Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45 MOOSEBERRY/BURREU GPA/REZ (6)Ft�F r . k n y c d i Sm" so #amgsmmv $416%wp1.G. M CAi Wn.�e.,.dt011f�-y�y w Num:l.w s y OW xi MM OP a JET OrrlAtit: l% MINIM � w - _. _ e'a1]. FStti'l: , E.I:'R . •' .,:.' ., 3..L�..+�e+�..,,u: ,butte :Co:..t2S1ty' 3. COMM COMM PRAMO. Laura _1'uttl# 4"::;,. >• fw.+t Y '... 7, Cau�t tJ Cefit_erdriVe iw c in Oroville fa:ss. tsaz 95965 3.. ft... (916) 534-460`1 wm 4 Omat7, 'Hlttte 4., Cldt*a"itr: Chico *.. a.wtaj•(ti.e.l na. yariou: y, fwum Rancho i.p, Chico laact - "lv=ro91 o l..am" fa.ft* sell, Muir, Cu4a ck. Eajfm. msa, annel S. Pleas.;.Ilse, a �; 3Z, 95 e. i. Win` Sc P.R. R. t, n� Alud Creek Chtca' Creek LtUI.,Ya4a � r. t.vt;atwr ne Big ' oi: c q.nt nen cent* ot. 'X i..10..tw: vmt. 270 - -a� 270 m _ s A. tw cs. M.q u..ot m, _ orrio.: $r. r,. ;. �.. bS.. y9v1► Gage Olr.�eTt0. X oral ►tu uomwt Fere .. Omlgwa.- _._ . oa. M 0. 0.: _ w Oa. �mata Pita 0]. 'MOWU X*aa,"w' fa. rt.. tx.: X Omm to as. �imismticstem- _ tyeiy.,a r _ tiesi�+tl 'to, ,_ft+e 3[. ►t.a 'ff. __O>erlq Plan . &P -q— - bpleto.. r a, 05.,�Mief to. MOOMS _Driftctn.Anal • f0. ` POCS' LT..—Yi tN. Stas; tqi .t..S . •' r., Cfss 11. am-iet.u. Cf. �w,is. p+.tai i Tw ' � . . •. 71 _Jalif-.tkec.efY. tta w.Nxll.i rlY In, —OP NIaUY . y "am" il. „omw, :. _.. . '• sir. om.o - _ _ iw �cti�,, ;Ploys :u T Ian b6iindary' west r `" 22 "nM: "'tgW,tr ntataisio n: ►..ts.n rts.a.i a. n is. 2.u -'r X auiutmwti Lam w.. tt. �f�nal d. ,._..+t,aaeltiarsar " f tp,,�tu0attq' bc.,�Jan/ev+sW fnL.e� tf. _3x1 &MUM M...^fil4u. ow _ u••�= - Iti, i it,,_,Wwmtr u. teras I" it. �bio.ea 2seddai ,. _ pf.:, G..ni'.haw if .alr f0. �muryntainr Xl■ms+uite 6".p. Pawni f Orchard t Pield droplone dwelling unit i acres) 4 per '3- A-5 tfa,1CT ;mart;;+: VOW= RdzOne of +/'4 270 diecontiquoua acres tc Agriculturai Residential lone duelling per acre) on the agricuitulai side of the Chi*^,o area graeniine i • .czanac= 'm mx:% y[� C 6 /rte _ t Hca mu�tx'ci _.. .b� fA'° AGOW k n c d i k r� y,tt ,tate �of California Business, Transportations & 1tau;�i+n J�genoy 14t140HANDUM pai.e: May 9, 1986 "To State +Cleaein6louseand Office of Planning n File; 03 -But -32/99 Attention Pamela Milligan P.M. 6.3 1400 Tenth Street Bell -Muir GPA Sacramento, CA 95814 sai No. e4061909 . DEPARTt NT 0.F TRA,ts MUTSON Telephone ATsS 457-4498 r Y-om: ` �' A 95901 District 3 P. 0. 'Dox 911, Mary sville C Galtrans, District 3, has reviewed the draft RIR for the i:ell-riuirThe General Plan Amendment and revision of the Chico Area Greer line. Bio specific deVel site lies bevween Berl Road and Highway 32, went P d at this tile. fans -are propose L one at.Lassen 3,2- shays tuo Herar�werehartges on rtighwaY 99 _nt:3 far Avenue and one a' Rast 5th Avenue, _ raveccw NI -1 build-vit. There is not Sufficientcroomnt;e�ween exisng �tr;.l buil additional interchanges at either Iodation to allow construction ion oiysible: nterriianges. These improve are nom p Y wally P`o.' _ -- h si =IFS ences thy: D,strict"s Rau4e Concept Report for HighwaY 32 The refer b stating that .`the report.. i ecarmlends widening highway 32 to three Y The Route Concept Report actcially recosninends lanes this vic.inaty. to four lanes With bicycle la.,es and left tern packets. nnit project is; at the bottom Of the District's top t.0 priorities for construction between 1990 and 1995. t'age 3.2-i7 states that "appropriate funding will be acquired from AAA ;and Caltrans... Given current fc�ndin shortfalls, this is bat a r�,alstic arclutiort. become available for those high priori. Projects, Funding may gent 'lan such as thew ►aideriinR of identified in the System Manage, , }� " tr�aay 3z • However y other roadway, improv altfuhding inpthe1� the EIR are not scheduled for State and/a"I e'en- foreseeable future. k'e recommend the County in cooperation with the City of Chico, consider a method to 'finance l0ng�-range measures necossarj to mitigate cumulative impacts. ., �c4 �f Cali o iia THE FtMURCt 5 AGENO OF CAU MAMA ao t Dr. Gordon F. Snow a 'e r MAY 19 1986 Assistant Secretary for Resources Subject: rJraft lrnvi;nmeptal Ms, Laura Tuttle impact Report, 'BeP,- County of Butte Muir 011A 841,45. 7 County Ccnter 'Drivc SCH 54.0619O,9 Oroville, CA 95965 Trc,tW i Department of Conservation--Office of the Director The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on lastatewide basis. The Department: also administers tye California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act,. We hzvc rcNI'awed Butte County's D. aft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project rcfcr cnccd above and have notedthat the proposal would involve the conversion ,of prime agricultural sand, The Department, ihercforc,, offers the rol. 10%ving comments: The proposal would. Mvolvieapproximately 400 acres of agricultural land which is currently outside the Chico Greenline (urban deVclopment bo11ndary). 1t proposes the extension of the greenline to include the project area withAn the current dcvelopmcttt arca, and the convcrsionof approximately 270 acnes of land to 270 1-acre homcsitcs, It is not clear from the D1•r1R what additional agricultural land conversion may result as a secondary impact. of the project, The DElR notes (page 3,1`0 that there arc a number of economic fnewrs »hich affect the viability of agricultural operations in the project arca, question the basis on the negative economics of agricultural. �1 cm p o`perati+ons to the absence of marc quantitative and ;qualitative dc_iail _ on the - economics- of current agrico tural production. Also, wc, concur with your comment (page �,1-10) which suggests that the project would mngnify and transfer problems related to niyisance to adjacent agricultural lands, We recommend that the Final Envirbnmental Impact Report (FEIR) address the issue of long-term farmland conversion impact by including the following information. a The agricultural character 'of the arra covered 'by the project and of carb.y or surrounding lands' which may be affected by the co'nvcrson process. Types and relative yields of crops grown: ,. Avatlalo-il"uy and quality of irriga ion water, o Farmland. Conversion Impacts The type and amount of fa,�r»land tonvotion, if any, that W6u1d res 'alt in ncairby areas :m from rmpicentation of the proj�:ct, in, cluding potential crop yields that would` be lost, - The proportion of the County's tot :itt]In�lr�7', this tort: tscrsWn Would rcprescht: t:.j`�s`C.�..:.� p t,� ,,,n �t�t;� �, `� l�p- y i t 1tATB ACUON pL" MUM CI1SC0 URBAN AMIA Butte County , City of Chico March 50 1955 4, I PROBLEM STATEMENT Nitrate levels exceeding the 45 mg/1 drinking,, water standar d 6 have been found in oballowr domestic well water in certain areae around 7 the City. Such high nitrate levels can cause Methemoglobinemia in 8 infants less than sire moat -hs c f age. The excessive nitrate eoncentre - 9 tion indicates that existing or potential Iridespread 'water quality i3O problems exist:, in the Chico area groundwater. Presently, only 11 the shallow gone aquifer is affected. Septic .tank disposal of 12 domestic wastes and urban storm water rjjn-off Have been listed 13 as tht. most contributory and the most controllable sources of nitrates, i1 14Other sources also contribute tothe e total nitrate levels, but , they a're; less controllable. 