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 (6)
t V11 b Environmental. Review Directovlo respcilso 'to °tho letter from Chico 2000 dated March 25, 1980. Response to Comment 1. Consideration of maintaining -the nest agricultural soil in the area In agricult gal production is an alternative worthy of consideration, which would reduce some of the adverse impacts of the proposal. An alternative which explores that possibility is 'being incorporated into the report. Response to Comment It is possible that other projects currently in the worKs will satisfy the housing demand in -the Chico area for many years into the future, al though with today's high intecest rates and possible economical recession, many of the approved units may never be built. Figures for other projects contained within the EIR for Big Chicu Creep Estates are hereby incorporated by reference Response to Oomment 3:. Energy conservation considerations were inadvertently omitted. The report As being enlarged 'to cover this area. Fiscal considerations are being reviewed and. will be revioed j:X necessary. Response to Comment 4. The Rock Creep Drainage study and Upper Mud Creek drainage study are both being incorporated into the EIR for this project. 064t opt �y �!(:(if.�r�r rrxP P,�i ��►, •R'P''t ��" �.-'`'tl`i�a rP •. Mi i% t �-." ✓4#'1 ✓ i,t: 4i r/i ,/•�r �.'� i P _� r,••t • �t t f p � xs$ • "r � ,a y },r� Rif i r {n � •� t" i w / N /� , k Ir` rr.. " 1 �+.'i ,f �> �. ¢y � r _�+ f t �*4t..} ��s+�e(/�r,►" P�,r3�"s!s�t1d.•d�E,�"d i� ��rr•�� .r of a J144. ,. 4C/cOt4.rt1 %� � .: / t 1 i.aai"I,,/ 4 •�+:t.w.E P'' i� , L,.i•'�-aQ,,..a� Lit � t c r►,,: ..i4 rs l�+ �iir '`� � . , J ���.� t n �r �r r,...la. 7� �t.s R el w1RLl. �9f/�Irri IR f'(`1Cf,xC,; .,, r�it•tCt j t7 f Xis /t0 �,rC,R t:Gt.Rr I /y,��t�iPFA,* Je!..rrt�J /r^" y�P*,t ep P A l /t wPPirr�!'y''it>.i� .. �%.x� / y} e�f t,A /A P �:.r "f.r x i s` �... `Y s y i ,, �• / \. i f '✓ b k A R e rM1 �/ r x♦ 1 00 14't ti _ JJJ r i1 -A:w 1Yr y.'1• f � � I Of a^ 10f5d S e qtr.,, �a ,.". A , � � ��� (�:'a"?;�°r,} f,•� �^�rlj i%4., C:C:i III �t1 1 r R 1r1+0 e'�.s° ��.+t,•�ijr 4'Y/l,+ (ff4Jl «1��L`It` I•+ it J«� n + • � �:, 1 a • , . 1 ?f.�.e,.��`' •-,..X� art t � . � e / y e o "'""�„ _,COa •1 "lo/Ij #t44 ..4r; ;fYZ. ,art' / w.e.�.►-�.l.�G4 GL/6/ka.a ? i', II �! t=s1M�� �%f ��f4 � l� C, r �J' ♦t ,�;^^.rG'r''t 1C. .�"� � �.rRt ,l z e H •r,% �, �. ..J� �a e F r'R 1 4 J G/.. rl t °'fi /J l7 yOf•'l OF f��'/,f e'r,«IYf•J I,ft J.�I.i!• y71 -AAtrni •, f /,01 i. rl * S/) / r R ct. `�'� jV f rr ?a ? es .•M+� •.��� {jam �� � f , "� s .�� �' C� e b i(%/aP�n �;1' GG'"�tI Y/�'a e,► S 1°' t! >V' e�` I AY, r �I�� �, �Y� �,t r s� }'f .�� a���1 a � � � tipf?�t� y :� a,b � y�` ��E �.. ti .r fi ,ll��! �' �� !• 1j v { s�. a �� `�' �f �` l �r r� � .q 7'�' ` }'y4 � , rk ^ .;N. ru�V'+.. .� � S. v .��� JrG ��`v''ta+\ „'f �'?'�r��'Ke. ���4J b �5J7� �\ ,'. .4{ }3 /Y.1� +xY Y� 4�i. � � �hF.� ta�v ( 'e ° T` r��' t '� r A . r ..r� rJr.. i, t „ ., ,. .. .� . x - ,.-. t 7 � }��' �'` � ,µ y - . MMI MUM PEQUIREMENTIS FOP ADEQUATE LEVELS '01' PIAM PrMTECTION i �LttTF r_oQjCr1 r ( 1, 1 fs A ticqu 1 PE&irwr OF THE BUT-m COUNTr GE NCrlAL ,PLAN THAT CON 01TI0NAL ZONING ANO DE'VCLOPIAC NT CHITER IA INOLUDE21 THc: AVAILAtI I Ll TY OF AOEVA15 FIRE 0flOTE: 0T10N FACT LI TIE s• (2.1,ir_.t - I T 1 S THE POL10Y Or THF' BUTTE COUNTY FI RC QI:PARTMtNT THAY AfIY or, VE LOPMENT %V1 TH I N rtie COUNTY PROTF-CTI ON AREA MUAT MEET THE MINIMUM ; TANDARp, VOR FIRI` PROTrCTION FOR THAT TYPE OF OCIVELOPutin. TA-Nn6RPA LisTro AHE: THE MINIMUM 3TANDARD1 FOR DETERMINING Ant'q.UATr FIRC POOT80T10N 1. De VF LOPMr.N1 Tr or:: RURAL AOR I CULTURAL AND FoRE13TRY LANDfv. CoN;ra gTFt41, zoNEi A-20; A-40; A-.160; TP1_20 TM-40; TM-160; T!''_160; FR-60; FR-.40`; FIS-:1E,0 R-.C. MlfliMUM PARCCL r;l C: 20 ACRCS TRAVVt. TImi:r,; 0P i: t4 41 A 14 11 () Wls R f IRF ALAWA ell'CIN 'ly VOLUNTEER, SCASONAL AND/OR t � nrr.rt� u�rtl, lATFIr SUPISLY: INUI VIUUAL ',*If LOL.Arju F`irrt: Ff,%?ARo#, EXTRCI'Ar, 4r_gUl rru %lib i ,E GALLONN<,F: ' 500 GALLONS. IN�)It4F",/'CIt=<�;: CONI, RG0TF; PRIVATC .,I{ralfatlra Le'VI"L 0'G rpIfVICI F I R F OI:PARTM8fIT RE5P0140 TO FA R£5 , R0V10r r A L V A i<' ANtl E`0*001,03r 000TF.GTION CONS) STENT WI TH KCCS.gS; j(4vr,TICATE 10 r+FT!✓IMINP ()0iGIN ANO CAU?E. NO MINIMUM 'L=IRE F`IOtiY.` 1"r7U'V;t't" moil-W,rr'r"t tONrR'OL OF YIILGLAND'FIRES• A O'EV:LOPXICNT 'TYPk'i MI NI-FIANCH RURAL R4tJDVIT1AL CONAI STI NT XONF ti: A-51 A.-10; All,Si FR..$ F11-10;, TM-5; TI11-10. , MINIMUM PARCEL S1Z i 5 ACRE . TnAVEL I'lMl:st rill-IT CNOINk, 20 IJINVTE$ SCOONO �NGINK 25: MIN-UTEs, THinn ENGINE 30 MINUTES. A FOURTH ENGINE �5 MINUTE5. MANPOWCH# Fio r DUE EIKGINE YEAR—ROUND OR VOLUNTEER, 01IIER FIRST ALARM GNGINE9 YEAR-ROuNQ VOLUNTEER OR 'IVAOONAI-. ,NATER i;UPI)LVI INDIVIDUAL VIELL9, W(LOLANO rII'IF HA1ARoi N0 ORCATin THAN HIGH, RCRU1 RED MOU I LI; OALLONAG I P-()()n GALLON,;, IN GRE, t 4/Eunoit, !it Two ROUTES IN AND OUT; MU,,,T MkCT COUNTY' STANISARp3; MUST BE AVAILAULr FOR ,COUNT UEUI:CATION MINIMUM LEVEL OF .rERVICEI FIIIE UGPARTMENT RESPONDS TO FIRES WITH AOgUATC FGRc 'fO HANDLE: I NC I P I I N'f EIRE, IN RES I OCNT►AL AND r;MALL AGRICULTURAL OW LI,1110S AND TO PROTECT EIIPO ,uAes FROM LARGER II- 6 M1N.IL1U,;l FIRE Rfz ! LQ Y1 IS pl' GAL G ON$ PER MINUTF3• FLRC CONTROL 1`I 1 CAPABILITY in 1000 ggUARI' FEET. PROVII)E EXPOSURE PFOTCCTION AND PERIMICTER CONTROL IN YIILDLAND FIRES:. AL-,O INCLUpcS ALL SERVICES IN rtCTION JfIE Apo VE i. OEVELO:II1.ItNT TYrE; RURAL R91IUL`N'TIAL CJ, N q I ,'r'V N r zo Nr* rA--2) AR; dCi,»04-3; Art-IM, FR-2; kii`q TK-1; t, INIMUM PARGCL 1II ZE: QNC ACRE, ZONING :ao r WI THSTANOING TRAVEL TimA: t rIR5T ENOINC 10 MINUT05 : SECOND ENOINE•u' 13 M►NUTC5e slit Rp Enot C 1 141 NUTC E. FouRvt ENCINI:w 19 MINUTeS. r MANPOWkRI ALL ENOINCS YCAR-•ROUND 011 VOLUNTFEUrt. WATERSUPPLY.1 INDIVIDUAL WELLI OR I1YDRANrst (PRESSURIZER sYsTCM MCC;TS CONDITIONS OR 9U00IVIsION STANDAnDs `J i LDLAND FIRE HAZARD t NO ORL AT[R THAN MODtaRATC , RCgUIRCO MOUILE GALLONAGE' 4000 GALLONS WITHIN 10 MINUTES IP NO HYDRANTA INGRC3S/FGRrns COUNTY VF'DIGAT'kG ROADS. M.Nimum, LCVE:L or irRVICE 0o iis-reNT wiTH ISORUHA.JL CLASS 13 FI RF OPPANTMiaNT I7C9PONOS TO FIRr.s WITH ADro'UATf» r'ORCE TO CONTPOL F IRCIiIN IaOFT rtt;SlOI;N:TIAL AND 40RICULTURAL STIitI"TUREJ,. MINIMUM r i ric rLOV1 I q 200 GA E;LON! P(71 IA.INUTC, FIRE CONTROL CAPABILITY y i 2000 ;gU;AItE Ft: E: 'T. IIROVI DE EXPOSURE PR'OTEC'TION AND -JERIMETER y CONTROL I tj WI LE)LAND It Into. ALSO I NCLUUE' y ALL senVI OES IN $ECTIONS 1 0,NC AND TWO ADO VE. 4. DEVFLOPMENT TYPE; Low OCN AI TY ItC I DENT I AL. CON �I TEN' ZONE nj A-2; A--P; ArWolll; ASP;, N—P; N*IP; AEr; A&C; "R-tPij RT-1; iir..1-.A,. V-513-1; SR--.,,.LOT DENSITY OR THREE olt'LE:;j�, SEE:!`i'1 c)N r AL 'UN I Ts PCR ACRCs TRAVEL Tihit:r: Firi*l ENGINE 8 OINUTE'S- SE'CONEI EIJGINE 11- MINUTC5a; TIIiNo ENGEplc 14 t.'.ItJU'TE,,. i E-'ANP0WErE ALL ENCI Nr; YCAR--ROUND. r WATT, R €lUPPLY: HYDRANT, (I,IG9 TS, CONDI TIONS OF $UUDI V11310N STANDARDS 12,01-.2 A 3) WILDLANO VIft;, HAZARD.- 0rVrLOPMC:NT MOOIFICa WILDLIIND HAZARD EXCEPT PERlMETEN, INGREss/FuHF';31 4" COUNTY GEDI CATI p ROADS MINIMUM LEVEL OF scovice CONSISTENT WITH 150 cLAss 5 FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONDO TO F'IRL WITH ADEgUATE FORCE TO CONTROL Pifirn IN siNGLC FAMiLY�,,RESIDNNTIAL STRUCTURES AND AS40CIATED BU1LCING1• NII NIMUM FI RC FLOW l a «rrn GALLONS PrR Mi NUTS. FIRE CONTROL CAPABIt.ITY IA 2500 oRUARG I=EF..T WITH SIMULTANEOUS, CXPOF,UIiF PROTECTION* yVILDLAND FIRES, NOT A NORMAL THREAT'; Iritovioc exfiOfURt PROTECTION. ALsO iNCLUDEf, ALL SERVICES IN ECTION ONEI TWO AND THREE AIIDVE. r. DEvrLopmi NT TYPE, MEDIUM DFN3I TY REsI DENTI AL. AND NEI 0fibo "000 UU51:HEiy 0N,;isTrNT 20Nc r,; A.-2 Aw4; AP-110H; A-SR; c-.1. IiwC; N-.C1 pA—C Loi imt4S17'Y OF MORS TITAN Ttilitf, REalDrNTIAL UNITS PEfi ACRE 0;CLU(,tNG OUPLC:X RCrtrCNTIQL UNITS AND ONE STORY NriGHBORHOOD- TRAVCL TII.rs, FIRST EtIOINC , MI NUTE9 SFCONLI EN0114C: 8 MINUTES, nlfiC ENoitIr 11 %ilt;uTeq, (,IAN1'i7a;t ALL tr•;I;INE, YCAVROunoo r"/A VR SUPPLY: HYDPANTtj COND11`to:h OF 3UODI vi sloe nTANOARUli 13.('I-2A 4 Ofi ','hL DLANp ri'-RC HAZARUS N-VELOPMENT MO,Dl FI EO VII LGLAND HAZARD CJiGEIrT 1'�Ef7j14CT!„flr exe eeivum�w�ie■ee i ri... i�.ue,b ,... -” '__- '. - '. ,.. _. ,_.. _.... I NOIIVS&18GR488: COUNTY DCDICATrI) 110 ADS. MINIMUM LEVEL 00 S5FRVICE: CONsI€S'I'ENT W;TII 150 CLASS DFPARTMFNT qL'IZPONL).3 TO F`"IRC'j WITFI AP(7gU-ATG FORCE TO CONTROL, FIRE'S IN OUPLCH:03o NEI0IIf30RftooU fIUrINC:rjgC;i AND 4SSOCIA'TED O,UILAI'NGS+ MINIMUM.FIRFME"LOW IS 1000 I+ALLONfg PER MINUTE 171-ic CONT,130�' r (r CAAAOIL'ITY I 13$00 SOARF FJZCT WITH SIMULTANEOUS L">;POSUSIE r PRO TECTION• WILoLANO FIRES NGTNORM L A A THRI;A'f; PROVIDE EXPOSURE PROTECTION, ALAO INCLYQE'.t ALL ,EOVICE5 IN SECT JrONS ONE, TWpt T'HRf E A N 0 FOUR A130VE; G, OE VC LOPMENT TYPi;: MULTI PLF I'tE;tl pF'N1`I AL, GDbMERCI ALt INDUSTRIAL. „ CONSI AI TONT ZONI'S C-21' C-C; IA-1 I-2,' P—Q; R-.3P-46 MULTIPLE Hr51OrNTIAL ONF, OR t.ltlftG 19 TOFtIESt 00h1LtFRCIAL OR INOji fiTRIAL, 'rkAVLtL rjmE:,q, rIP T ENGINE. to MINUTE,,. SECOND ENOIAIF 8 tAINUITES, TIiIRU" ENGLt�tt: 11 MINUTE,,. rOur?Tri ENGINE 1a MINUTE,,. MANPQWEt't: ALL ENG I NE;1 YEAR—POUND. VIATFIfi ,U('PLY, HYDRANT' (MCET:T CONDITION; OF SUBDIVISION 5TANpARLS,S 1�Oit .0I-2A 0 7 } . 4hLOLANV rlHl" HA?Armt NOT A FAtTOR6 INOht;fir,1FVRf,> COUNTY OFV1CA TFQ ROAQS. h11NIfiIUh1 LEVC.'1« OF aF1iVlCF; 40NS,ISTE14T 111 TH MINIMUMS FOR 150 CL A Ss 6. (1301 LUItdG, IN rfiI TYPE: OCVF«LOPKIENIT AF1E NORMALLY IND J'VIQUALLY IIAIPO 1ri1R (Ne•LIRANCF;.) FIRE 0t`PARTI.IF;NT RE PONDS WITH ADEgUATE FORCE TO CONTROL, F'1Ff',, IN-f;10�i 'r T 11F S10(f'NTIALt COGISdF;FtC1AL Oa INOU5,rRIAL Tt7UCTUOEr. ".