 100 Good �U4cp Truck craps, Good fria b.'1e orchard, Vina 21-31 Surface grain. Loaln Shallow -VLSH Leas than Good Subsurface Slow Low... ZI W"2 5C Law* Vina 6'' Poor ovar'lies Same as above when Vina 2'-31 Surface Tuncan, deep enough Loam Gravel -VLG 6' High Subsurface Goad how x-1 84 Moderate Low water 'Limited Anita lr_Zi Surface retention crops Clay Loam - 1�-2r poor Subsurface Low Low III W-5 50 Low four Grain None drainage Anita 11-31 Surface Clay Adobe -Aa 5'=61 Poor Subsurface Low Slight E III W-5 34 Low* Shallow, Grain Poor poor Keefers 101f,2011Good drainage Gravelly Loam -ICG 21'-3001 to Excessive Good Slight VI 5 -$ S2. Moderate Compact Pasture, stony some irrigated Redding 15"-20" Surface subsoil crop Clay Loam -RC - 3 SFr i' Fair Subsurface Low Low IV $-8 16 Low Hard pan Limited Phar at 1'-2' crops, Scab - depth pasture Land -SC `-- Excessive --- Low VIII S»8 __ -__ Vol canis _ Pasture, basalts- , ' woodland, . ehallnw . *Severe ,limitations due to shallowness of the soil layers **Explanation of Capability knits found in Appendix The Tuscan series covers more acreage on the project area than the othor series. This series contains Tuscan stony clay 'Loam which is found on the eastern one-half of the project area. On the western one"balf this soil appears sporadically, but is generally covered by overwash material. This soil is considered to be generally nonarable and of limited agricultural value due to its very shallow, 2 -to 8- inch depth. VIVA SERIES The Vina series is the second largest series on the project area. The soil types of this series found on the project area include-, Vina loam, Vina loam (gravel phase), Vina loam (shallow phase) and Vina clay loam. The Vina loam and clay loam soils are considered to be prime agricultural soils. Within the project area, the Vina loam and clay loam soil make up approximately 1,500 acres. This total equals about 5 percent of -these soils found in the Chico area. ANITA SERIES Anita soils are -the nett largest group found on the project arez�. These soils are not considered agriculturally prime soils clue tc their subsurface constraints. Other soil types which are also f0 Und in the project area incltido. small locales of Nord 1loaM1,Keefers: gravelly loam, and Scabland, located on the eastern edge of the project area, It is noted that the boundaries, of each soil type presented in Figure 4 may not represent actual changes of soil on the project area. Jerry Smith of the U.C. Farm Advisor Office ce states that while the map accurately locates the soil types of the Site, the boundaries may vary considerably. Adetailed soil survey would be required to locate the soil types in a precise manner. 17 AIA QUALITY The City of Chico and the projeot area lie within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. Local, air quality measurements are monitored by the Butte County Air Pollution Control office. This agency has measurement faoil4.tics located at Chico State University and in downtown Chico. It has been reported that Butte County has been designated as a nonattainment area because'of occasional violations of air quality standards. However, the quality of the airshed in this area, is relatively good and only reaches unacceptable conditions under specific circumstances. These conditions include high winds that contribute to high particulate counts due to blowing dust and sand, and air inversions which do not allow local pollutants to disperse in the surrounding airshed. The primary pollutants in the area are particulate mattor, carbon monoxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. The particulates are primarily derived from agricultural aci,-ivitiels promoting blowing dust and soot from burning activities. The hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, ozone and nitrogen oxides are derived from automobiles, machinery, and other mechanical and electrical equipment. Table 3 presents the recorded values for particulates, ozone, and total hydrocarbons for portions of 1978 and 1979. AIR Q(lALI.TDATA TOTAL FARTICULAT.Ijfi (mg/m3) tAver,,ge Values) CARBON MONOXIDE (um) JAN FERl MAR A1, R MAY JUN JUL AUG Avg 52 39.4 41 47 6� 68.5 76,8 60 High 107* 83 64 62 102* 83 122* 01 1978 Total. Califorrita Air Qla:tl],ty Standard Exceedence - 10 Evebts 1978 Total. Vedera.. "tandaxd Zt. eedonce = 4 rwonts MAXIMUM 1979 'Notal. California AixQuaiij-.jR (ppm.) NOX (pphm) : tandard I:xceedenr e 41** FEB' (January -August) 26** Everts 2- 17 APR OZONE ( phm) CARBON MONOXIDE (um) (Maximum Day Readio 4 . xtimum Hour Reading) Drmn t own Cbico Chico State University JAN 4 9 14 FEB 4 .,. 