161 Should additional Jhf-ormation 1�ecouie available as a result 1.7 of monitor " ring or other sources which would inda':cate s change. it l$ :this Action Plan, such change Vi.l.l be requested of the Central l9 Valley Regional relater Quality Control Board. 2t� ACTION PLAIN GOAL 27. To gxeveri" the tir`tlier degradation and to minim ze the oxist %ng 22 nitrate problem in the c,groundwatwer of the Creator, Chico Urban Area as shown on the attached tiap (Exhibit 'Al) and adjacent areas. 24 r 28' Page 1, of 8, The Drainage Plan will includes (1 �`he standards for the elimination of all existing drainage walls. (2) The standards for the installation of temporary drainage facilites such as leachfields. C. City and couptywilldevelop a financing P;lai.i by ,Januaryl L1986 for the construction and extension oft; (,) The sewerage and drainage f'acil.it.s as .set forth in the Sewerage and Drainage Plans. (2) latex mains to high nitrate areas which do not have a publitr. g water system which meets the nitrate ,Levels prescribed .by the State Safe Drinking Water Act ,10 D. City and county will determine the availability of grants or low interest loans for sewerage, drainage and/or-water facilities. 12 _ l3 IV. IMPLFAMATION - A. :City and county will agree to use the Unified Land Use Designation 14 P () and pevelo msnt Densities flan for the design 'of the Sewerage l.5 and Drainage: Plans. 16, B. City and county have, or will establish standards for 'new water 1.7 i$ wells. Butte County, has, adopted: dopted an ordinance to require adequate ' sealing of all new water wells and: special strata sealing to 20 prevent ihterconnectibn of contaminated: and uncontaminated 21 ae�4t&fers. The ordinance prohibits the. construction. of 22 drainl3ge wells and, furthers provides for the destruction of 23 24 abandoned, wells and existing drainage, wells as other drainage ab 2g systems fiidorie available* S) See. ltl A above Pa ge of, E. City and county will require: connection, to the sanitary sewer facilities when said facilities are available(). F. City and county will allow :new development in accordance with the Unified Land Use and Development Density Plan when septic tanks are to e. utilized until sanitary sewer service is available. Said septic tanks shall be allowed when: they meet the criteria as set: forth in Exhibit 'B' and subject to the following conditions: 6 property owner shall execute a written =°covenant -to be 8 recorded against all. ,property within the development, agreeing 7 not to protest any sanitary sewerage and/or drainage assess - 3 - ment: levied pursuant to an assessment district or service 9 area and also agreeing to connect such development to the 1.0 sewer and drainage facilities constructed and installed as 11 part of said, district or service area, all at such owner's 1 sole cost and exriense(9). >_ ' (2) 'Property owner shall. install stallall sewerage facilities to the 16 boundary of the project area (see footnote 1) so as to make connection t'o the sewerage facilities when said ttcilit.es l'7 have been ,installed in accordance 'witli tho adopted Sewerage Plan« I9 , (), Sewer service shall be considered available except when: 2l. (a) ' The e:Ypected project sewage flow is leso than 1,000 gallons per flay and the project does not meet the eonttection requirements of Butte County Code Section 19-1.4. b} The expected project: so. Page flow is over ,1 I 001) gallons per day 3 sod: a retrtew ofa complete engineering -report i dicates that it is not: practical and feasible to sewer the project. Such determination 4 Shall be made, with the concurrence of the Central Val'bay Regionsl Water Ouality, Cbntro7 lloardi 5 t9) 'ne above is subject to the appropriate public entity finding by resolution that said sanitary sewerage and/or drainage assessment _ district or service area is necessary in order to protect thepublic i I (3) Property owner may submit a plan for development, to per, it I _ smaller parcels in accordance'w th the Uniform Land Use' , and Development Density Plan which Plan shall limit develop- j meal: to the sewage disposal requirements set forth.above` I 2 until sanitary sewer facilities ,are available. 13 (,) Property owner shall be required, to hook-up to a water source which is acceptable to and approved by the Butte County Division of gnvirenmental HeaIth._-. G. County will: continue to implement the following monitoring and education programa (1) Beginning Noyember-1, 1984, theEnvironmental Health 10 Division of the county initiated a monitoring program for the 71r shallow zone waters of the area. Twenty-two wells will be A, 72 monitored every sift months. In addition; the Department of 13 Water Resources will monitor six wells as part of its ongoing 14 program. The:�nowEtoring programa over a period of time, will 15 help evaluate the effectiveness of the Action'Plan. (2;) The County Health Officer has sent notification to phIsacians 18 17,, county g the high nitrate problem ift in the cnun informing them of 1$ the shallow zone'water in the Chico area and asking them to be on the 'lookout for Mdthemog"lobinea nia syauptobs. 90 The Health ,Department will Conti w -;a, an educational program 9'. advising residents that they may have their wells tested and 22 to obtain an alternative source of drinking ~"rater for 3 infants if theif- wells show a nitrate love! in excess of 24 45 ms;.pQr liter. Page 6 Of 19 u H. City and, county, will also examineadjacent areas outside the j r Greaten` Chico Urban Area.4 including: �] Development e a tmetablQ for extension of sewer and drainage facilities fo' those high nitrate areas outside the Greater Chico Urban Area boundaries, Hovever extension 4 of the .Facilities to these areas will be re-evaluated based 6 upon need asdetermined by nitrate levels at that time. (Z) Establishment of densities xhz,ch shall not exceed present General Plan and/or zoning requirements without the approvaS of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 5 10 standards where enforce developments septic tank. , County will 7.1 gsystecas, to be util .red v^,thin the; high nitrate areas outside: are 12 the Creator -determined Urban Area as -determined-bp the County 13 • Env�.ronmental Health Division. �Q 16 1s 17 _ 18 19 �0 2l 22 23 2 M 25 r tia ` 20 i 4 r. Rago 7 of t l� ': c: f EMBIT "B+, (As amended by Minute Order X28-85 adopted 5/7/85) STANDARDS.FOR THE INSTALLATION' OF SEPTIC TANKS UNTIL SAMITARY SEWER SERVICE IS AVAILABLE (1) Development will be allowed if it meets the sewage disposal require ments for single family residential development of Appendix VII of the Butte County Improvement Standards for Subdivisions,, Parcel Maps; and Site Improvements pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code dealing with minimuz useable lot areas, (2) For other than single family development, the sewage generation shall be limited to the