{1iJIMUM V I Rr FL"IS 20 00 GALLONS - PER A ,f' MI(IUTE, FIItt 00NT140L 0Af}A111LITY I., 000 CRUAIt FEET) 014 tliVIREQ .r S, TACE. (CAI+AUILI -rIE n GREATCIt IF GUILT IN PROTECTION SYSTEMS AiE: 1. NIT ALLCO ViITH 51MULIANI:OUq rsXPO;,Urjr PROTCCTION. k. R r • r CF1)URr, n AiE: 1. NIT ALLCO ViITH 51MULIANI:OUq rsXPO;,Urjr PROTCCTION. %,hLv,.hNo rinrnt NOT A 'rHRF:AT, AL,10 INCLUDf:s ALL fjE1tVI(,','IT0IN rC1'iON, ONrt Twot 1'Hnrr, f,0utl AND f'IVF: AUOVC4 r"MO CF1)URr, n �. DCTERMINE THC TYPr OF DItVCLOI`Mf,.NT FOR APPLICATION OF THC I3TAN,0AR1),, 0, DY OI;NCnAL PLAN DU*SIGNAT ION, U . ICY T0`Nk: , CBY OV VC LOPMFNT DENil ITY. FIND THE; APPLICABLE STANDARD, rOR THAT OKVCLOPMENY, 3. Dr l'F,fittl tIV WH I CH STANDAR( ARE ME. T ANIS Wit I CH ARE UNMrT. A. FiUST I NOIIfir` rRAV14L TIME tdU,T UC Mr r. [I. T R A 0 C 0Ff t. ARF p09t10Ll IIJ ,OME GAS1.:8 SUCH A5 1MPIt0VC0 WATER SUOI' ,Y FOR LANOCH TRAVEL TIMCR ON sUGCCFjsIVC ENOINCS.: Ir OTANUARO", ARI` ALL Mr T: A FIRE PROTCCTION IS ADEgUATE E'OR 'IHAT TYPE or DEVZLOPMF,NT. ti RE ITR16TIVC ZCNINO MAY BE NrCF4°,ARY.IF CC) NoIT10NS KO NEXT LEV,CL 0r DCVrLolIM:NT 15 NO 'r Mrt T. Ir ^TAN04004 ARF. NOT ALI. tArT; s, Ft Hr ",to 1'f'CT,ON I "a I NADE't;VATC F=OR 'riiA,r I TYPE OF DEVItLOPMENT. I 0C'VELUPrrt CAN 1,1001 PY DeVCLOPILFNT 'ro iNSURE ADCrtUACYy OR C,; QRO- PROPOIAL; 01i t , 'I"1117AL, TIfr dTANDARDSi TO Thr BOAAD OF SUNCRVII OOR 1. n ,a i. w n X 'ptti`d nrrirm OF CITY Pi-ANNINO. � P, 0. rJCJX n4:10, V5927 GtH CO' TIMCPHO (7101 044.4.4131 Aru o son P. M, a.F:3•,mu �J1r rlfl4i;idrlftlt huriq,r (1,„9. °Sacramen o� humadccp Mr. Earl Nelson, Director .SAN `' 9 'I980 Environmental Review Department County of Butte ;E;AfUl �'"mu,4y„ 18F County Center Drive Qroville, California 95965 January 29, 1980 RE Chico Airport Environs Rezone Draft EIRs`�' Dear Earl At its January 23, 1980 meeting, the City of Chico Environmental Review Board (ERB) reviewed the above named EIR in depth and would like to submit the following comments, P 10, Utilities and Services The first sentence implies that developers will be required to provide suc services as schools and maintenance of County roads, Is this the case? P. 24, Hydrolog The statement is made that a drainage improvement plan is being �prepared for the project area, The text should indicate whether its recommendations would be considered in the environmental process: P. 36, Mal) P. 37 - The ERB feels that the existing traffic plan, as presented on the map, is inadequate and that a complete traffic study should be prepared before traffic impacts are considered:The functions of roads is left unclear, Are they considered arterials? P. 38, Roads and Traffic - Cohasset at Eaton, Cohasset south of Keefer, and Co asset at Keefer ins an arterial not a collector street; P. 39, Roads and Traffic - The statement that within the City of Chico ;Cohasset` Road is considered substandard is unclear. Why is it considered substandard? P: 41, Sewage - The statement attributed to Allan Savitz is inaccurate, accord- ing to Allan Savitz. It should be deleted. P 42, Fire Protection - Which Fire Stations) respond to the project area within T-8 minutes? Certainly not Forest Ranch. This should be more clearly stated. P.: 43, Schools - This section states that existing Chico schools will serve the approximatelyi`000_students projected for the rezoned area, and indicates that those schools will be at full capacity shortly due to development within Chico. The ERB feels that this section should be appended by o letter from the Chico' Unified School District indicating their position regarding the provision of school facilities for the proposed rezone area, Mr. Earl Nelson, Director Environmental Review Department Page 2 January 20,1980 P. 46 Compliance with£xistin General Plans - The evaluation of the purposes o- t e CRIco Genera Pan reen ne s incomplete. This discussion should acknowledge that the Greenline is located just south of the project area for the following reasons; 1. The General Plan has a strong policy stating that agricultural lands should be preserved and urban land use located on non -prime soils, 2. The General Plan delineates two specific areas on the northeast and southeast sides of Chico 'for urban expansion, thereby creating adequate areas to absorb new growth through 19954 3. The General Plan strongly encourages infilling of existing urban areas and compact, orderly expansion of Chico's perimeters in order to avoid sprawl and the attendant financial drain from overextended urban services. 4. Ample commercially and industrially zoned land exists at the Municipal Airport and various locations in southern Chico to accommodate future growth in these sectors. It is incorrectly stated in paragraph l that LAFCO co -created the City's Green - line. LAFCO established the sphere of influence lines. In paragraph 3 it is stated that, "The site is suitable in terms of topography, location and soils to allow urban -type development." This should be amended to read "suburban" or "rural." P. 47 Com liance with Exi sti ng General Plans - The argument in ,paragraph l that suc tura resident-,Ial areas as would be created by this rezoning constitute a "landbank" is invalid. Unless controls allowing gradual development of such lands are implemented there can be no "banking." Once land is zoned for urban use it can be developed at any rate or any time and can in no way "be viewed as long-term investments for providing growth areas for future residents." EFFECTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT "r. 49, Traffic - The person(s) or firm who prepared the traffic study should be Tamed in -the text, Tf• is tho onininn of fho FRB that a comprehensive circulation plan should be developedwhose environmental effects could be evaluated within this FIR. P'. 53, Soils - The discussion in'this section fails to consider the cumulative impact on agriculture resulting from piecemeal conversions to urban uses. fact that there are 31,000 acres of prime agricultural soils within the Chico area should not be presented as a rationalization for the loss of 1500 acres, The "3T,000 acres" may be a misleading figure as well. The number of acres in agricultural use would be amore appropriate figure for this discussion. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT P. 62�Noi_se Quality- This section should be located in the "Effects Found to be Significant section due to the potential for airport growth to cause Mr. Earl nelson, Director y Environmental Review Department Page 3 Oanuary 29, 1980 a nuisance, The requirement for avigation easements from residents of the pro- posed rezone area should be discussed as this is one sure way to alert them to this possible impact. P. 65 Fire Protection - Is Butte County going to provide the necessary water wellsn order to serve the rezone aron? If not, this deficiency in,service, given the large proposed suburban, (i.e, 1 acre lot size) population, would surely result in significantly adverse effects. P. 65, Police Protection - The first sentence needs clarification. The stated current level of se 11 to the project area is rural not suburban, as would be needed by the proposed population. P. 66, Conflict with Existin General plan The conflict with the existing Genera Pan is greatly understated here.The proposed rezone has the poten- tial to undermine the City's active policy and implementation programs for encouraging urban development on the east side in order to preserve prime agri- cultural soils. The rezone, as stated previously, will result in a sprawling periphery for Chico, again in conflict with the City's General Plan policy to compact future urban development.. Finally, the fact that commercial and indus- trially zoned lands exist at the Municipal Airport should not be used as a rationalization for rezoning adjacent areas to these uses. In summary, it is inaccurate to state that the proposed rezoning will not: result in significant adverse effects upon the City's General Plana P. 70, Economic Analysis - The conclusion reached in this section that the County will gain revenue from a one -acre "city" appearstobe-based on outdated con cepts; Over the past decade, it has become a generally accepted concept that the costs of sprawling urban development eventually, if not immediately, exceed the revenues to focal' government. It is suggested that the economic analysis in the EIR be reviewed by an objective, qualified land, -use economist, P. 73, Conclusion - This statement is so vague as to be -meaningless. P. 74, Growth Inducing Impacts - In paragraph 2, the conclusion that the proposed rezoning would be "sprawl -like" if infilling within Chico should not take place first is only half -way there. According to the policies of the Chico General Plan, as represented on the land use'map, the proposed rezoning can 2!]]l be con- sidered to lead to "sprawl -like" development, The rezoning could very likely lead to future rezonings around it (i,e, be growth" inducing) as adjacent property owners face urban -level property taxes and seek to develop their property in order to compensate, The impacts of such a scenario should be evaluated. Finally, at no point in this or other sections is the question of need for this , urban expansion discussed, Such discussion is sorely needed given t e fact that the City has at least 7,000 lots available for development, and ample commercial and industrial areas as well, An analysis reviewing population projections and market trends should be conducted as a part of this EIR in order to assess this question: Mr. Carl Nelson, Director CnVironmeotal Review Department Page qaanuary 20,, 1980 P. 75, Growth Inducing Impacts - In paragraph 2 it is unclear where the "'addi- t o al co*e� rCia'f deVe�t is intended to go, Within the 30 acre area proposed? , 76 Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposal -is Im emente - In paragraph2 t s state that a rezoning , ,, will directly resu tTn Tonversion of existing commercially productive agricultural land to a rural residential community." Yet, on P. 46 one of the reasons given for designating the area for rural -residential development is that "the area is not considered to be of a permanent agricultural value due to size of holdings and land productivity values." The chasm between these two statements should be bridged somewhere in the EIR, r, env"runmenGai tTTects wnicn cannot be Avoided .if the, Pro osal is Imp emented - In the as st paragraph, the reader is e t wondering what such a mit 4y on measure might be, The consultant should supply such information here. P. 79, The Relationship Between Local Short -Term , - Once again, in .the Jast paragraph, it is apparent that a discussion of the need for this project is missing. P. 80, Alternatives - Another alternative that should be included in this section+, s the_rete_n_tT_o-n--oT the 1500 acres of prime soil in agriculture and appropriate zoning for development of the remaining area, Pgs, 82-83, Detriments 1. It would seem that with lower density development there would be a pro- portionate reduction in demand for services as well as revenues to the County. Therefore this statement is unnecessary. 