8 MAR 7 35 APR 9 1 4 MAY 8 2 4 JUN 9 '? 3 JUL 10** a. 3 AUG 9 2 4 MAXIMUM HOUR READING) TOTAL HYDROCAR,AONS (ppm.) NOX (pphm) JAIL 3 41** FEB' 3 26** MAR 2- 17 APR 2 13 MAY 2 15 JUN 2 10 JUL 2-- AUG 3 15 Exceeded Ca. ifornia Aix " Quality Standard for Total, Particulates of loo mg/rr1. ** Emceeded California Air Quality Standard for OXidants of 10 ppm. ** 25cp��rettd Standard for Dioxide fP���sol�e�aklu��rQdaMx�7y.�.©nt,) .Nitrogen 19 Nitrogen dioxide, one of several nitrogen oxide compounds, is considered very toxic, This air pollutant affects visibility due to :its brown ooloring. Ozone, another; extremely toxic substance to humans is emitted I n usually very low amounts. However, the interaction o;e nitrogen oxides, certain organic compounds and sunlight, forms ozone in the atmosphere Hydrocarbons and associated airborne particles result from incomplete combustion of fuels. These substances are known or suspected to be causes of environmental cancer if contacted for sufficiently prolonged periods. Total suspended particulates (TSP) include hydrocarbons, as well as dust, soot, ;lead, photochemical smog and other minute or pulverized pieces of matter. These particulates, such as pes- ticides and other airborne chemicals and even radioactive par- ticles, are often extemely toxic.' Under most concentrations, TSP create a nuisance and objections from people who are exposed to them. However, individuals with respiratory problems can be severely effected when expused. HYDROLOGY The project area lies in the Sacramento River Valley just below the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. These mountains to the past provide the major source of runoff to the project area. Numerous streams cross the project area in a westerly direction until confluence with the Sacramento River, approximately g is.11l'es west of the project area. On the project area,'three main channels are prdsenti They are Rock Creek,, -Mud Creek, and Sycamore Creek„ These channels pass the intermittent flows of surface runoff waters from tho, east and. local runoff from portions of the project area. (see Figure 5) 20 • Runoff in areas north and west of the Chico Airport, except the Mud Creek, watershed, travels overland in swales and other poorly defined drainages in a westerly direction. Duo, to the very slight slope, high clay and silt content of the soils, and lack of well-defined drainage patterns, the westorn.portion of the project area is often lnundated by standing water during winter storms. Thi.,3 area incompasses approximately 1,900 acres4 Runoff in areas east of the Chico Airporto directly west and south of Mud Creek, and southeast of the airport drain into either. Mud Creek or Sycamore Creek and is discharged through the levee system. This area encompasses approximately 4,200 acres. For the area north and west of the Chico Airport, the estimated 10 -year peak flow is 1,300 cubic feet per second (cfs). The remaining area on the project site is expected to have a 10 -year peak runoff- of 2,800 cfs. These values assume a 10 -year recurrence precipitation intensity of 1.8 inches per hour. Sycamore Creek has undergone extensive levee construction and alteration in the past 20 years. It now collects the flows of Sheep Hollow Creekk North Sycamore Creek, South Sycamore Creekt and portions of Chico Creek passing them through the southern portion of the projeot area. Mud Creek, intersects Sycamore Creek in the southwest corner of the project area, where the combined streams, flow in a southwest direction to the Sacramento River, Along the northern boundary of the project area, Rock Creek flows in a westerly direction.. It intersects a secondary drainage way; 22 Reefer's