sewage flow expected from a single family residence, not to isxceed an application rate of 1,000_gallons ,per' acre per day; Sewage generation rates shall be as determined by County Environmental Health (S) UFjon completion of the Sanitary Sewerage Plan and the establishment of a tinctable for thu extension of sewers into areas, the abova requirements may be fevised depending upon the time lag before sewers could be made available, to permit a greater density of development (4) Notwithstanding, ari thin hereinabove to t g anything, the tontraryi pursuant to' "California Regional 'Meter Quality Control, Board Central. Valley' Division Resolution. #$5-095, concerning the Nitrate Action Pl:eny Greater Chito Area, Butte County", the California Regional Water Quality Control. Board reserves the right to review any City/Countysubdivisions Which could adversely affect grdundwater, y page 8 of IC7A MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT (Significance After (Significance) Mitigation) s 4, 110D USE, PLANNING. APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES The proposed project would encourage Not mitigable. (S'/ the development of approximately 270 ' tiew dwelling units i.n an area of prime _ i agricultural land. <, Loss of this agri cultural land would represent a 0.375 percexit decrease in the totalL mount ` of rounty land used for fruit and nut production. This ,incremental loss and; other incremental losses would be considered a signiP'ieant cumulative, impact at the regional, state and national level. (a) The proposed project would increase The City of Chico and Butte County the frequency and magnitude of adverse should support the Chico Area land use compatibility impacts with Greenline policy by requiring that: a iculturalS,ctivitics to the north 1) an Agridta,tural-- Use notice be and Hast. applied to pare-016withn 20Q feet ofthe Greenline (refer to Butte, Cot my Code Sections 26.8, 34-1 34-2y 3`4-3=and 34-12), 4 nekt urban do elopment within 200,feet of�the 'OreeaT`ine be set back to tho ti sW mum feasible distance,eonsi.stetit with the applicable zoning dis itiet requirements (cluster designs shotAd"'be encouraged to achiev this* obj active j ; and 3) s pecif 1.6 performance criteria be met by agricultural -operations. Examples of performanoe . criteria iftdlUde . the following f -Noiae generated by farm eq,ui p- tment should not exceed th$ S. Significant (Adverse) NS Not Significant (Adverse) PS 'PotentiallySi Hifi : 8 CAdverse)'_ tialcant $ Henef _ ... (CONTINUED) IMPACT (Significance) 'The proposed. project would alter planned land uses in the projgat area. The resulting pattern of land use designations would not be considered logical or stable. The subject site HITIGATXONMGASuns (Significance After Mitigation) set by applicable city and county hoisp standard)noise generation exceeding 70 LMax dB.A at the Greenline should not be conducted beWeen the hours of 10:00 ;PA., and 7:30 A. Mi , and ph, sioal-. barriers should be encouraged in all. cases and should be required where conditions would be expected to eXeeed tolerable limits. (NS). This impact is the subject of this Environmental Impact .Repot t.. Measures to improve infrastructure and services are proposed in other sections of this report to improve. A ppears to be cons -stent with the five consistency with zoning and site designation criteria for the development criteria. For example: proposed lams 'use desighation, but adequate fire protection would be ` appears to be inconsistent with provided With the proposed conditional zoning and deVelo�n.ent mitigation. (PS) criteria, (PS) Development is the project area wou'd Not mitigable: (S) nrat'be consistent with the cityfs ir, tent to encourage development in other locations in the Chico Urban Area. (S) Th Amendment of the Chico Area Not mitigable, ;) Greenline would foster popu!.ation: growth and would remove a constraint on growth in the project area, (S) The Proposed General Plan Amendment None required or recommended, (13) would increase the supply Iof and competition among higher prided residential units. (H) S Significant (Adverse) NS Not Significant (Adverse) PS' Potentially Significant (Adverse) 13 tebeficial - KTIGATION MEASURES IRFACT (Significance After. (Significance) Mitigation)' TJRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Additional traffic generated) by the The applicants should by required project would add to the volumes to pay all costs associated with presented in the Chico Urban Area realignment of each of the uncon- Transportati64 Study and would ventional intersections in the - in,ot,ementally decrease levels of project area. Timing for specific vicrn t ejret tional. and unconven- 'e at coT realignments should be . determinL-d tional intersections in Northern Chico. ;by the: Butte County Public Work, Director as development progresses, Realim ments at the following Lassen. Thd-total cdst=for 'this' intersections should be completed With buildout of the area. Bell/ Muir, Bel l/ Nord; tell/ Guynn, appratimately $20 #500, At addi- Bell/Alamo, and Rodeo/Nord`. The total cost is expected to be approu amately $6;250 if realign:- ' meats ar(, coordinated with other road improvements.: - The applicants should be rbgdired to contribute funds for the construction of left turn pockets and for the elimination of on street 'parking along Esplanade; a'` Hensh;k�t, and along Esplanade at Lassen. Thd-total cdst=for 'this' - itaprcr`r6ffient' is expected to be appratimately $20 #500, At addi- tional, $639 would oe required signal-tbdificatigris were requiiA . This e�ontribution .is a-'prio'ratd" 'share based on °the project"8', traffic .iridrimdnt compared tt -toxo, MITIGATION EASURES IMPACT (Significance After (:Significance) Mitigation) The applicants should he required to contribute funds for the instal lation of traffic signals, at the following intersections (East/North East/Guynn, East/Cussick, and East/Alamo)., 'he total cost for these improvements is expected to be 'approximately $40,125. The con- tribution is a pro rata share based s on the pro feet" s traffic increment compared to the total traffic volume.: The applicants shcaidh° r%q",-w J to contribute funds for widert#rg TABLE 2.1-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION rV$URCS ~_---- MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT (Significance After Ik (Significance) Mitigation) and Board of Supervisors. Tha applicable standard would be SRS-1 if the county requires minimum parcel, sizes equal to or greater than 1.001 renes (rural development standards). The applicable stand- ard for 1.0 acre parcels and urban standards is RS-2, which includes sidewalks, curbs and gutters (storm_ drainage infrastructure)'. The timing for the requiredimprove- ments standards should be determined by the Butte County Public forks Director. Improvements to the following roadway segments should be con pleted. with buildout of the area" Muir, Prem SR 32 to Bell,, Rodeo .from Muir to Henshaw j Nord, Guy,nn and Alamo from Bell to East and Henshaw from Nord to Alamo. e of Ch would request T.hthan .City dways'meet standards these roadways - ;,of _, the city or, county; whichever are:>mox•e,,,striugent.,,.. The 'total cost< -is-expec.tedrto be approximately 41 .14hx1,25 Ao achieve the: SRS- standard and 69j825 to achieve standard. CNS) =The ''0Fbpbbdd,Iproje� t would have an Bunte f ounty and the City of Chico acquire appropriate funding ihcr0behtdk`impaet" cid: area aide trfa;rconii3tions; (N5) should from developers FHWA and CALTRANS " for long range traffic improvement programs as required by the County CATS.