3. This statement seems irrelevant given the intent behind this alternative, that is, to reduce residential densities thereby reducing environmental' impacts and preserving productive lands, pg. 851 Mitigation 1 The indication here is that Keefer Road will be four lanes. This should be cl'ariPied and the function of this and other road's in the rezone area justified in a traffic study, Pa, 88 HydrologMtti'gations 2 51 and 6 2. Raising the road will not solve the on-site drainage problem because of the problem of percolation in this area.It could result in ponding, which would lead to mosquitos, S. The same is true of this -suggestion; 6. Were such'a project undertaken, it would require dredging of the sloughs all the way to the Sacramento River in order to be effect ve, Is this implicit in this statement? P. 89,_Water 4uality Mitigation 3 - It would not be feasible to extend airport sewer service to outlying industrially zoned land, Therefore, this mitigation measure should be deleted. Mr,i Earl Nelson, Director January 29 19$0 Environmental Review Department Page 5 P. 91 Noise ual Miti action Avigaiion easements should be added as a m'l- "ga'�fion'�meas l_i_ ese easements alert home buyers to the Fact that noise is a factor in this area; and thereby reduces the likelihood of complaints and possible r,0striction.s on airport operations. P. 92, Hazards Mitigation 1 - Street lights are not provided in rural areas. in summary, the Environmental Review Board feels very strongly that the Airport Rezone Draft EIR is severly inadequate, particularly in its assessment of the impart the proposed re cite would have on the City of Chico and its planning process6 The Chico General Plan today is a Valid plan due to the fact that it provides a reasonable and satisfactory mix of future land uses which allow for orderly expansion of urban services. The EIR fails to acknowledge that the Airport Rezone could undermine the balance and rationality this plan strives to achieve for the growth of Chico. Moreover, the ERB reels that another major omission is the failure of the EIR to deal with the question of the need for sprawling rural residential. development in the airport vicinity. The ERB thanks you for providing this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Lisa `Prin e Assista Planner LP/ km C P 6133/A-BCw4/Desk Copy X b { Environmental. Review Directors response to the letter from the Ci t� of Chico dated January 29, 19804 P. 10. The referenced sentence states developers must arrange for required services, but this d.ee6 not necessarily imply that they must bear the costs unless some type of funding mechanism (goo ordinance, assessment district) is set up. Methods ©P financing various services differ from one service to the;no:x. P. 24. Drainage plans for the Mock Creek Diversion and the Upper Mud Greer area are being incorporated into this I IR. P. 6... More information regarding traffic could be generat,er' although the present level of information is probah?y adequate Sox this rezone. A complete circulati �~ *,aster plan with funding sources and mechanises should be developed as a nest phase to guide the develo __,dnt of this area. ,A. lack of funding prevents development of that level of detail at this -time. P 38. The comment regarding Cohas,set road is noted. P 39. if all projected development in the area materializes, widening of Cohasset to 4 lanes will become necessary. P. 41.. The comment is noted. P. 42. Refer to supplemental comments from the Butte County Tire Department contained in their letter of January 24, 1980. P0,43. Additional information regarding' schools is contained on pages 50 and: 51 of the EIR. P.46i Comments regarding General Plans and spheres of influence are noted. P. 4 . Although land made available for development can be developed at any rate or any time, market conditions and, historic development patterns show that much of the area will probably remain undeveloped for many years, Although this cannot be guaranteed, the probability as sufficient to warrant considering .the undeveloped residual, as a "Land bank" of sorts. Richard Dunn of�OttWatormRx�ineersrs p oi p ared the traffic study wa Engineers. See response relating to P 36 P.; 53 Indications that the project area contains '1.500 of a total of 31,,000 acres of prime agricultural soils in the Chico area was not intended to be a rationalization for loss of the agricultural soil, but a comparison to show the relative im- portance, mp e portan, of this soil as a percentage of the overall agricultural potential of the area. P. 62. Commento relative to the oi~gxniXi.carzce of noior impacts find ma.tigation measures are noted. P. 65. Preva Sion Of W(Ater wells within .t how area can apprO.Ori , ately be addressed when individual development projects are proposed. P. §5;. The level of police protection referred to relates to he ratio of dwellings per deputy. As the area develops, this ratio should be maintained as a constant in order to preserve the, !'current level of service" P. 66. Comments relative to the General Plan and growth impacts are noted. P. 70. The economic analysis was prepared in consultation with Dr. Frank Jewett, a prof essar of Economics !4t Humboldt State Un ve*:sity. P, 7u.. Comments relating to urban sprawl and growth- inducing impacts are noted. Discussions of need are highly speculative and are not required to be part of an ElR, although they can be used as one -type of overriding consideration to justify project approval. "Teed" for a project or the demand for housing in a given area fluctuates up and down depending on people's geographic preferences and the state of the economy. For this reason, studies of "need" erre of very 'limited value P. 5No location is specified for this additional commercial. It could occur anywhere that correct zoning could be secured. Pte. The reference on P. LNC to the area not being commercially productive was stated in the context of assumptions behind the 1071 Land Use Element of the Butte County General Plan. The P. 76 reference is correct, tempered by the numbe;r of small holdings already ,four.-" within the area. , P. `' . The necessary drainage mitigations are included within the Rock Creek Diversion and Upper Mud Creek drainage studies prepared by Jon Andersen. P. '%g See response related to the cormnent on P. 74, P. 80. Such an alternative is being included in the FUR. P`. Keefer Road does not need -to be widened to four lanes. The volume of traffic indicated can be handled by a two-lane road. ';»1 1kA E Y ii, C h6 4 J °• 5TAT4 OF CALIFORNIA POMUND 0. BROWN JR, Govurtior DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 1220 N street s °r Sacramento 9581+ February 1, 1980 RKvtew Dept. FEB 41980 �ui�e Courtly Mr. Earl. l). Nelson Butte County Environmental Revi=ew Department #18-1+ County Center Drive Qrovil'le, California 95965 Dear Mr. Nelson The Department of Food and, Agriculture has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report concerning the Chico Airport Environs Rezone (State Clearing- house No. 79091103) prepared by Qtt Water Engineers of Redoing, dated November 1979. There are several deficiencies in the Impact Roport 'which result from a tendency to either ignore or treat cavalierly many important considerations of long-term and, therefore, Lasting. consequence. Because it is recognized that the plan is for a 20 -year expansion, serious attention should be given to adequately addressing the problem of sewage waste treatment. It is not enough to note that 'residents on the project area currently utilize indite vi,dual, septic systems to treat sewage waste", and then ig ore the problems which will result from the addition, of over 6,,000 persons to the area. Similar treatment is given to the subjects of police protection and fire protection. For neither of these categories is proper consideration or, if you will, mitigation of the problems attLadant thereto given adequate treatment. of immediate andp artiCUlarlY serious importance to the Department of Food and Agriculture is the admitted impact of rezoning this area which includes approximately 1,500 acres of Class I-1 agricultural landto various desig- nations of rural residental, industrial, etc. Agricultural production remains the single largest source of income in the State,. Together with fisheries and forestry, it represents the only renewable source of wealth. it is dependent on agricultural lands for its continued survival and;, par- ticularly) the prime agricultural lands such as those proposed for inclu- sion in the rezoning project. There is more than just a city or county interest in conversion of such lands. The State and, indeed; the nation have a vital concern for the preservation of all lands possible of this classification. it is the position of this Department that in the case of this project, prime agricultural lands should not be included inthe rezoning project for several reasons: 1. Prime agricultural land is an ever increasingly valuable commodity for both production and open space. Mr. garl D. 'Nelson Page Two February 1, 1980 2. Thee are still considerable acreages within the city limits of Chico which are available for housing development, and rezoning the project area at this time will only encourage leapfrogging parcel.ization and hasten development. 3. Housing development east', and northeast of the airport would appear to be more acceptable in terms of agricultural land preservation. 4., The Chico Municipal Airport appears to represent a transportat onal huh for the Sacramento Valley area between Red Bluff, Croville, and Willows, and as such, should be fully protected from encroachment by urban or even commercial development unassociated with air trans- portation. Agricultural use of lands in the vicinity of the airport would ensure such protection and preclude complaints from adjacent dwellings and businesses. The economic analysis contained in Chapter 8 while possibly correct math- matically, does not fully address the comparative costs of county or city deliverance of services in contrast with income from the area. It is a well established and accepted fact of land use planning that conversion of agricultural lands to urban kande requires increased services such as .Eire protection, police protection, schools, public utilities, etc., which cannot be provided with the additional income from a broadened or increased tax base. The Ventura County study, a .few years ago, conclusively estab- lished Chia relationship and should be at least considered in the Impact Report Rezoning the area without preserving the Class I-1 agricultural land and buffering it from the conflicting interests of a rural urban, or commer- cially developed area will result in a loss of agricultural production in the county, but more importantly it will probably result in the loss of the prime agricultural land itself to development because of the character, of agricultural practices found objectionable by many not involved in agricul- tural pursuits. Aircraft} pesticides, and cultural operations are the most visible and, therefore, objectionable practices in agricultural productions but other management requirements such,as burning crop wastes, tractor noises, dust ,from leveling operations, etc., are also sources of irritation to many urban dwellers. Many urban requirements interfere with agricultural pursuits. Providing public utilities, whether above or below ground to,a widespread urbanIzed area, inevitablyinterrupts. sometimes permanently, the `efficient use of agricultural lands. In some cases, wires preclude aircraftapplications of P fertilizers or pesticides,, underground gas lanes preclude soil.