Slough, approximately i,75 mileswest of the project area. The Xeeferls $lough, originatos on the project area north of the Chico Municipal Airport while Rock Creek originates at higher elevations east of the project area. Table 4 summarizes the principal characteristics of these drain- ages. 23 TABLE 4 Drainage Drainage Area Ca2acitZ Rock Creek at Highway 95 44 square miles 3t200 cfs Mud Creek At Sycamore Creek 17 square miles 5,500 cfs Confluence Sycamore Creek at the 14 square miles* 11,000 cfs COnfluenoe, of Mud Creek Does not include area from flows diverted from Chico Creek Peak storm events have been calculated for the drainages on the project area. Table 5 describes the flow under estimated 100 - year flood conditions. TABLE 5 Drainage (100 -Year) Peak Flow Rock Creek at Highway 99' 9,540 Mud Creek at Sycamore Creek 5,500 Sycamore Creek at Mud Creek 11,000 23 The Standard Project Plood (SPS') or a flood that may occur in a 300 -year interval was estimated o for Tock Creek; the. SPS" equals lleOO.0 cfs o for Mud Creek,• above Sycamore Creek the SPF is estimated to equal. .5, 500 cfs; o ;dor Sycamore Creek above Mud Creek; the SPF is estimated to be approximately 1.2,500 cfs'; o The .Army Corp of Engineers has indicated that the SPF for Mud Creek west of Highway 05 is equal to 2.0,000 cfs. The SPF for Sycamore and Mud Creeks are based on preliminary analysis utilizing a weighted aerial method. The drainage and levee work that was conducted on Mud Creek allows containment of flows up to the 100 -year recurrence' Level.. on Sycamore Creek, a 3,100-cfs peak flow capacity is still unused under 1.00 -year recurrence conditions. Flood problems on Rock Creek have not been alleviated. A peat flow of 3,,200 cfs is the estimated channel capacity of. Rock Creek at Highway 90. A drainage improvement, plan is currently being prepared for the project area. One possible alternative includes the development of open channels to remove excess water from critical portions of the project area. These critical portions include emergency access ways and roads. 2 GROUND WATr,,R Three zones Of ground water have boon identified in the, project at various depths. A -shallow aquifer exists in recent alluvial material at depths u� to SQ feet. It is utilized as a source for domestic uses but is unreliable due, to seasonal fluctuations. The recharge area for this shallow zone includes local runof," ftom the projeoL area and the Chico community. An intermediate aquifer is found at depths ranging from 50 to 450 feet in, older, alluvial deposits. This source is primarily used for individual domestic consumers; The recharge zone for this water is located in the outcrops that are present east of the Chico area. A third zone exists deeper than 450 below the surface. This aquifer is located in the Tuscan formation, which contains extensive gravel, loose conglomerates, and sands. Several Wells, drilled to depths of 1,200 feet are currently operating and yielding 1,000 to 2,000 gallons per minute. These wells are operated by the California Water Service Company, WATER QUALITY The surface waters on the project area are considered to be of good quality during higher flow conditions. It has been reported that during periods of low flow in the dry season the quality of the I surface water declines. This is pri- marily due to the introduction of organic materials from nearby agricultural activities and'vegetation. I This combined with limited drainage from some area . s results iry, degraded surface water quality. The following average values describe the surface,: Water quality- :of the project area. These valUo8 were obtained from similar pasture and cropland areas. 