` (NS) Circulation Element and S, Significant Worse) NS Not Significant (.Adverse) P Potentially Si$nificatit (Adverse B B'enefioial (CONTINUED) 2-8 y l x.#LE 2.1_1 (CONTINUED SUISARY OF 'FRO.ICT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES i - t MITIGATION MEASURES fi IMPACT (Significance After (Significance) Mitigation) _plan's should focus on measures to reduce on site runoff. Performance standards for accommodating storm - water during the 100 year event, shoed. be 'implemented on a parcel r; h reel basis. Semipei'v ous f walkways Ansi, storm�ralxer disper l, strategieq should be consider. +" If urban standards (RS -2 Roadwaye) are required for sites develop»ent, a storm drainage system capable of k accommodating the 100 year flood event from the site should be constructed. The cast for such as system Mould be approximately $3,592033. (NS) i i Urbanpollutant leVC-16 f hydrocarbons, None required or recommended. (NS) rubber and metals) could ,^ :;..;apeased as a 'result of -development 6116 cd. the proposed project. (NS) Nitrate contamination of groundwater Individual septic tank and leach- field systms should be designed frcn septic tanks could be increased as of aeveZapaent allowed by- to satisfy the standards and a result the proposed project. (,PS) r uirmsents of the Nitk�ab ; �ewion �I Plan Groundwater quality aonitorin.g as outlined in the Nitrate Action Plans should be continued to detect potential groundwater quality impacts and to identify and jmpj:!ment appropriate mitigation, if necessary. (NS) S Significant (Adverse)' Significant (Adverse) HS Not g •� PS Potentially Significant (Adverse) tteSig i 'ii iz T'{ LE Z.1-1 (CONTINU9D) . SUMMARY .ng PROJECT IMPACTS PAID MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION MEASURES ZMPAGT (Signiiicano4 After Mitigation) (Significanoe) 8s 44 lt'rv. +t LIC SEW1 'CES PXD 'UTILITIES of arcels allowable under Volopment P A minimum of one new well and a ressurized Water system will be the proposed prOject would require day. (PS) P required in the area. All 'Cal 8614Q0 gallons of water per Hater requirements shall be met. -'The .required weld and "water -system mill 'cost approximately $775,000. (NS) The proposed project would indirectly ba Septic tank systems should be installed nshould the rmeet tarea. al.lrn additional, sewage to generated (PS) Beath system the in the project area. standards and requirements of the Nitrate Action Plan and the GoUnty Health Department. If septic tanks cannot reef the standards ;and requirements of theb Nitrate Action Plan and County _ -- -- -_- -- Heal-th Departm.ent in the futurey a trunk line should be e5ctended to. the project area -from the Chico- Water, Pollution plant., The: .Control cost for ,such, :an;.eA. ensiori and ,for service to the project a„ea T (including a"treafaierit'plant oX� approximately 'District epansion•fee) w An Asswould,be 3s i 90 � essaent J500. shoi7.d bo established to Compensate the:.appi casts ;for. , providing aewerm� capaOty.to.parcels ;in"the project vicinity. (NS') Beateloo'zent of additional rwsidentiel Butte County should consider ctmu- lative demands for polite services uisos would incrementally inorease the (PS) and develop an .appropriate funding demand for police serv.iaes. Significant (Adverse) (Adverse) N5 Not Significant (Adverse) B Beneficial Potentially Significant ( CONTINIJEb) 212 IMPACT (,Significance) Development of residential uses in the project area would increase the demand upon the Butte County Fire Department,, and the lack of fire hydrants in the areA would create a- significant fire - safety hazard. (S)' MITIGATION MEASURES ("Significance After Mitigation) mechanism, such as an assessment district to maintain future level of service standards. (The feasibility of this mitigation me2.sure is questionable because recent efforts by the county to ` raise revenues for this purpose have beendenied by voters:) Butte County should require developers of the project area to pay for the incremental impact ($28,600) ;per year on police services created by the proposed General Flan Amendment. (PS) Butte County will collect $75 per new parcel in the "West Chico Fire ,Stat{.on. Benefit Areae to gain funds to build a new fire station that will ;serve the-.pr_ojeet .area. Butte County should seek additional Volunteers to operate station 42 until Station 43 is constructed, A pressuriZW water system should' be :installed to conform to. Butte County Fire bepartment requirb meats.. Hydrants shouldbe placed in. app ropriate"locations According to county standards def shed on page 52 of the Butte County Improvement: Standards for &ibdi:yisi"ons, pareul Mans, and_ Site .mproVements Pursuant �o Chatter 20 of the Butte CoUntY Code. (NS) I 7,,OL`Z 2.1-1 (COUT111M) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIIxATI013 MEASURES MITIGATIONMEASURES IMPACT (Significance After (significance) Mitigation heal Dow School would Project area developers should be °re�uir�i to place a natation on h 'ttie adu�.tion ofhe ed to be generated by F6, final maps when filed stating project area. (S) thatthe issuance of residential building permits, mobile home installations' 'or b;ookup permits fdr residential dwelling units is subject to the payment of school fees .pursuant to Butte County ordinance No. 2463 and Resolution No, 85-40 • The current fee structure would generate $168s750 for 270 +Iwelling units with five to six roams each (see hppeadix 16.10). However, the current fee structure does not provide tufticient revenue and may be increased by October, 1986= The school district has -=stated --that-the propas,ed_inc_rease .fees Would mitigate project "in related impacts. In addition$ the, st�hool district is interested in negotiating with the project -applicants for land dedication for anew school, site in lieu of the fixed fde- (Hensla5 � 1986). (PS)' Mew resideritial detaelopment in the ..gee mitigation, fol! Geology and project area Mould 'increase storm 1.,gydrologic iapact's. 3'atar runoff and. the deftanVfor y drainage capacity. (PS) project would increase the demand eloped Butte County` should implement the Circulation Element ,Policy to for` road maintenance on underdet ;roadways in the project area. (PS)of develop a system off site S Significant (Adverse) NS Not Significant (Adverse) PsPotentially Sig0 i-dant 8 Bene!