�ripping oper- ations, severs and twater smains are also hazards to be avoided in farming } y operations. A statement in Chapter 12 on the relationship between local. short-term uses and long-term productivity is particularly obscure in its y , Mr. Dart D. Nelson Page Three February 1, 1980 reasoning and completely erroneous in its c6nolusion. It is stated that the loss of agriculturally productive lands will have to occur in order to ensure the continued operation of the Chico Airport, and protect it from unplanned urban encroachment, white at the same time providing for residen- tial and commerical accommodations for future residents. The logic is flawed, the conclusion is wrong. Agricultural productivity is completely compatible with and protective of Airport environs: As for residential and commercial accommodation, l would submit that t"fere is a vast- usable area for these purposes east and northeast of the aitport. This Department also disagrees with the conclusion of alternative No. 1 in Chapter 13 (No Project) that there is no benefit from a no project alterna- tive. On the cont'raru, there are many benefits, both to the airport and to agriculture from the pursuit of this alternative pvpvoded the status quo is assured. Agriculture would continue in existence, and the airport would be able to.continue with some degree of isolation from an urbanized environment, There are many other inconsistencies in the draft, such as the mitigation measure for water quality problems calling for the establishment of an agree- me.nt with the City of Chico to use the existing sewage, treatment facility at the Chico Airport far limited industrial sewage wastes, while on Page 41 it is stated "hat Mr. Allen Savitz of the Chico Public Works Department sees no possibility of extending the airport sewage services outside the airport area, There is a sufficient number of such discrepancies and conflicts of state- ments contained in the document to merit a critical review of it to assure consistency of statements, objectives, and conclusions. Thi Department finds the document and the proposed course of action unacceptable as presented, sincerely Harry VKrade Assistant Director special Assignments (916) 445-0682 cc State Clearinghouse X1 b Environmental Review Director's respoxioe to the lot ea. from -thea Department of Food and Agriculture, datod Vebruax.7 1, 1980. Individual septic systems are comvion in the Chico area. c Individual installations and approval of land development projects are subject 'to review _ y -the Butte County Health Department which monitors the public health implications of this disposal method on an ongoing basis. Adequ:ady of mitigations for police and fire protection is a determination to be made 'by the; head Agency. Comments related to -t;he potential loss of agriculturally productive soils and the importance of agricultural land as a resource are acknowledged. The use of agricultural land as a buffer around the airport is a mititrat;i,on worthy o: consideration. The economic analysis was pvepared in consultation, with pr. Frank Jewett who teaches Economics at Humboldt State 'University. The "No Project Alternative" as described on page 80 of the Draft .SSR refers to retention of the present zoning cl.assiti- cation,- A-2 General which allows high density residential uses as well as commercial and industrial development. Another alternative which preserves the agricultural land through some type of protective zoning has been added to the range of alternative zoning options. y XI I r� Dater- epartmeotal Memorandum TO; f.+arl Nelson, r..'Mrollmont'al nnvia'v FROMI RoI)o rt r,, J r -or) nl,n nine Poptlrtille'lit suUJr4Cr, Cotrra'rCni: ; on nria �f w tt EIP for C:lixco Airl)ort T,110 mats PV Zone pA7E't .l liaalraxy� 1 :��i� { X 1i17ve receival the drnft VTn for thQ Chino Air►,ort Pnv i runs Rezoning ip - i ,• I by Co"nty plant inp Coairi ssion lan(I toot it necessary it t' ...11w.no wr""C-fions and cor2'cctioals. hne ol�lr r s 1orl 1i 1ay rte",C'C;t: "(,.,;C:rjptiC'1n tai4' planning prnlOct 1 "S' rS7'' r 7,4717 in April 1.97 includocl a I)TOI)osa 'InFr' 0S " n Ilse C'1 fill 'Iap of the Butte County Ccnoral Sn ci 0 ^;i.ly, _? op r,atr ax•orls atow flc!SiFnated as Agri.cui,.:aaeal-ResiYnt i were Proposol For romrercial, SndUPtri;al, Pul•1ic ant', Low llensit,y n05NOTI a':l rrsrar.ctivPly' and two ex"'np 1,014, per PcsiticTitilil �rrrra,s wprc i)rmnoserl scar Tncla� atrial and gricultural -Pasitrcntial . 1:t: is trite tillt rgc.st Of the arra 1;'7c; ;just dosif"a1nt+'Cj ns .Arricalltuvil-T>oei(IOntial in nctol or I it tlrr' furthrr Goncr71 P7 a s changes st;atod nl••avc are .iece00ary tO ,z11c7t; rezoning O,f rri;rl].'nyons to Enclosed is a CO1)Y Of thO Oralt with my Suggested c11za Fcs 51101"I apo or F7 fyiiro nii .n rec'. inlr . 1,;a 5tcc1 1 r l na' Iry ,r^l or.s wit" cC�Tml' Oats ;ll�a>.lt lilac �aariicntr�� cliarir�r;�, e Jlr Location T ab Ie of C0ntrnt s Page 3 Page 4. Figure 2 rigure i Commont Ret j,tl.e. itiscussion of health mazards, Gon.. Flan Compli.a.nco ansl Community Character bolonn u,j.th aiscussion of Viewshod and Existing Land ilse rather titan under Social Services Oid utilities ,,stimate, of pt—tentia:l residential. units are arbitrarily ,split into a 1 -to -10 acre grouP am2 (t-to-li7 acre i:xottp. 'ti'11y? �?timates should either be presented for each zone or totalled: into one figttre Discussion of rezoning in Introduction is in. complete and mi,sleacli,ng See Copy. Change project 1-ounclary Per copy, See copy for numerous corrections in zoninP bouzrlarics and titles. Pa.gos 12, 1.3 A14 Page 14 Fi See core. 'tap shows In $oil types, Text and map legend Figure 4 show 10 also. Figure 5 One correction nor ropy. Page 17 See Copy. Pages 35 f 36 Description of existing residential development is incomplete and should include total number of units by tupe. %scription of forth Esplanade rezoning is c,onfosing and should the rewritten to clarify location, acreage and zones. Figure A Isolated numhLrs should he clarified Page 38 State highiay in area has not been called for many years. ileleto rs,,'please. Page 46 The "G�roen mine'" is a future o* the General Plan adopters by the City Of Chico and was not created by LAFC . 'i'he Sltneres of influence a(V,nto(I by LAFCo for the City of Chico indicate ji1v its, of future city boundaries, " not the limits o ;xhn development ailment anc� agriculture. Pa47 Page The ; opulat.ion of the Chico urban area is a.pprax= i.r!tatoly 50,naa to 6 ,nnn',not, 30,nno to 40,000. iaaGfttian nom.-�--�------,.. Commcil:t > ago 83 Discussion: of pl.ternatives should inclkide a statement of the benefits and detri,rne'n,ts of ro5ictential development at urban densities. Discussion of ;t: "Alternative 4-Reside�rt a,l Development at Urban Densities (1-1.2 11r.4is per acre)" should include mention of tea^ additional housing, provided and the (liversion of press"ure awiry from priMe age lands 'vest o: the City 'versus the interference with I irport operatiolis exposure of net,! residents to un- acceptable noise and, hazards and the costs of extending utilities and enlarging roads -and, other facilities. Page $F Mitigation measure's for road capacity problems should include "#S: Widen flicks bane and Cohasgot Pwr►d south of Sycamore Creek." Page 93 See copy. WE .� - XII b 40 Enviroivnental Review Dir, Oct=' M relspOnse to th(; memorandum of JanuaTy 31, 1980 from. Robert Galser of the Butte Caun't;y 'planning Department. Table Of Contents. The comment regarding apprOpriate location. of cermin seet373na is correct although not worth •the cost to "ov.i.oe since the content is acceptable Page . The division into 1-10 acre parcels and 20-160 acre parcels reflects -the difference between "hobby farms" which can be a hinderance to commercial agriculture, and parcels which can be commercially :farmed (the 20-160 acre grouping), Page, �. What e sa�ao con�usa�a�a is possible, a � � s sufficiently clear to make further clarification not OoSt effective. P} tj e 4. "Free zone, should read "Clear zon.e" i f ur.e 2. A minor change is needed in the southern boundar i. ut� A number of errors xi the map need. to be corrected pa�ior to -the hearings. This will be accomplished. P 4 and F4 rure 5. Corrections as indiccited would be deoi rable but not essent.ial_. Pa ,es 35= 6. Changes are non-essential. The Esplanade rezone is now an accomplished face, and 'the boundaries are a mattes of public record, lure 8. No comment necessary. iPam. Suggestion acknowledged. Pie_ 48 Comment noted Page 4_2_. The 50,000 to 60,000 figure is closer to roality� than the 30,000 to L�0,000 figure which should be revised. Page 834 An alternative similar to that suggested has been, incorporated into the Elft. Page 86. The suggested traffic mitigation is noted.. Pae 3. No comment necessary. 7 "x4 CHICO ATRPOJUF F.Mr'RgNS AMNL Findings For Approval. Of Project }laving reviewed, and considered the final environmental impact report for the Chico Airport Environs Rezone as certified on July 22, 1980, I move we make the following findings: (41) Development which occurs pursuant to project approval may result in significant effects on t1le environment in the areas of traffic i,n creases with a resulting need for road improve - Tents, need for additional school facilities, increases in surface water runoff with a result- ing need for drainage improvements within and outside the project area, Possible loss of archaeological resources, loss of prime agri- cultural lands, possible loss of riparian vegetation and rare plants, and possible failure Of sewage disposal systems in areas of soils Poorly suited to proper functioning of such systems (2) Significant effects related to loss of archae- ological resources, loss of riparian vegetation and rare plants, and failure of sewage disposal systems can be mitigated at the subdivision approval level on a project, -by -project basis The loss of prime agricultural soil cannot be mitigated ,(although the extent of this impact, has been limited by a change in the rezone propo8p.1 which applies A-10 zoning to a portion Of the prime agricultural soils lated to traffic. circulation and dra Impacts agescan� �e partially mitigated on a project -by -project basis by developer's contributions, and the balance of funds required to achieve an accept- able Level of service will have to come from Other funding sources such as tax, assessment districts gas tax,Property public revenue sources,- ' giant fundss or other (3) Except as listed above, ;mitigation measures are not applicable to this type of, rezone project, although project alternatives can serve to reduce environmental damage. Project alternatives which reduce the potential for environmental degradation have been implemented ' to the greatest extent possible consistent with project objectives. Specific findings with regard to alternatives