25 TABLE 6 ELL Total Dissolved Solids 400 Oil & Grease Q. Dissolved Iron .150 Nitrogen (NO3) Dissolved Phosphorus (P0.4) iol-.02 Ground -water quality'is considerod to bo excellent. Due to the presence of impermeable soil la�yers, the intermediate and deep qround-water aquifer zones are considered to be very unlikely recipients of pollutants fromthe surface. NOISE QUALITY The primary noise sources in the project area or vicinity are aircraft arrivals and departures from Chico Municipal Airport. As shown in Figure 6, noise levels at various distances from ,the landing strip are projected. The values used to describe the levels are Community Noise Equivalent Level, (CNE,) valile8i These values take into consideration all aircraft during a 24-hour period. correcting for noise events that occur during the evening or night. in additiorl, specific individual occurrences at certain locations are described in Table 7. These values are measured in decibels on the Ascale (dba) and simulate actual levels heard by the human ear.' It should be noted that the CNttj contours were prepared in. 1976 when Hughes Airwest scheduledfourdaily flights with OC"9 jet, aircraft.. Recently, these flights have been discontinued and may reduce the outward extent of each CNPL'c,ontour from the airport. However, if regular commercial jet aircraft service is reinstitutedi the contours used in this document 26 will be suitable for estimating the noise levels from the airport. Secondary noise sources in the project area come from highway traffic on State Highway 99, Xeefer Road, Hicks Laine, anal Garner Lane. Average noise readings from State Highway 59 noise sources are estimated to decline to 50-55 dba 100 feet from the road, The high speed traffic on Highway 99 results in greater noise levels than would occur on Keefer, Hicks or Garner. These noise levels are estimated to be from 45-55 dba at 30 feet for most traffic. Other noise Sources on the project site are natural. These sources include wind, birdse and other animalso Those sources make up a natural background noise level of 30-40 dba. I TABLE 7 N018E LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AT SPECIFIC SITES (dba) Minimum Maximum 1. 40 feet south of Keefer/ 30-32 6261 auto 2,000 feet southwest of Coha8set 2. 30 feet north of Xeefer/ 80-36, (day) DC9 300 feet east of Hicks 3. 30 feet north of Easton/ 37-40 (day) 1,500 feet WeSt of Cohasset 32-36 (night) 62-77 auto 27 VEGBTATION The project area has undergone extensive vegetative disturbance due to the introduction of agriculture and grazing. Commercial agricultural production Includes corn, almond, and walnutcr- chards; and hay and assorted truck crops. In addition, a variety of pasture grasses and grains are grown throughout the project area. in areas where intensive agricultural practices have not taken place,native trees species are found. These are mostly composed of Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata); Black Walnut (Julaps sp.), some Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Digger Pine (Pinus sabiniana), I-nterior Live Oak (Quercus wislizenil), and Blue Oak (Quercus dojjglasii). The four latter species were primarily located north 0-f Keefer Road in the northeast portion of the project. Large oak stands were also observed north of the Chico Airport on well - drained sloping areas; Other portions of the project area are primarily composed of grasses, scattered (orbs, and low shrubs. Due to the season in which the field inventory of these species occurred, Septorber and October 1979. many spring growth species were not ido)qtified. Plants that were observed or are known to be characteristic of environments similar to the project area include-. Buck Wheat Brio4onum sp. Bull Thistle Cirsium vulqare Mustard Crucifetae family Tarweed 8emizonia sp. Burclover Medicago arabida Chickweed Stellaria media Lupine Lupinus, sp. Yellow Star Thistle Centaurea solstitlal'I8 29 Mullein Mule Ears Wild onion Wild Daisy Lasthenia RARE PLANT SPECIES Verbasoum tL111-sus - Wye t: h ia bolanderi sp. Chrysanthemum leucanthemufn Lasthenia. slabrata Several rate plant species have been located on the project area or within the vicinity. These plants are often associated with . moist conditions which occur with poor surface drainage, and pondinq. Vernal pools have been located south of the project area and are reported to contain Auscuta howellianap a parasitic plant which fastens itself to a host plant. other rare plants suspected to occur in the project area include: Lemnanthes floocsa sspcalifornia, which 'inhabits poorly drained clay depressions, Euphorbia