`icial, (COttTINl3Eb) 2-i4 o 46 TABLE 2.1--1 (CONTINUED),. SUMMAR`L OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES' K m.. MITIGATION MEASURES x, IMPACT (Significance After _ (Significance) Mitigation);. development fees and or develo+dent agreements for road construction_ and maintenance "to allow project , area roadways to be widened and:,,. r' upgraded as future development occurs. -The annual road - mainten-ance-fee wauld.be_approximately ; 1� $7i ,6Z7 . (NS) i Development alla4ed under the proposed None feasible. (S')- a project would inare�entally increase the demand for ;library serviceswhich ua below adequate A., are already operating 3 service levels. (S)opt f` The proposed project would have a Butte county should d a funding for parrs and recreat on minor inorem ental impact on parks and faciliti es which would be program facilities as part of the Natural. recreational cumulatively significant. (PS) Resources and RecreatinFlt (PS) of the County General Plan. i r 'ni1' u, S Significant (Adverse) NS Not Signifieanat (Adverse PS Potentially Significant (.Adverse) � Bene�'iaial .,; �; �s 2-15 r JANE DOLAC _ ' J v Q a7%-rFK-CHICO CA:00RAJA.f21i>.:. ,rlr-1'ISI�N ►HQNC M lot-" - �"""� ~ I would ask that the Board direct staff to inform the F?egion ai April 29, 1986 Water Quailty Control Board that the Board views Ir-plementation of the provisions of the Nitrate Action Plan along the following Priorities, EC � ``t I. Extension of a ca=nIty water systest throui;hout the urban G C U �` of Supervisors area and to high nitrate areas. Aunt of Butte MAY 06 This Will entail information frost and the cooperation of a Coo a$ County Center` Qriye the one water purveyor in the community, Cal Mater. it may Glrov111e, CA 45565 ctTr stat,, "an the county will need to request the assistance of the Q city er c„ico P,.0 U, in implementing financ'in'g acceptable to the corrunfty.' Mear Board kecberit BY It may also mean assisting 'the neighborhoods outside the: urban area in forming cutual water companies, itVk't or soc% Rec Nitrate Action Plan other entity to finance and operate a water supply, At our rAuting of April 1, 1986y we ,dfeect6d the Administrative 2 As soon as it is available the coutity, in tooperation with dlflc6e to snfd the attached letter to the Regional Water quality the city, Will seek the most affordable deans to implecxnt Cornual Board. llur Actions. And the re;Orting of thea, have led ptaple the store drainage plan. This must itrediately entail to ;be c0ncern0d Olt of are Abandoningthe nitrate Diction Plan apd systematic elimination of existing dry wells. dtihr;t forts to 3a v2 -the ,Duna °ea tart tool 'mss in tli3cc. - - - _ 3. pevelopclent of elternztives to serrerillg the entire urban xEatr This conciuxicn ix hot 'founded, area and continued investigation of financing methods other �.�.�. wwwak We stilt have a Nitrate Action Plan a,nd are continuing'to than an are$wfde aSsessrknt district. operate under its pro�vistonsr 5e tic permits are continuingIn pits summary" the Board takes the €act of nitrate contaminati0n _ " to, be autitarized based on the. Ptarai and interfim standards in our ground ,rater at a serious Tiatter. We also retogni'se that — any solutions) we seek 'to fa:piement must reflect the needs and fioances 'as csca What we, did abandon was the 6 mation of an atsessr6ent district of our coasauolty, pwt� that Mould require the 4 people of tF.a' unincbrpOrated area tlf Chico _ to pay the entire cost Of sewers, stoTkp drains and Nater treatannt Plant expansion.. Wei did this becatr+te those people could not Sincerely. P,.ew afford these actions at;d it is not fair tb ask thea to do so. a n,rWu We will contirioe .p stock to 'develcp alternative plans in con- t, - prext sultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board* 'the Jane Dolan wim,:rrw City of thieo, and the ",0o to of the Chico urban area, p p Supervisor - 613trict We will need to reviek and rhvise ibe Provisions Lot the Nitrate +tb)tais ,Action Plan to better reflect currrnt infortiiatlan anti pe",spec- t0: Chief Adniniateativo Offfd#r, live" The deadline, far approval of sewer and storM Graff plans city Councit mutt be changed rdostly because ti* storm •drain plan is hot ----City Manager cOmPfeted. This delay is something over which the Board has County Plantifng Director :had no tantrol, Without this platy It is "a+pottible to develop County Public Works 'Dl rector financing altereativet and imPtementatiofi tfsselines: Same is tbunty.publlc Health Director ctth m true with axiension ct counity water `supply throughout the County Pnvironmental ilea lDirector urian area find to high, rite -ate Areas. r a f Ge"✓b ' �n��.r-�epor�rt��i����*temara�durn ue. ' P- Ytii1S lr Hilda 'tl"caettiler 8ctt4oCa.pl01 Ing,C«�ttrl, Supervisor Jane Dolan AUG 31 1984 z X , ' � �roviilaCaliEornid s sa r� Proposal for Bell—Muir Ares " r ug us t 24, 1984 The Bell~ -Muir area, 4.56+ acre, A--5 zoning district ( bounded NESW by properties fronting an Muir Ave. -Bell Rd , the S -R zoning just vest of Bay -Cuss ;ek) Henshaw Ave. , and Awy. 32) , has been the. ,eubjeot of much debate the last four years. The area has been zoned A--5 since the mid -601s and Frith, a couple o1r exceptions (E senhauox rezone blip on Bell Rd. and Foreman eg g, Ave.) there have been no new parcel: . in' 15 X ars . However, many sina ll br cxeated smaller than, . hamesxte segregation. atian on R than. 5�-a.cre parcels vere in existerr„.�eprior to the effective date of the zoning (some2 created legallyr some not). The focus of the argument has been the 1980 proposed Chico Area General plan amendment process. During the 2+ years debate on that platt, at ` least 3 proposals were set ,forth and interminall.y discussed: 1) place area. in agricultural General Plan (GP) designation ani leave zoning as A-5 2) place area in Agricul -Liirztl-Peside,ntiz 7. GFS designation and re -Zane it to a 1 -acs, e minimum zoning, 3) place r the area in 'a Study Area. and hire necessary consultants (engineers, pl.ahnersl to develop a drainage and traffic; plana and ana' yze`Other impacts be, -ore changing the zoningi This proposal included pro--- vi.ding a mechanism to have property owners 1h area pay for this study.' xn September 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved 41 X December 19831, the. Board, initia Leel a GP amendment that ti*ould put this area in some unspecified urban GP` designation and 'so,va unspec" if-ied zoning. (Since the Board slid not speci..ey, CEQA requires an ha.