are as follows; (a) Alternative 1 - No Project-. This alterna- tive is being yejected beca ,;e it would retain A-2 zoning over nuclk I the project area, which would permit development with potential environmental impacts more adverse than the proposed project, (b) Alternative 2 Zone specific portions of the project to PA -C (Planned Area -Cluster) zones. This alternative is being rejected because the detailed site specific planning necessary for a PA -C zone can more appro- priately be done by individual Land owners at the time of development. The project as proposed does not preclude owners from requesting PA -C zoning at a later time if cluster development more accurately reflects their development plans, although such re- zones will have the greatest likelihood of approval if the gross densities of dwelling units per acre are not increased, (c) Alternative 3 -- Lower density development, from SR -1 and SR -3 to SR -3 and SR -5. This alternative is being rejected because the environmental benefits are not great when viewed in connection with the loss of tax base needed to finance improvements such as roads and drainage systems, which would be necessary in either case. (d) Alternative 4 Residential development at urban densities: This alternative is being rejected because the detriments outweigh the benefits as listed on page 83a of the: ETR. I ,- �qy (e) Alternative 5 - Preservation of prima agricultural land. This alternative, while not feasible to implement as pro- posed because of the location of exist- ing parcel boundaries and land use pat- terns in rel.a.tionship to the distribution of the prime agricultural soils, slid influence a modification of the original proposal resultingin the application of A-10 (Agricultural - 10 acre minimum parcel size) to a portion of the project area there the best agricultural soils are found. This modification represents a reasonable compromise and has become the project under consideration. (4) Although there may be significant' adverse environ- mental effects resulting from the approval. of this project, there are overriding considerations which justify project approval. These overriding considerations include-; (a) The proposed zoning is environmentally superior to the zoning currently in effect, and represents a major step forward in the phase-out of A-:2 zoning. (b) The proposed zoning was developed to provide a measure of_protection for the Chico Airport, by establishing; compatible uses and densities near the airport. (c) The zoning as proposed will bring zoning of this area into consistency with the Butte County General Plan policies. (d) The project will establish harmonious land use patterns, appropriately zoned, whichwill provide areas for future suburban growth of the Chico area. I therefore move that the zoning be adopted. E rz v Zif-ill, Mi (ALiFORMA RESOLUTION ADOPTING V?ENDIMNT TO THE LAND USE MAP (Chico Airport -File 79-107A.) np " T11E LAND USE ELEIMENT (,*F THE HITT' COUNTY GENERAL PLAff #FPr S vursuant to Government Code Section 6S351, hearings savB 1-, e enVie -fit''`t>t! air PlnnninoiZiiiIT57 C+I to consider : amendment as -'_, :fn. -a= "A"' attnciaxed hereto to the Land Use Element of the But µ - re:ommandiP t�$ change from Openand Grazing r"� i I1 -Ura; esi,_'e :ial, recomm'ldi-ng the area at the inter- I section of 7;-J nriaje aB V qty 99 which had leen proposed for commercial be 1 industrial i �...." 7� r and .`�'A _,;.' tat- a—, Z -we Consideree -... is �.. ...'�._. �4�-. �..�r - ..� E9 `.'31T z ., �.��: ?. e'er:. Y -P n`.'4.�a as (. 'la i.L.;i.t "B1! prepared CoT � � � 2 ame. `�� _a � ;. R'ta f 0-e m-JtV, "y"-T;•n +fir `'� a:: :Y...€ t" 'iF'' �. �1 .r.'i?F•i 3- -i�� that the proposed a =x" ., 1 l e =�r s A { .°n .+ .: land use now in i.Ae area and -will coix 'orT to t1 e to --t o' Plan and be In ca-- rnity with pQlicjiOs in ot'.1h r eleements ufF he leneral Pins, ti: s . in "nc, liei g based upon information uresented at the hearing, 'thereon beZore the Butte: C unty Planning Covmissi.onx and the research and studies or, he amnendment v -as based. �d� i Tial EPCRE,. be it reselved by the Butte County Pla.rming Commission, pursuant to Governemnt Cade Section 65352, that the amendment tel the Land tise Map, as shown on Exhibit "All attached hereto, be adopted and incorporated within the Land Use leap of the .band Ilse Eienent of the General Pian of the County of Butte, PASSED AIN ADOPTED by the planning Commission. of, the County of Butte,, State of California, on the 18th day of June, 1980, "by- the fallowing vote: 'fES Commissionersl1hee-ler. Uax, anc? {'�air�a3G ibertr NOES: No one. ABSENT: No one. ABSTAINED: Commissioner Bennett., George Gilbert,. C airman Butte County Planning Commission. RESOLUT":ON 90-2 PL ' i1I G C4?k i1SSION. IA Colre4TY OF BUTTE, STATE GF C, L -PORN PESCL*,rrj_-3N .k IPTING j`i�j 'J�:1E: T TO 7HE I:.A?�I� USE 11$p (Chico Airport -Pile 79-107A) nP p TISE ELEMENT OF THE $ti'TE COITNTy Gn'JERAL PLAT IfiHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 6S351, hearings have hien held by the Butte County Planning Cormiss on to consider the amendment as shoafn on Exhjoit ',A!, attached hereto to the Land Use Element of the Butte County General Flan recommending t'te change from Open and Grazi;ig remain AgriIcultural Residential, recommending the area at the inter- sectjon cf Esplanade and 'dory 99 v�hich had been proposed for commercial he ind�stxial. WHEREAS the Butte County Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Enviaonmenta1 Impact Report attached hereto as Exhibit "B", prepared for the above amer-dment and lF1'.FAS, the Butte County F anaing Ctrmtission fonds that the proposed amendment will he consistent with the land use now in the area ana will conform to the text of the General Plan and -be in Conformity with policies in other elements Of the Genera. Plan, this fir�ung being based upon information at the hearing thereon before the Butte County Plannkog Commission and the research and studies on which the amendment was based NO, 1-71, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Butte County Planning pursuant to G'overnemat Code Section 6S5S that the a end ant Coiseion, p y_, to the Land Use Maps as shoe' on Exhibit- and xhibit '�. '° attached hereto, he adapted and incorporated within the Land Use Map of the Laird Use Element of the General Plan of the- County of Butte. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the County of Buttes State of California, on, the Lath day of June, 1980, by the following vete: AyL'S. Commissioners I�f3feeler, } �,�g La ibert hnd Cha rran-Gilbert . 'h-0ES : no one. s'tisSE 'oto One - ABSTAINED: Co issionaT Bennett -M Cs :man Butte County planning Cor.mission a, a " V' ✓Y }•. M^ W '� 3+V.. -.M f pX ,{ 77 d � -� !i' ,nn .'w1+x �' Ar.. Ors. tti: k !„'�\ i.+M •�a�vr � w. ta».. .. T G c - "' I 1J toe r .x wr � r ", a+� y", `•. � , �.. a..t ar • r to .�a�' , *�•., . r , r' � .r't'a 'r"ir'u•(,• a P. sa ri.a •r:a Fi .+ b a 1.. �'%''� � ,' y1 i•h1� •1 fw t_,♦ it kfa .A:+a+i., y ewrr�rla`Y fA• y a '.;ex r��� 14 ., .n <w 1. a.+y� 4s P ;A1 �g r,µ ' f �rpi�iSh'P i•n �.!"'i I r".i 114ik'�'n~J .r�ai r ' .'+ o-1 .ra. � '+� -;, a"�^`ij'� rt 1 r'r 't" t iA��� ^ � �t•a�rw.��` �`+arraN'!(�x"' �rOtS� ��a����� .ta, .. a� La It Itpi! Y� k k �" "'� '� "tui} � ,K � t• �,j �' j } r ''ro��l ty 1 a 1 . •�1���� i � +r�'y'',-i4� r � a .A• '�' � r J _ ,�� � y •W + ;4.. 1 :kr .. - P w"r a,. � S's : "•. ( M - nori protitcorporat.ion claclicatecl to careful plarmirig forgrowtlr P p•� �} �+�r /1S. } , e, �,' `. r.Rn`i'ar/.yy" Yv wra a+w..;,rs � S'•!�'y{t'.ryrti. i N"� i.%. Yi �.,1 Bol California 95927 a +a..., .f,..' 1,t',a * y .++avr •.�};`•, .a1'r �S?nl. r +n r v r'`e: :+ / s � - / r r '�T,�h "/i54n� rY� �.•er ,•'}`A.�.� f 4� af'V s 9.r `ra J`t r v mow{ � .. _ n ..' r �'*" "' `$t rr � �y�� ty ,� r rye r `si��+~nJe x� Y. ..,. 7n v l.-„ tK'k`t ,.r t x w y •• FP +. � vJ r, w ;4 y y X (`�' r w .s,.., r � p.r^J ^'� tix r„ti a^,� r p �• s. _ r ..w i:i�T,� A.W4'a�'�.tt�,..y.tS.NU Yw�•r 1•• 1 f Y �Y Yh !• Sa. fP" rtx ,L ,w u Y. .s S P •n ,� ate"r , ya••�' -. w� •� !>: t1e�J•a�.,�"��7M��2 ...a .{o r _i. HiA A`•'Y• ,2 r � q.w � w H • . � r w iat �'. r.. v arr 'a ( ., .w ;i . �` v.� �, ".'•�`t � '`�. yhr ;" t`� P '�`� � t .v ; a t .,R, ''t •tt• fir' F �+�, y, . r+'•t Car.A \`�� dhx. }tii 1 th; : fMet `f' r"Y t,a• Y "w •wor4. J.� M 1'! 1,.. w ha.. Y e. .. r y r u, d v a x .a �F kk r ;,rr 7;h,. � a,, i rM +r f ",ns r' " Ce • e � .ar YI �, t � ;= i , pWp �+rtr.Y ryyrt`^ r'" h.�Jay„ i` � .�" t7+a.� h rt'. •r L + ., �+a . r ,� .N 3.a 4.t+r:i'•4.`.--'++�.r�r'riH4� :ai.+N3 % at•`rLr1. lr t•1 r:.�r ++a+� .k r, .x, :Y•+��.+•y Y,{,��* x,r A•:r4 e^ . r�• �•" ', ., ..rte + ,rn. ..%kI 4 Poai:6.* or- superviscra•s k r County ofr Huth rK cryo Mt �' ✓ s w r>sa x Yk`a Cel W..4t•�!• enter JJ.4al YTV 7 ��k'N�„ i '••� ��.l.~ ��i• �. �•„f Yea a MOro ry r�, 'S 7 ('� r•��•^ v, -:a i• +—,,. t a.� t X+"rlhp"' r^ �' ` a + .a' y, • 6 itw' 'r ;^ r t.'• P v �.. 1 1,0 ;. a •7 �:7 J r. •r r• �'Y• •Ct r•„ly! µ _a ' •,a ". i' a a , iM, Ij/P'h R r r ?' a"4Tt'h ,r y ''. � '- a. , :.:a. r ' _e«,• + 1 r `" �_ '" n. rr..t'...•i as r",I t.4 `r'r Z, Y'"ttNI w " •{'y.t_ *i r_ ... •'� Y x.r r t yr• �+j i! 14 /1/ P4 iICY A3.11por� 1,3nV 1•4OJJ,7/No rt ), CJ,ii c,a 4 f' - `rGeneral pian and zoningr ChaacL(s 4' r y »• w'ri. '� !•`. ^ r y�'a: �` r M,.c Za 'M *,r M • • Dea:z^ Chaxxmanu I;enike `and • y '+J . sal. o {• ,/r. :F,'t..1 ••.4',.�:Iye YC� i.� N 'k,, d N .r' � `y'Y K` y, a n.Jyrxk •a ♦ . h: • , • ' a . p • v. t wL • r w • . . a x We assume you are aware frorrr. pxrev .o�o..i co=espondence. of; our interest in- the P.irrapor-L Envia ans planning area north of ...., Chico., .'.—The General Plan changes for the airport area east and.. for the portion east o£ Garner Lane appear. to b. well trhouught :out; and generally quite appropriate., They have our support. M a' Fit :.~ During the rezoning process, howeveri we will have reser- vations about the possibility of zoning for several thousand morel -acre bots, as has been proposed by the Planning Commission. The great majority of our; housing needs do not require such large ana expensive -lots. Councilman Hays of the City of Chico also has suggested that Lots any suiail.ex: than 3 -'acres are ur_iw l.ikel•y because. of --state requirements that they have underground utilities. . Much o:�. the I -acre zoning proposed thus may be un realistic—and unnscessary. The questions of need and public costs of such zoning certainly need further consideration. The land use map designation, however, is fine., In the area generally west of Garner Lane, staff has idem, tifi.ed.roughly 1.,500 acres of high quality agricultural soil. Ever though the area north of it oil Keefer Road is largely. developedd, the soil on this 1,500 acres may be of higher quality. Although much of it is cut; into relatively small parcels, the agriculturalpotential may very well still be there. our organization strongly advocates the preservation of all agri- cultural land, if there is any reasonable possibility that it can -be kept in agriculture. If there is no such possibility,; tI'Pi+�'« u 4 rt,� eiyi.;'t.t Ww. �"i.i"t ,^':. <.fi''o r•n "r R," n=i; y,r••.;' .P.r '1•e er rs ta.