hooveri, which inhabits dried mud flats, orouttia greenei, which inhabits opens moist placest Vruitillaria pluriflord or Adobe Lily, which inhabits adobe soils of the interior foothills, and Astra *talus pauperculus? Meager Loco Weed, which inhabits poorly drained, moist, low landsi in addition, Sidalcea robusta, Butte County $idalcea, is reported to occur in the foothills and chaparral east of the project area where Jugla,ns hindsil, Northern California,Black Walnut also occurs. This latter species is not specifically distinct from the California Black, Walnut but does respond negatively when grown in less favorable conditions. The presence of this species is often used as an indicator of old Indian campsites. Another species, Salycadania fremontiir has been located in several areas north of the project area. This species was for a 1 con- tAmi-aA 4-n bp PMi-+Mr_fona oetiod of time; however, it was e27_ recently rediscovered. This species is located, in wet places and open areas. Figure 7 presents the locations of the largest vernal pools in the project area. These were located using aerial photography and hav,: not been field chocked to verify the presence of these rare species. WILDLIFE The project area can be generally classified as an open oak woodland with extensive grassland areas; however, due 'to agri- cultural activities, much of the area has been altered. Levee construction on Mud Creek and Sycamore Creek has extensively modified natural riparian habitat. Agricultural activities have altered the composition a -d extent of native vegetation as has extensive grazing on the open -pasture lands. The project area does support a variety of relatively distur- banoe-toleraftt animal 8p6Qie9_that have adapted to the changes which occurred in the project area. Common bird species which are found in the project area include; ,Scrub Dray (Aphelocoma coerulesceftg)t Brown -Beaded Cowbird (Molothrus ater), California Quail (Lophortyxcalifornicus-), Sparrows (zonotrichia sp.), 'Finches (Lencosticte sp.), Kilideer (Charadrius) vociforus), and larger predator species such as Red- Ta,iled Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and Barn owl (Tyto alba). Mammals that can be expected to inhabit this type of terrain include.- Striped Skunk (Mephisitis mephitis), Black -Tailed Jack Rabbit (Lepus californicus) ► Pocket Gopher (ThemoTys bottae), 'various mice species (Cricetidae family), ground squirrel (Citellus beecheld), and raccoons (Procyon 16tor). 31 in addition., certain nocturnal species may inhabit the a,-rea They include: Coyotes (Canis latrans) and Bobcats (� vafug). Reptiles commonly associated with this type of area include Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) , Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer) and Western Gartar Snake (Thamnophis elpqans'). An important winter deer range is located approximately 2 'miles northwest of the project site but does not extend into the project area, Also lying east of the project area, in the rocky buttes and canyons, predators, such as Prairie Falcons (Valoc mexicanus) may nest. This predator species may utilize the project area for feeding and is reported to travel in a radius of 7 to 10 miles from its eyries. The Prairie Falcon preys on both ground and aerial animals that are found in open areas, Their nesting season occurs from early spring to summer, During winter months, the nests are ofteii abandoned and the birds migrate to areas thao' support large populations of water fowl and other prey species, in addition to the suspected eyries that may be located east of the project area, a Peregrine Falcon (Falco Peregrinus) has been reportee.. approximately 16 to 20 miles northwest of the Chico Airport.area. This reported, nest is just beyond the normal 16 - mile hunting radius of this species, The Peregine Falcon is considered to be of a rare and endangered status by agencies in the Federal government. ARONABLOGICAL/HISTORXCAL The project area is located in an area which once comprised the, boundary of three California Indian tribes. These tribes: the Maidut the Yahi, and the Wintun, occupied the eastern Sacramento 33