�hdensity ��`esyidenta;al�) a+,Ina1984, ea�propertyhich could be presumed, to be lysisbli area waS presentedproposingpetition represera'tin 270' acres of ' ��. GP desig`- 9 y owde nation of AgriirulturZtl-Reideritia and 'a zoning' of =acre mihi�nutit. An Exp,, has been deemed necessary for both the Board--ibiti.ated and propex't'y owner' petita'On8 •This .is iMPOrtaftt 'to POI .nt out as sotrie people hold :the erroneous heli of that this area has )Yaen studies . ,when it hasri t. k The Board has sev'ora,l Cho`i'ees to made: 1 Continue to argue this matterrithout bringing clarity (it c�josute , This is rt3ally -what pro `ve been doing since Sept iMber `170.7 Ls u!r :2 Allow` the .Board-initi aLed amendment to procee 1 the usual r►�anr er, 'phis j�att).d in an the Department -oIll qeL to it as they. cavi in light of estates �hc t pri.oritiet. Th w� as a s 6 t pro ess. V! r ;4b supervisor Hi.:lda Sheeler P Lugust 24, 1,984" ,Page' Drop the hoard-i.nitiated amendment and leave area in agrx' cultural designation and still zoned A-5. A. Allois the -property owner proposal. to proceed in the usual manner. This: vould mean they write, or :hire someone to write, an EIR and when that is done .hearings are scheduled. Define the area proposed for GP 'and, zone change, specify what GP designation and zoning is ed, develop a plan for handling g `' g propos drainage and traffic, determine aper parcel charge, and sets up the procedure allowed in' state law to haveproperty owners_ rein burse the County for the cost of the Plan a'r:cl pay their pro rata share for improvements as they. develop. 6. Select a consultant to prepare ah EIP.,for the property owner analyzed�assanealt rnativeoand-requireethappl ca.t to be PP tom' ose signing the zoning petition to pay these casts. This is what the department recommended and we tabled *'uly 17 j recommend 45. Since a drainage plan is already uhderway, it ,could be said -this proposal has been started, albeit. piecemeal. This choice does not-�, answer what to do with the existing small. lot .paying their ,share of necessary imptovements; but it certainly gets its further along than 1, 2 , :3, 4, or 6 in settling the Bell-s4uir Controversy, - -- - - k I must say that MY first choice would be #3.. There Is much support A-rom. .sap that there. wo the area to leave things as they, are. I M cotta says tt - owners- in nuld be tremendous support _for that frc�aA ,all ,aho travel Ni Esplanade and W, ,Easty Ave. However, T rt!coghize a strong desire on the part of many property owners ( clearly 270 atres i'orth) to have the opportunity to divide, their property. -1 r'ecvminenr #5 for these reasons i I:. it is fair to donor the xegttest of property owners' for us to consider changing the GP and zoning in the area. 2, It ,is unfair to burden the taxpayers with the cost of the legally required mm, p1annixtg ahalysis, tLc., necessary to honor this request, ,. 3, Since It has been a long estabi-18hedj appropriate, riscal.ly conservative poli dy of Butte couhElr to have deVelopmp-nt pro jects - ay, their own Vay; it would' seem: a very poor` reversal 'of policy and ar pp p L Y .on of public resources to suhsid- and Ana r� ria e aid.©cat. 120, dovOlopinentin �,hz s areas 4. tyles 'as eopt Osentat.ives of the public interest, tttust geek answers toy at least, the drFainageand traffic impacts that will, be -- AD IVBYNtsT 1 CO3,UNTY 0F`.-8U17f 25 COUNTYCOUNTYN'i.EFk OR., pF3t7SiILLE. CALIFORNIACALIFORNIAG5.33ti01 (916) CE �uTTF 554,4681 r 959 r o MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HASKEL Ac 1delNTURF D�N,�y JANE DOLAN Vf0t1ZNJ AIICFlgLS HILDA WHEELER }�Klgo- AUMINI5'TRATNt 010Eii EU McLAUGHLIN LEN FULTON January 2.2, 1:987 ; __ :foe Burrell, et a ,2947 Nord Avenue ,hhco, Ca. 95927 And Donna Hooberry .2717 Alamo Chico, Ca. 95926 _ ,Re General Plan Amendment, File 84=45-- Dear 'M"rs'. Mobberry and Mr. Burrell: At -the-regular meeting of the Butte County Board of Supervisors Held January 20, 1987, the public hearing was continued closed to February i0 1987 to consider yorsr request for a General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Yield Crops to Agricultural-Ra'sidential on property zoned A-5 located on both sides of Muir Avenue, south of Bell Road; west of Alamo Avenue; Chico. i The meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, County A.dmihistration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville; and ,s I scheduled to begin at 9.00 a.n.. ;Should you h-xve anyquestion'segardittg this matter, pleasecr�htact the plannir,� Department at 53 -7601, between. 10: 0.0 a.m, and x:00 p.tn. very truly yaurs; - F. 'Martin j, Nichols chief Administrative Officer MJNlr' { I� } rye acs r in�b, arpoi ated a Co. planning Conal. MAR 2 1987 y .. February 16,: 1987 Oro -Aa, Califor4 �h tar. 3.ircher Outte County P annins "Dept. 7 County :Center Drive OroCA 95965 Rj3; EIR for .Mooberrj-Burrel CPA STATEMENT.OF ACCOUNT DiR7,"S IT CHARGES CREDIT BALANCE' 02/28/86 8756-3449 $4,220.00 $40220.00' 04/03Ym /86 Pa eh t, $4,220.00 -0- - 04/25/86 8756 356+, _ _ $10688.00 - $1,688.00 05/29/86 Payment 11/24/86 8756-387 $1,688.00 1,688.00 -0- $1,688.00 Aiaciunt due $1,688.00 1) Jane I)Oiart Page 2 j Current_ 2Q0 Buil_.d-out Esplanade (south of ;East Avenue) B D East Avenue (west of Esplanade) --2 lanes D F East Avenue (west of Esplanade) --4 lanes A D East Avenue(west of Esplanade) _ _ 6 lanes E The figures for, the full. "build -out: scenario should be viewed with great caution ,for many reasons . Fore on.e thing, the modeled street network did not include Lassen ;Avenue,, Renshaw Avenue, ox Eaton fore, a disproportionate Road west of`the Esplanade. There. - amount to Past Avenue. It is clean, of traffic was assigned ho'iever that the area will be heavily con gested i East/Esplanade under either scenario, If you have any questions me at.895-4876. regarding the above please call Sincerely, William F Derrick_ Transportation Coordinator WFb/jk.. cc: CSD DPV Planning Director a TABLE iT:II LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR URBAN AND SUBURBAN ARTERIAL STREETS LEVEL OF SER'V'ICE DESCRIPTION U/C RATIO A Free flow ('relatively) . If signalized, conditions 6,Q0- 0.75 i are such that no approach phase,is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits through more than one red indication. Ve►,y slight or no delay. B Stable flout. If signalized, an occasional approach 0.76 - MO phase is fully utilized; vehicle platoons are forned,o This level is suitable operation for rural design purposes. Slight delay. -; C Stable flow of operation.. If signalized; drivers 0.91 - 1.00 occasionally may have to wait through more than one red indication. This level is suitable operation for urban design purposea. Acceptable delay. . p' Approaching unstable flow or operation; queues 1.01 1.15 evel o but' are u� ckly cleared;. Tolerable del p ay' develop, E Unstable flow or operation, the intersection has 1.16 - 1495 reached ultimate capacity; this condition is not uncommon in peak hours. Congestion and intolerable delay. F Forced flow or operation. Intersection operates 1:25 below` capacity. damned. 5ourcei Highway Capacity Manual, NRB Special Report 8' In. ter-Departme" 1 Memorandum Board of Supervisors .- Planning Department BELL MUIR FINAL EIR ar: January 28, 1987 The .final EIR has been completed and is now available for review. .All comments ;made at the previous public hearings before the Planning Commission and. Board of Supervisors were summarized by staff, and submitted to the consultant. These summaries are comments H and I found, on sages 12-14 and 12-24 The body ,of the document has been revised to -ref lect the most recent information available Examples of where this has been done ,include treat- ment. of school. impacts. Because of newly adopted fee structure, impacts to schools have been reduced. Major changes in the document are as ;follows ; 1. septic systems are no longer ,recommended, The entire di.s cussioi; of ratrates, groundwaterualit septic verses sewers has been q yr and the use of greatly expanded. See pages 2-13, 3.4-1;, 34-7 and 3.4-10. if septic tank's Will be allowed in 13c11 -Muir, an appropriate standard will have to. be developed as part of the 'Nitrate Action Plan. 2. other Planp,ing documents which will be affected by the project and which will need to be amended because of the project have ibeenteLferenced.