+ „+, <;," J.f•.w jk'`�,r y` �* �u r Pd,. .,7r.a K �,'" eC.°.`4Y Kar ". LY +.�'+ #.•'^t 1 hie `6 a. d 8` Y•°' t .+,�lwP y r ,t` Mry ta.d I,w �, "" ,., .4r'"d �. Lui7•'`•y:`..�,Y, o,S."'t••`..t r sup �:•�Y Z%'�. « i S= '� � A 6'{a� i�"�y'�� � �'�� f .T �•'+ yL, 'at f�niPs yy, rv',$+° �ti '"•n� yl i'r a« PZ 4wV•h �, I:.o "{4nA4L l.. Aref ���'"+,-YV M+ ..l n.. a..yI•id�r�'� irh1 �r'�1'`M'il*' •r it �.. 'Y 3eW.iy�,y}w.'a„h�'brl i1 �. 1, pi '` 1 y�,r.V7;�.Pra lx,,�'�'l 4'.L.L � t•t ♦ ,, 'M� 'lrr. � 4y ..qtr 1 .+ .h� ,x- d' .'Ir4 e _ ` ' ,�3+ �.. P N nil � 8 Q . �' ���!' �, 97': ,� YD n.w� �. li r � '5-+.�„:� r � �'. � � p' • „" P • � µ ,n 1` •'r('r'P±i9' 7i.i' w!"` r � ' - 1 x Page,1. � .' 1 +N 1 6n t+xy 1 +t.aa .,M a s°t a Y.•P '+,. 4'.�rio�„ �„ �' Y" r4 "� >< '^ f:.T'°vt+i• ,�1"� 7 t � �"" Wi 'K e � f ` w� M t .X h'�• �v,. '� '� � 1 : � •• sy� fit• .".14 N� .,� '�' r �' i: /� y ` M ail kN71 wr , -' '` Y*u � • � �1 +� Yar n r�ntrt�"i ♦ ,:;� �«L�r �{lyy `. a3 1e'``hC .rr Y i",re. `��'r�ti ywyl '.�^,•�p E n�.r%X ;+y .+.\. }��"',�*!4 aj*.h C."M1;�'��avWr'.14;J,� � *�'^,Itl• r�} '.G%Je7.�, �Gj ��.�(. ta. �. a ��t r,� A' _R. ,�. 1� n' � p` -t+,n ".,� •r,t;' m t ..r �,pt t W�.;+ t ••«II,. ")" :�,c.v+. ,� tiu• A i a . 1 ,pr'C;GI ,,]'M1 y » « , f .1 -�. y; M,a M IPr � ,+�i'�t W+9y !v » '�. !I "Y +(' ,`�.1 i "rs' '•'q - 17. ^` �,t« n t' a '.Y. I.I'y.Y,ws a l` N ..w iii'' �1 ,�•Wti sr'1 �Rrb Fay:. t y C 1 � + 11 i FS ,; +n"� ' " �+, ?4".a''�' ♦ r�G w,h.="t e s a a d ai y Mar'". N�� s �! .Y` `,Pt""P ��.� i�d � Y".:,•tYl.:.�:�a�yi i . :K' w 90.x' k"'#i� 1 y P.r. x ,.� �..i.h M A+'a, sa •.,xa� y• - Y iP � ! e aA A+w x ��" d. ✓.� �" -� ��IS•!.t'e'P p4 ti J'-"w W + .°rP4.«r 0. 'r a 0 a Y howeve we• certa y �. y ♦ �� } �� �y�yy.- [y„nP�^� wisy,YyP�yt�o, belt rc-aYlristic° a1 c�t��° 'that. Nie' un er-� , tM'µPr, sv4 1Z 4.1. Wila:. .;you_4 Bo a=d ts, committee ya r •P'� uper�rxlCr,cs Wheeler• and Dolan) w, ave.; tentatzvellr agrerytL With,then G` .sur<-� �d 1T o '�""f els{ Ck,t,c� o mmt ser'-- �! . i �-L y j y »� o tee l.a r+ �! a p azl r ." 1_., a a �µ, areas oir C{ agr cultural desag s ; ation . „.This, part i.ct�7„a_r area. aer l ainZ n t requite more �r serious , cr�nsideratio >« tca y �eents to „c a ” f, xcul:ti nY P whether it realistically, can be keg' j .r . Y ,. it�+i,"�• :;rf ` x �}���,.:?7,��k 4y.a5��' k`t+•l '•Yar:te .,fF'rSae c+iy .}T,, ;�°i�P''`.,”raP.PqrYdlO,yrzu' � tbH �ti F a;• �>y..drlaY«x7'.NL�-,<..._, .?w ,,R4i,.YYa.Ptr-,aP.•9,,wiw�•� hJ Y „•S�. The,area, west:o::"Gr!1' 41" arner, l•!4rP. , �'.t b"a"�•4n.•"r^v«'N.. rw. N. t:r,I«r.n'•t'a w� 7 Yw0i A 1�r' `:,a '•, r ��.,M... j '6`�r.r, 1,tC qtrn" e.• y,^• 1.'-1,;,A°.ia5 «�yr�,P4 v".,'t}}•.�i±±: �'!tv ty..Ni a.. `'•rrR part cul:ar.1 1 S Further .front :the , Cxt Y ward the nor nd, , :'of` Chico the 4 Y khan. ,mast, o% tk�e rest/ of the , acreage within: the', rlanna.n area �taf athe,sea^vices� x - an `'par, ts• of -Jt`� hatre t ,,hsps few e�. sting `roads arid 4 si:g7r:isEa.cant" drainage-problems ,' -o-o', Tbere 'also seems, to: bei, no. px:evert or .nees-future ,need. fo „ faxnt. Tand- there. ,to yo• zntc�. housing_,,.,.. r any informan,t:ion,. , our-concl,uayon•may ds.i"fer jrr m oursVe contrary 3± Y w For now, µ w howe�rer, there",seem.,to, be, seiious prObloiiis >.vest'of''Ca,rner which" yrequa.re. °furthe - consideration ' deli befaxe yot� act on -rhe land use N 53rrati on or'�zonzng..for• that ports on � t 'a N� �.' ,w •-� {w !� ...u'�"�::y. i y+�+4�—`�nl"�r ..b�,p "•h t u„,t ° ''" t :l eq d � yy 'q: , h * Jf l 1� ", ;�- ,.a, v. d "' "•..`""-Yi ..,4 9,... � .i�w; r� i7+t`r I,« '. , e `°w ' j., " '�° x� 1 � •, t O�Jr ,, r r . t rvi L r ," 7� 0 +... a„ rilhe ol7.U� I.n t• x change` thq. ',Ianc7 use., ele tien�map which we suggest del eticn: of.." the high;est, potential � 4, ,- 1^ portion from t'A. k r-, ^the map+ chanr�cw at.{his. tune r.sa+ tha:t~` it zrtay be given, due consi.d-- �� eratio fo`rt•it _farming po . tial.»' • 'A JP .i ten Z .ttle, mare Jame to study t :'' ny P' P.,'tfiis•�Pdrtior),�"cannot�'harm 0 whl le : avo ain a det^� s 'on wh± cH could, be. to chap, Po re�iti al regretful 4 x ._,•,�5 cL11 later. x A• n. fl r "Wo,w�.sh lto .'x°... ;' .. t change 1 �'- - r i 1 „congratulate. those ° responsibl c. far "the land. use P: ddee..ssziggnnaattD yy1 o"ons fz oera-s"oatf,.PGarner:`d hope yoq, willanapprove, theo possible. x , ��' �' w� � +ti �', ti J L P-..I��a.. AR a� � n F K ✓�rF4 yw , '�: � s✓,a,Pjry.� ,y ."c ,�'�' a,� « •vim �. ry ' a . 5 a Very. truly yours., x- 4 1 ' 4 `S. `•S ,',14:."" rr�'r ."f•f I..P� r i .h•.1 '� �. k r ,V j .- 1 - �`N i. i - P r }Y : � r"' i• }• �JrY '.3 P "�i.rJ.Lr� .. ..77 I P a. .r • . „ •Z = as o 2009 ° •c « � r �P «y WA aS J - 'JLL:pm Presi t. • =... _ I) I VI:I2'' D ". y t..,� �'i� G � �'�°} ? ':a J d ar f'� na i�;'i �, "1 �, �,��� x .,r4rr 1;. },i• � r,. Y � ' +�R l Il' ;!,ti • 'y'� 1,��7': t� 1t ,,a ^.S� � �.'%, n t,. S ..I+, r r r Ya., i � ::t' a A l y.�r� 4 l 4 " tl ,r�':�'� ': ';� M�'.�:xa,. °' "i ` . r I t P 1 t '� . r r . > r y L�' ! e,, (EL, e.�z� � ^�� , 4 ; •I �µ, :;ali'� ei I l r5� 4 r:. <. l�. r �, r � r "l s,� 1. .,t�; 5 r � d L et a („ r::.. ,%. ,ld 1,. ' \`` E ', • vs ra '. !; � dr''- . j:♦ 41�?.Y,.. 4 J k �tY,.r. Y 7,16 4 • !' ;r" -M.•.. y M1 xt lr, ik } �. y� Y�I, 1, vl...�. M 9 ct.,,y , it r ', . Y ,, .Sv § a •:.J..,. ,�, }` 1 , J z; q4, a Y ;•�G y *" ` "J ;l'�i` i ,�,.. .•� r .e y L�4 J.1::+, e ,e.:�R '+�� w Tr �� ti�,p � ;ir..+, y..,ti dj:'r' 1{"1 JA 'n. �. xa 1 l "Kir tk r-'.�iz� .,•C P. z,rr y .;fri r, e}r. ._i c„1 v 2s�u3i a 4. _Yei_A,".fir a r�p a, � � :.'e. s. ....a �i •: t,� ! ?: �. ....s , i.�'��.:..�iati_�a � ” + � txH I; L ..P��,. � . _. .� � .� -e�, c J.� '! .,.est. ni�.. ;,20CK CREEK FLOOD DMIRSION California .. Butte County, Feasibility Study of ...,. A Planning Physical Project Features 5 prepared for the BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBIIC WORKS Clay Castleberry, Direc%or by JON M. ANLIERSON Consulting Civsl Engineer Chico, Ca l.iforn,a may 1979 y t..,� �'i� G � �'�°} ? ':a J d ar f'� na i�;'i �, "1 �, �,��� x .,r4rr 1;. },i• � r,. Y � ' +�R l Il' ;!,ti • 'y'� 1,��7': t� 1t ,,a ^.S� � �.'%, n t,. S ..I+, r r r Ya., i � ::t' a A l y.�r� 4 l 4 " tl ,r�':�'� ': ';� M�'.�:xa,. °' "i ` . r I t P 1 t '� . r r . > r y L�' ! e,, (EL, e.�z� � ^�� , 4 ; •I �µ, :;ali'� ei I l r5� 4 r:. <. l�. r �, r � r "l s,� 1. .,t�; 5 r � d L et a („ r::.. ,%. ,ld 1,. ' \`` E ', • vs ra '. !; � dr''- . j:♦ 41�?.Y,.. 4 J k �tY,.r. Y 7,16 4 • !' ;r" -M.•.. y M1 xt lr, ik } �. y� Y�I, 1, vl...�. M 9 ct.,,y , it r ', . Y ,, .Sv § a •:.J..,. ,�, }` 1 , J z; q4, a Y ;•�G y *" ` "J ;l'�i` i ,�,.. .•� r .e y L�4 J.1::+, e ,e.:�R '+�� w Tr �� ti�,p � ;ir..+, y..,ti dj:'r' 1{"1 JA 'n. �. xa 1 l "Kir tk r-'.�iz� .,•C P. z,rr y .;fri r, e}r. ._i c„1 v 2s�u3i a 4. _Yei_A,".fir a r�p a, � � :.'e. s. ....a �i •: t,� ! ?: �. ....s , i.�'��.:..�iati_�a � ” + � txH I; L ..P��,. � . _. .� � .� -e�, c J.� '! .,.est. ni�.. TABLE" OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION ., . . . 0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA . 3 FLOOD HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Peak Flood Events . . . . . . 6 Peak Flood Synthesis . , 10 Comparison of Results . . . . . . . 14 Probable Mdximum. Flood Events . . . . . . 16 Peak Flood volumes . .. . . . . . . 18 FLOOD HYDRAULICS . 18 Rock Creek Channel Capacities . . . . . , 18 �► Required Diversion Quantities . . . . , 18 Chico Creek/Mutt Creek V acilities . . . 19 Design Criteria . . . . 29 Location of Structure & Channel . 31 Effects. . . . 34 Major Improvements ImproVemens . 36 ALTERNATIVES . . . . . 38 Upstream Storage a . . . . . . . . . . 38 channel Improvements . '39' Ground -Water Recharge . . . . . 40 Flood Meadows i . ;.. 41. Flood Plain Zoning and Insurance 43 FUNDING SOURCES' . . 45 County/Local Funding . . . . . . . . . . 45 Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army . . . 46 Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service . . . . 46 Soil Conservation Service . . . 46 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . 48 REFERENCES. . . . . . 50 Regional Flood Model Development . Appendix I ate" rix CONTENTS (oontinti d) Page .No TABLE' 1 Peak Flood gven t s - Rock Creek7] 1 Ar L�1". BS i. pp 1 Proposed Location o� Rock Creek Flood Diversion Facilities In Pocket 2 -- Flood -Diversion Aligns ent Profile In Pocket FIGC3RRS l -- Location Mai. . . . . . . . . i 2 - Location MaP. . 2 3 Synthetic Annual Flood Series . 3 4 100 -year 11.1. Flood Hydrograph Rock Creek C Highway 99R . 15 5 -- 100 -year R.I. Flood t-iyd.,rog ap Dock Creek in Section 28 .' . 17 6 .._ Required Flood Diversion from Rack Creek in Section 28 . . 20 7 -= resign Operating Sequence . 22 8 --- Actual Operating Sequence 26 9 -.. Operating Sequence with Rook Creek Diversion . . 30 W R-0-1) U�C T 1-1) N The valley lands riparian 4o Rock Creek in northern Butte County, several miles -to te north and, w est of the City of Chico, have been plagued by recurrent flood- ing in the recent past (see Location Map, r-igUre 2) - This problem has been prompted by the natural features of Rock Creek, such as contributing drainage area, poor channel alignment and incision, and a broad natural flood- plain; in addition to cultural features, such as suburban development and agricultural activities, as well as attendant toads and structural features. This study was commissioned to provide a preliminary assessment of the engineeringplanning and major techni- cal. features relative to the physical feasibility of Pro- viding a solution -to the Iock Creek flood -hazard problem. Particular emphasis was to be addressed to the option or, diverting excess floodwaters to the improved flood -control facilities, developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Zngineers, of the Chico Creek -Mud Creek system to the south. This diversion site was initially proposed to be northerly of Hicks Lane, with a diversion channel routed to an improved section of mud Creek it the general corridor botweOn Hicks Lane and Garner; -Lane. it addition, a general overview of applicable alternatives and potentia -1 funding source$, along with recommendations, ate also provided. \' LOCATION crAt, r r.a-75 MAP' Rnn: DESCRIPTION RIPTION OF PROJECT nM Land$ riparian to Rock Creek have been undergoing sapid change. Lana use adjacent to Dock Creek historically comprised agricultural and range purt�oses in il7e valley areas, and seasonal. range or open space in the foothills. This practice has shifted in thep ortion of the valley area, easterly of highway 99E (see Location Map), from one of roworops, orchard, rangeland -and irrigated pasture; to suburban, rural residential and small agricultural ixses. This transition, along with the incremental expansion of related service --structural improvements in the area, has highlighted the natural flood potential of the Rock Creek floodway and floodplain. Channel improvements on nock Creek have generally been limited to areas immediate to roadway drainage structures and unoo- ord1nated levee construction by the agri.cul.tural community southwes-tenly of Highway 99E. Several drainage diversiolas in downstream areas have re-routed portions of the natural. Rock Creek drainage from its initial mouth at pine .Creek to Kusal Slough, which eventually enters dud Creek. These diversions have accentuated flooding problems in the Kusal Slough area. Rock Creek is typically an intermittent stream in the 1 valley areas, gradating to an intermittent/ephemeral stream in the foothills and headwaters. It enters the valley on an inconspicuous alluvial fan, with the stream in transition from a; braided pattern, to a gently -meandering course in the valley proper. Stream channel slopes generally vary from about 60 feet -per -mile in the lower foothills, to about 10 feet -per -mile in the valley. The drainage area of Rock Creek at severallocations, is: -3- IS 0 Below Anderson Fork - North of, Flicks Lane - - - (in Section 28) At highway 99B. - - - 23.6 S(J- 'miles 25.9 Sq. miles 44.0 sq, miles The average elevation of the Rook Creek basin is approxi - Mately 1500 feet, with extremes ranging from about 180 feet to slightly over 3800 feet. The topographic relief is moderate in the lower portions of the basin, and relatively steep in the upper foothills. Geologically, the basin foothills are predominately composed of Tertiary extrusive volcanics of the Tuscan formation. These Pliocene rocks form a slight westerly -dip .ViI ng homooline, and are generally pyroclastic in composition with several, exPo- SUrE;1S of basalt and andesite. The lower valley portions Of the basin are typically composed of Pleistocene continental, deposits and 1.1ocent fan and/or stream -channel deposits. vegetation in the foothills of the basin is ecotondle varying rapidly with elevation and microenvironment. The lower foot- hills are typical of a Mediterranean fire-disclima,x community, supporting vegetation ranging from oak -grassland to dense cbapartal. The higher elevations Of the basin generally consist of, or are strongly influenced by -the Montane forest community. The precipitation regimen in the basin exists predominantly. as rainfall, averaging approximately 32 inches annually. Point storm intensities, for a 10 -year recurrence interval, are on the order of 0.183 inches--per-hour for a 6 1 07minute 6uration,and 0..16 inches-per"hour fora duration. .24-hour Intensities for a 100 -year recurrence interval, are on the order of 1.8 i•nches-per-hou,t for a 60 minute aurationr and 0.23 inches -pet -hour for a 24-hour duration. Probable maximum precipitation (PMP) for this area is approximately -4- 1,6 inohes-per-day, 65 inclic U -per --month, and 154 inches -per- year. ylistorical flood problems along Rock Creel: .have typically coina,ided with periods of general flooding from other rain- fall -regime small streams tributary to the Sacramento Valley. Notable of recent, were the flood periodsof the 1969, 1970, 1973, 1974 and 1978 water years. Previous studies in the area have been limited to those conducted by the California Department of Water Resources and the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. The Department of Water Resources study (Sacramento valley East Side Investi- gation - Bulletin 137) was concerned with streams tributary to -the Sacramento River from the east, but was limited in scope to water -supply development considerations, the Corps -of Engineers study was initiated in December of 1974 as a flood -hazard evaluation of Rock :Creek in the vicinity of Wilson Landing Road. The evaluation was particularly centered about adverse effects associated with private levee development in agricultural areas. After some preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic engineering, the study was terminated dueto lack of available funding assistance. An earlier study by the Corps of Engineers in this general area, although somewhat dated, is the 1957 report on hydrology for the major and minor tributaries,of the Sacramento River. This report summarized some general, characteri8tics applicable to all streams in the area, but was specifically directed toward authorized flood -control improvements (i.e., Big Chico), Little Chico and Butte Creeks). FLOOD IIYDROLOGx -Peak Flood Events Data o11 flood Conditi3.ons for Rack Creek are practically non-existant. with the exception of some average day lY- O peak flow data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation during the inconsequential flood periods of the 1954-55 water years, there has not been any systematic program or stream gaging or indirect peak -flow measurements instituted on Rock Creek or any of its tributaries. in recognition of this non"existant database, and in lieu of initiating a peak -flow data -collection program over a period of 10 or, 15 years, a reliance on synthetic models was, of r_�cessity, selected for estimating the magnitude and fre luency of peak -flood events. According,ly, a review of the capabilities of existing synthetic peak -flow models was conducted. The flood -estimation procedures of :Four different models were determined to be applicable to the flood regimen of Rock Creek.'Three of these Were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the fourth, by the Corps of Engineers The U.S. Geological. Survey models evaluated were those presented in the .hollowing publications 0 11) Young, Li E., and Cruff, R. W., '1967, Magnitude and frequency of floods in the United States, , Part 11, Pacific Slope Basins in California, Vol. 2, Klamath and. Smith River Basins and Central valley Drainage from the East-: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paner 1686, 308 p. 2) Crippen, J. R., and Beall, R. M., 1970, A Proposed Streamflow Data Program for California. U.S. Geological Survey open -File Report, 46 p 3) Waananen, A. 0., and Crippen;, J". R., 1977; Floods in California: Magnitude and Frequency of U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Series 77-21, 96 p. -6- An initial evaluation of (Mlle procodures 01.1tlined in these publications resulted in the elitllination of the first two, and retention of the -third. The third model wa! tained because of the greatly -expanded ds La base and period of record available to the: authors (resulting from an ambitions (D data -collection program), and the specificity of the model, for prediction of events on small streams (i.e., drainage areas greater than about 100 acres and less than about 500 square miles). The Corps of Engineers model considered was a composite of the General Rain.flood L.A. method. for Mountain and Valley Synthetic Unit Hydrographs, since much of this information had previously been developed for Rock Creek. Initial considerations indicated that this technique may not be adequate, in its entirety, for estimation of instantaneous peak -flood events, but would be of greater utility for estimation of peak -flood volumes. Estimates ;of peak --flood events via the techniques delineated in USGS-WRX 77-'21 (Waananen and Crippen; Publication No. 3 above) require that basin characteristics be determined and utilized in a predictive multiple -regression equation of the form Peak Discharge = d Aa Bb CC where the peak discharge is for the desired frequency; A, B and C are basin characteristics; and a, b, c, and d are regional constants. For the region applicable -to Rock Creek (the Sierra Region _ as defined by the USGS), applicable basin characteristics include drainage area, mean annual precipitation, and a basin. altitude ,index.. Application of this model to two sites on Rock Creek (one at Highway 99Er the other northerly of hicks Lane) resulted in the following instantaneous peek discharges for the indicated recurrence intervals (eg; Q10 w Peak Oi.schar5c expected to be equaled or exceeded, once in every 10 -ye -ars, on the average) At IIighway 99L Q2 1►040 cubic -feet per second (cfs) 05 2,150 cfs Q10 21980 cis Q25= 4,720 cgs Q50= 6,210 cfs Qlob 7,740 cfs Northerly of Flicks Lane Q2 = 720 cfs Q5 = 1,,530 cfs Q10'= 2,1.30 cfs Q25= 3,360 cfs Q50- 4,260 cfs Q1C i' 5,540 c fs A subsequent evaluation of the method and these results indicated that the reported standard error of estimate to be expected in the application o f this method could be p pp substantial. Ranging the values of the Q10 and Q100 estimates to encompass one standard•error of the estimate p resulted in a range of Q10 from 1600 to 5500 cfs for Rock Creek at Highway 99E (with an expected value of 2,980 cfs), and a range of Q100 from 3,300 to 18,1.00 cfs (Wil -h an expected value of 7,740 cfs) A ,sir'nilar procedure for bock Creek northerly of Hicks bane, resulted in a range ofQ_l0 from 1,140 to 3,970 cfs (With 2,1.30 cfs expected), and a range in Q100 from 2,360 to 13,000 cts ;with 5,540 cfs p ed) er ect Accordingly, for the desi(In of a major public-worka projeot, at least one standard error of the estimate would need to be applied. This would result in a design Q1,00 of 13,000 cfs for Rock Creck northerly of Tlicks Lane,, Immediate consid- erations at this point, even without the benefit of further analysis, would suggest that the proposed flood -diversion project would be infeasible due to the peak hydraulic loading predicted by this model. Por this reason, further evaluation of the veracity of the application of this model was in order. Continuing in this evaluation, the techniques of USGS-WRI 77--21 were applied to a point of known s,'..reamflow character- istics in the Local area. The point solected was the site of the long-term gaging station on 1:(I Chico Creek near Chico. This location was selected due to its proximity to Rock Creek, the similarity in basin characteristics (drainage area, geology, flood regime, and elevation), and. because 46 years of excellent, continuous -record gating data were available. The actual values of Q10 and Q100 were determined for this site via the point -frequency analysis techniques of the Log -Pearson Type III distribution, utilizing natural, skewness' coefficients, as recommended by the U.S. Water Resources Council, The resulting Q10 was accordingly determined to be about 51000 cfs, and Q100 about 91600 cfs. These highly credible peak -flow values (due to excellent, long --term data) were then compared to the results produced by the estimating technique of USES-WRI 77-21., which produced Q10 = 8,860 cfs and Q 20,300 cfs. 