----See page 2`=3, For exa l.e, an amendment to the Nitrate Action Plan, County Circulation Element and Sphere of Influence would. be necessary. 3,. Nitrate information has been included for the property,. See Page .3 3-4.` 4. The storm drainage requirement has been clarified. The appropriate pipe sues will accomodate a 10- year storm but in no Iase shall houses or more than 1/3 of the street from curb to centerline be inundated during a 100 -year storm event, 5. One road standard discussed:in the document �sRS-1 has been amended by the recent improvement standards re- vision 5« An expanded disdu8s,*1on on the potential pedestrian and Gnar conflicts on Eatst Ave"""'and in front of schools has been included on pages 3.2=16 aj,,..3.2_18, Makicument is now mznor changes, final form. An add' The �achiia the minutes has; been g g prepared This addendum, will become g from pubic hearings ,Kurt of the final EIR. Board of, super visars P.agc Two January 28, 1987 i i The document identifies significant impacts which cannot be mitigated on ,page 5-1. Mitigatable impacts and their mitigation measures are found on page 2-1. Consideration must be given to g p sures might be implemented., the mannerin n which these mitigation anon mea Some Options available to the E3oard include formation of a County Service kreaj Community Services District, dello Roos District, by general lan p Policies applicable only to BOJ,1-Muir, or a Bell-2duIr special planning area zone with development standards. In addition to how the mitigation measures will be adopted, example, for by district ar conditional rezone the timing of those improvements needs to be ciEtermned The the states that major roar] work, for example, will be installed at a. time fixed by the Board of Supervisors. The mechanism by which mitigation measures. will, be ,implemented and their timing will have to be determined pro or to any positive action being taken on this general plan amendment. Should this general plan amendment be approved, the properties will become part of the Chico Urban Area. Because following • iof 'this, the: change in status: The Brown and be aCaldwelloSewe age the properties drainage plan, school needs -studies plan; ChicaaUrbanaAreatorm Transpcsrtation Plan, Butte County Circulation Element, LAFCo's Sphere of Influence, the Nitrate Action Plan and the Financing Plans;; icor all of the above who is aroasponsib7 e for � ritia ting these amendments and who will pay for them needs to be determined.;, Belly-Mair .is a. distinct neighborhood with its a4m unique charaGt s�- eri c. 'zor this reason the project alternative area of - P 430 acres is preferred to the'atchwor. 270 acre application. The no P k Project alternative is the environmentally superior ohe Denial 6:f the general plan amendment is recommended. Some of the reasons for this recommendation include the eight significant environmental effects which cannot bey avoided if the projOct is implemented as described on 'page 5-1,, the project would foster pot)ulafjon growth and remove a constraint to growth ineit project ` t pp general p * yi and approval of the ener�l lan amendment would under- vicih ] ani;,ing efforts to shaft urban gtb tth to the east side, of mine P , y the' Chaco romrrturiit Should pc)4itive action be con?-,emulated oh this general plan arse ,aril t,# staff will be available to assist the Supervisors in p`eparimg a vexy detailed mot on, with findings: /„cmc Enct.oslaros final �x� Beh`1=��;u3�.r ElR �iddendufn 4, No mechan_i sm i s ava i i ab l e to prov 1'or po 1 i ce patrol on a j project-lby-prat?Jett basis. It i s rA3c=ommended that one large d I �str i et be formed and resident deput I es cons i dered.: Fie further quest I ons the use of a benefit t assessment d i r>tr i ct to'spread the costs of development 1 d` re Vercruse, repress tl'no herself: the Farm t ureau would not defend 4iW a -Muir as aw i cul tura 1 land, Tra3f f c and drainage heed to be vbo d1 ed. Shell does not be'i i eve that thou-e, Is a dra I nage problem In the B*11a-11uir area. ank ldraza11, does not. believe there-- is a drainage prob1e in the 1 I -Mu i r area. Af I other, comments made at the November -4, 1985 Board of Supery i sort' 41'r--ar' .viq were directed to the project and not the 81k. They therefore do oot need to be addressed. The 'fo1 i owm l r. g is: a summary of comments 6.tde at the Decembar 2;. 1986 Board of Superv1sons' hearing. x� l deck 1 . The >"ggest l on that a 200-foot setback of res i dent i a i uses f►~om a'r i cu 1 tura 1 uses will limit the buildable area o:f thy: 1 ots . Zli i (in Page 2-a, what Is the Liming 'of deve l opmeht7 It is suggested that the 'wording be, chatig'; d to a l 1 ow, for a provision that, of tei^ a given percentage of the logs have developed out, all Infrastructure improvements will be constructed, B. He does not feel that an underground`drainage system is necessary and would prefer to see the cdhd i t r ori that an adequate drainage system be provided for4 4. HIP commented that requ i r I ng' drainage tea accommodate a 1 q 0-year storm It Unusua 1 a more reasciiab 1 e standw-d, In h is opinion) Is prov l ci i ng for _a l 0 to '20-year^ storm, it Is suggested than Portions oar parcels be used as hd 1 d I n'g bbs i nws i6 or dra l nage water. * He commented that the requ i edmeh't to 46!ewerr the properties 'I It: e�t+�ess i ve dove l cypment on septic tankscontt,h i nd i cat l rig that 1-acre „� 01 an It i ntw-edte-d In I7ydro 1 og i s da atpinate #-he groundwater or byer l nad the so i l s, t st MJ'b 1 nd r sated that �'oHe�sugges is that the funding 'far ttie. rs# m i •^t iif�at I an measure .. pets 1:s shoo I d be ekc l �rded 1� nom the 1 i laifrastructue*1 I mprovomeots, be. sorovlded for through an assessment districts ii MEM e "rc5nit BY`a> !i eii indicated the area Is alre�d hav a drainage prob l eain. ' Y developed"+and does i�at 4' rr'e_ 1 commented that a sewer system. f BEt+''63 not niarma i l y re u i rec, s drainage system and s 1 Ciewa 1 k,s acres. _q crt� deve 1 opment w i tha Parcel size of i' . G 1 1'J an L,rschburo 9 ------------� commented that the exist;-, .n A-5 zoning i s d 1 v u i m i rIator g f e more ntehs i ve zoning allowed on Avenue. Y in 1 i ht o th 11, The P!'