100 n y examination, the model results are in obvious disagreement with the point --frequency analysis, with a resulting two -fold cliscrepancy in the Q100 value: Further analysis disclosed that t -he Sierra. Region utilized in the USGS-WRI 77-1 model.; ranged from as far south as the Cern River Basin (near Bakersfield) to as far north as the McCloud River Basin (near Mount Shasta). This would serve to suggest", r sz aw —illy with full consideration of the previous wal.uat.i,on 3, t� it the arcs .incorporated in the U. S; C. S. Sierra Rcg4.on wa-8 eithertoo large to accurately depict *weak streantl,ow characteristic$ for a point such as Big Oh:i.co or Jocit C'3 rnl s; or that the hydrologic regimen in this area, is not typical of the larger Sierra Region, and must be considered ,epar;�.tely, S.'Lnce the vr_ry economic and physical. feasibility of any pro- posed flood -cc it - Ol improvements 11il-1 revolve about the QD re4lio,bility of d !sign -flood estimates, the USGS-WRI 77-21 model was di scary. eco, for the purposes of this feasibility stuclµ'. on th - pr esumpi i, an that the Rock Creek area of Butte County warrant,i1 analysis as a separate and unique hydrologic region fu4 peak -,Elson characteristics, a statistical regression model. wa,i d.c voloped as a l art of this project. The results were excellent ind allowed the synthesis of peak -flood ;vents on "o ;k creek within a low margin of error. The model and model development procedures are presented in Appen-;fix 1. Peak Flood Synthesis for Moak Creek The magnitude and frequency of peak Mood events were for two locations on Rack.. synthesizedCreek utilizing the model in Appendix 'I. These locations were at the Highway 99t bridge (drainage area =`44.0' Square miles) and in section 28 at a northerly extension of Hicks x,F-ne (dLainage area = 25.9 square miles). Peak flood, events for recurrence inter- vals of 2 -years to 100-year8' are shown on Table 1 and Table I :beak Mood )3Ven-t4i Rook Creek Peak Flood Matin tnira (in afs'j, Recurrence Rook Creek ruck Creek Xnterva:1 above flicks Crane @ Ilwy 99D. p5.5 M:2) (44.0 M12) 2 year 1,570 cfs 2,500 cfs 5 year 2,730 4r380 10 year 3,460 5,570 25 year 4,360 7,000 50 year. 5,000 B4Olo 100 year 5,660 8,570 o uI 'DRAINAGE �REA =25-9 SO.MILES) 30,00 200o :s 9 to 2050 !00 200 RIECURRENCE TNTE'RV�Sl-, '\I YEARS FF -5, at r t� t uI 'DRAINAGE �REA =25-9 SO.MILES) 30,00 200o :s 9 to 2050 !00 200 RIECURRENCE TNTE'RV�Sl-, '\I YEARS FF -5, should be noted that increasing the 100-yoar punk flood 0 magnitudes at these -two sites to 9,,300 Ofs (from 8,97Q ofs) and to 5,900 O -Es (,from 5, G80 Ofs) would be apProxima-LOIY equivalent to the application of one standard error of. the estimate to the synthesized peak values• These higher values should -then be conservative, and adequate for the design of major public -works projects. 0 2 a W 11 E7 - Comparison of Results It is a worthwhile exercise to compare the 100 -year peak -flood discharge developed by this model, with the respective disaharges produced by other methods. Vor Rock. Creek C Highway 99B (44.0 square miles) this model predicted an instantaneous peak -flood discharge of 8,970 cfs (without any adjustment for standard error), The USGS-WRI 71-21 method produced a peak discharge of 7,740 ofs, and the Corps of D-rigineers Rainflood Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (reproduced in Figure 4) generated a peak discharge of 9,540 of.s. Thus, the results of the model are in general agreement with the results produced by other techniques, at this particular site. In spite, of the seeming general agreement above, the model of Appendix I wouldneed to be considered superior after an adjustment for statistical precision (i.e., the addition of one standard -error of the estimate). To illustrate, this model produced a.standard error of +4i5% for this region, whereas the USGS-WRI 77-21 method had an error (not standard, error) of about 23016 for Big Chico creeki The synthetic Unit Rydrograph technique provides no such statistic8 for comparison. • ROCK CREE-K 9 HIGHWAY 9'9E (DRAINAGE AREA 44.0 SO- MILES) !00` -YEAR RA FLOOD HYDROCRAPH (ADAPTED FROM CORPS OF ENGINEERS) FIGURE 4 } I I � I e s ■ S � a ti } s Ln 450 n a P 3004 — X w TOTAL VOLUME =6,72-O ACRE FEET 1500 I ; 0LLIZ _ d i Q 2 4- 6 8 10 12 14 I5 I$ 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 3 = 3e e s ■ S � a ti } s 0 0 - probable MaxilluM Flood x,vents Probable maximum -flood (PWO ovents were estimated for general inion, ?tional use; based on a regional evaluation of similar streams in the general area. This evaluation, resulted in the following approximate values: - Rock Creek in Section 28: PMS' = 23,300 cgs' (Drainage Rrea = 25.9 sq.mi) - Rock Creek 0 Highway 99,D: PMF = 30,uuu ers (Drainage Area - 44.0 sgimi) These events are not generally utillzed for the design of minor flood -control projects as envisioned by the scope of this report. These PMT' events are accordingly, vrry rare in nature and roughly correspond to the equiva- lent rare precipitation events in the Chico area of approximately 16 inches -per -day, or. about 154 inches in one year. Peak. Flood Volumes Peak flood volumes (hydrographs) were developed for the Section 28 location on Rock Creek (drainage area = 25.9 mit) to allow the determination of diversion quantities and their time distribution, once the limiting`capacity of the existing Ttock Creek channel is known. These hydrographs (including' the diversion hydrograph to follow in a later section) were ® adapted from data previously developed by the Corns of Engineers for the hock Creek area using S-hydrograph techniques. '.Che resulting Jt,0-year, recurrence interval flood hydrograph is shown in Figure 5. Adaptations included transferring unit hydrographs to this location', adjusting the peak flow to re,flech, model results,.and_re-distribution of the excess hydrograph Volume such that the total hydrograph volume remained constant. -16,w MOM I r,LOOD HYDRAULICS Rock Creek Channel Capacities The major objective in the scope of this project is the amelioration of glood-hazard conditions in the lands riparian to Rock Creek (along Keefer Lane) to the east of Highway 99B. Secondary objectives and benefits include the alleviation of flood conditions in the pri- marily agricultural lands to the west and the general improvement of storm -drainage outfallso in recognition of the above PriOtiti0s, a limiting channel - conveyance reach for Rock Creek was seleoted in the Reefer Lane area (adjacent to tiain Tree Court), the primary area of concern:.. The reach selected, ba.8e6 on field and geomorphic reconnaissance, is located in section 30 about 1.9 miles 4n I �' downstream groin the site ;;lection 28. Slope -area and backwater techniques were utilized in con- the junction with field surveys to determine the capacity of t limiting hydraulic section. The resulting capacity was determined to be 3,200 cfs, without any channel improvements. This reach is ,jenera,lly an aggrading stream with an r,rmored bedt and abcordingly, little evidence of bed scout,. Numerous examples of bank scour (fillet groins) were present. The hydzaulic conveyance of the channel could be readily improved in the area with 'r:il.nor channel -alignment training; -= bank removal of fences and ob.structionsi.elimination O.L groins, and i.mplemel-Itation of a minor maintenance program. Required Diversion.QuAhtities Combining the limiting channel capacity Of 3,200 cfs with the i.00 --yeas recurrence -interval hy.dt6grAPh developed for this reach (Figure 5), results in the required diversion BROW A hydrograph shown in Vigurr 6 This hyda.ograph has a lrotal volume of 1,070 acre fee,(-. and a peak of 2,700 ofs, and represents the time -distribution of flood discharge that would teed to be diverted (or stored) in order to limit the downstream dischargM of Rock Creek to 3,200 cfs. �» Chico Creek/Mud Creek Flood -Control Facilities Historically, under natural flood -regimen conditions, Mud Creek, Sycamore Creek, Lindo Channel and more parti- cularly Big Chico Creek would frequently inundate the riparian Lands of the greater Chico area to the south. This condition prompted the V.S. Army Corpsof Engineers to develop the flood -control facilities of the Chico Creek/ 0 Mud Creek project during the early 1960's, as authorized by House Document 649/78/2, This project consists of levees, channels, diversion structures and diversion channels expressedly developed for flood -control purposes. These facilities generally operate in the following sequence: 1) Big Chico Creek is allowed to flow under natural regime conditions until a prede'ter- mined flow of about 1,500 cfs is attained. ) Excess floodwaters 2 s from Big Chico Creek are then diverted, via an ogee weir, to Linde Channel (Sandy Gulch). The capacity -of this diversion is limited to 6,000 cfs. 3) Flood events that exceed the combined capacity of both Big Chico Creek and Linda Channel are then diverted from Lndo Channel, via a second ogee weir,northerly to a diversion channel that is tributary to South Sycamore Creek. 4') These diverted floodwaters -then combine with the natural floodflows of South Sycamore Creek, North Sycamore Creek, and Sheep Hollow, to be conveyed by the extensively levoed and improved Sycamore Creek channel (located approximately lh miles northerly of the City of Chico proper). -1.9-- -REQUIRED FLOOD DIVERSION 3000' from E ROCK CREEK I11} SECTION 28 PEAK ='2,700 CFS 00` -YEAR. RECURRENCE INTERVAL FLOOD HYDROGRAPH v FIGURE 6 HYDROG RAPH LJOUR 5) Sycamore Creek floodwaters combine, yeL further downstream, wit -h ti, ' e floodwaters of, the improved leveed Mud, Crec_!k, which serves ;is the convey - aace channel to the Sacramento River outfall at the mouth of B.Lq- Chico Creek. A schematic diagram of the operating sequence of these flood -control facilities is shown, on Figure 7, along with the original 100 -year recurrence interval desiqn discharge This flood -control complex has provided excellent flood ,protection for -the Chico area since its completion, as evidenced by the absence of any extensive flood problems during the major floods of the 1965, 1969, 1970e 1974 and 1978 water years (several of which 94eatly exceeded the previously7recorded flood history of Big, Chico Creek). The design flood discharges for -the major conveyance facilities of this flood -control project were originally developed utilizing 100 -year recurrence -interval design criteria, and are summarized below, by reach; Big Chico Creek (above divetsiun): 16'000 O's Big Chico Creek (below diversion): 1,500 C -Is Lindo Channel (Sandy Gulch)-. 6,000 c!"s Diversion Channel (To Si Sycamore Cr.); 8,500 ci's South Sycamore Creek (below diversion): 8,800 c:!s Sycamore Creek (above Sheep Hollow): 10,000 cls Sycamore Creek (above Mud Creek)-. 11,000 Ofs Mud Creek (below Sycamore Creek): 15,000 OfS