-Oject description 'i s enc:omPasses more than 40Cl; acts rrect in that the aIterna ive area 21, The ., . etcmmp'Iertd e, i cu 1 tura i setback i s unc 1 +a r :'-►^ or`d'eci to Pec i f i cal l yr` stats t at i a ar and needs, to be I nd i v I dua 1 h pp 1 i tis to the r the Perimeter` Of the ;alternative perimet of 3. The pr' opert pars e l s o Rrta,�ect urea has bees Y outs i da Or the Nitrate ' Action Plan, No. stateir+en+t n made whether 1 acre o :sept tank com n P t; Plies with said 5lan. 4. Ori Page 2-4 e i l i ntiinate the hrurYl y 1 i m i is on : faW-mers. con f l i r t i ng land use and tYhe sit' The i mi sact Of Unc # eal" and i n fE-as i b 1 e. a ggested m i t i'�at i can measures are to be m�3de an i n compat i b# ph land use. area whore a f 1 hd i no w i "1 I- have All host figures should give a source and year, traffic condltioats are si the u;te of feder^.a k . t . M # t i gat i on metes . mit► 1 t=undgn i f i tan.,. ure reawrde 1 S gat ►tri measures must be undei^ the htroi aofpthe bodA l adanet i coq the -document ". pt i nt1. 'rho f'o i low 1 ng: are My, commeHt,s rased' Procr�ss and. Previous memos to ? on the re.su 1 t$ of the public. taear i i g `� our i= I rm l0� ,acres. 13 I* The rota # ekparide±d ro `ect area 1 s : c user to a acres �, P v ' ratthan ; 2. As noted i n followi hrev 1`ot.ts memo�a, mans heed to be .can hged on tl�e I ? ng pages: 1��yde8:1-� , M , 12, 8.4-2., : oj,t Page '1_80 tewera0e�, ;"tudyw to oithd� Nitrate an of Action , 4" Does thegures�derUnd of Paot, 1 ,.2`-'d assume + thbse ri. ivied'? +� 4Q0 13c-resHow were 5. l Y ios were FOUnd on the f.o 1, c law i n "' 1 h°fra tr^taetur�e"; .2*`2, g poots . e_-» i s Second' Pa.�a; ra P"cta ra h , f i rs Pana roti h :3 Pl, t� P SF'ti7 add "to" after ` :r I�ar;tti,gt"aph � �` i ire.... _ .. ab i 'i ttz �." p P , dri, .. .... g P , lndivirlua1", 2-2,20 seec�hd i nnast':. o par�at�reph, re 3.3:.bs f tOUrth s second 2` v dais Irab i 1 1 t. 7 a,4-to)'Set:ond par, girapho, stt i ut l rsn , J f r Page 2-8, change "not s i Lon E f i cant'' to "Potentially s i gn i, f i can't ,' noting that the mitigation measures are infeasible "• Page 2;1"11'o the reference to the 100-.year storm :should be clarified to read' "The minimum pipe size iz to accommodate a 10-year stormy s horiever no flooding of houses and no more than one-third of the road from the curb to centerline shall be inundated during z+ 100-year storm." Page 2-11, concerning the groundwater monitoring, in the event 'that subse;aue'nt groundwater mon-1 tort) ng i nd i sates - that there 1 s contamination, what would be the result? We would have permitted devvalopment at a given density and then after the fact gone in and required sewer. The .preferred alternative is, to determine at what density the .soil and groundwater will not ba contaminated and proceed , from there . 9:.; On Page 2-12i was ti_1e cost of the sewer extension based on the I Rol s , ,Anderson and Rol 1s figures?Supervisor Dolan indicates that costs now being discussed' between the City ,and the Count; would indicate that a sewer extension could cost as much as s16 .m1111on The cost 1n the document Of a $S-mlllion trunk extension;seems artIfic1811Y low, t f . Page 2­14, the Board 'of Supervisors on December 2, 1986) approved an t. acrease in the schoo i flees to 0.8d per square foot for res,ldent al: structures. Ii. Page. 2-141, achy d i do 't the dollar per acre change under the annual cost_ for__ scenar i o 1 and 27 12. Page; .8.1 1 v' wi 1 1 the change in the protect area aFfest the numbei- Ft a, Page; 3.1-=2,, change the tab l e 4 ,. Page .1- ­8* note on the map,.' "See 'AppOn' d i 5i 16.:,6 f6t- rev i s i ons . " 1 Paget 8.1-6 and 3.1-Sy amend the discussion$ to w1t: "The Green1ine Po 1 'i C, I es do not app 1 yI n the 1301 i Mu i r area : See Mibhi o bbd mot I on : ,• p 10 y e l i m' 'nate "and 'ori i ng des i" oh at i ons on . 1!. Page 3:1411, change the Greenlihe d:iscusslon no f icirlirtes' will be necessary : _ ekpand the discussion ion the imp 1 ementat`i on cof the Ad�foot- setback to medicate that it sould on1V be applied to the; per 1 metdp 0$f the okO6hOod 'rojo t area along ire i1' and .h1u 11:, vSsnuE�9 4 19- Page 8.2-4, .2-7, the extenslon of Lassen Avenue to Highway 82 is inconsistent with the' adopted County circulation Ele �mde,ti If the extension is a recommendation of the consultant it would require an amendment In this document;. 20. Page 3-2-16o first paragraphs have West Lassen and Honshaw Avenues been etc i uded? 21 Page 3.2-18, the suggestion that pedestrian crossines be'considerizd' isrot very specific as to type or location.. Discussions with Supervisor Dolan Hou 1 d i std i catle that the only pedestrian crossing,,_ which would be suitable _to Jay Partridge School would require a constructed elevated 4alkway. The cost and feasibility'of doing this may maize the mitigation moasure infeasible. 22. Page 3., 3-3, note that three wells have been tested In the area as part of the Nitrate Action Plan �i 123 Page 3.3-4, the position statement from Supervisor Dolan refers to f the Brown trod Caldwell' p l.an, not the Polls, .Anderson and Rolls j stu8y inferred In the 'document. 214. Page 3.3-6,. `the current standard of three dwoi ling units per acre on septic systems WItlain the Chico Urban Area is temporary. f 25. Page 3.4-1_,d paragraph five W ith; the statement that Bei' t Midi r 1 s outside of the Brown and Caldwei 1 p`ltins 'for sewer and drainage facilities, 26. Page 3.4-3, change the second--ltp_the-) ast sentence to read "The _- drainage p1 an wi11 be comportib1e 1y-1th the Rol:1s, Anderson as -and Roil plan, but will not supersede it." 27 Page, 3.4-5, fifth .paragraph, chi;nge language to read,::"have adopted: an ordinance." Last sentence, the Board has recently increased the fe�45. 28. Page 3.4•-1 o, reflect the change: In the fee schedule. 29. page 4-1, second paragraph, el, i to i t•rarte "and toning des'i gnat tons," aO- Page 4 -P -p the expanded Protect area is 4aO acres.. not 400 Page :5-1 ,; ,toes the rev i sed "fee scheldu l e mitigate the i'inpaj_ts. As; we discussed at the Becember 2 Board hearing, I have met with, uPdrV i tor' Dolan to take her tdrfiments, on the dodument-4 The 8,66r�d a rthorr i zed t h i s meeting as a ML -chant sm for the Supery i sons I comments to be ` forwarding thoill to you for+ respbn5e. trade and addressed. I arri 1 Y r1i�Y1.W` �-.3t_ .-ni. • ..._,: f . I 1 (.1. y l 1 f, 4 '(�✓' l Page 1-1, f°first Paragraph, second sentence, , Please change to read: The pro;jec;t area involves approximately 270 acres within a larger 4�l3-acre neighborhood bounded by Bell Road:,..." Page 2-2, the feasibility of state and uncertain. Programs such as UDArt a n federal financing is W111 l 1 l nd EGA hate been cut: the others probably be cutin the future:. By policy, benefit assessment districts are only used when the issue is one of redevelopment area is not on the negotiation tablewiththeblic lCht, A Chico. l of Wage a`-8, add the following i n'forttiat Adapt i cin of the Project as proposed would require amendment t p i arts : o the following regional r' the sewerage: plan the storm drainage p l an y s,choo 1 needs stuc! i es, Chico l -ban Area Transporta i ton Plan, Butte County, Clrculatton Element, LAPCO's Spheres of, Influence, the Nitrate,Act'�on P1an, ,,.and the financin r al of the 9 Plans foall of the abnye. Approv Protect Would constitute a departure from the adopted land use plan and reverse a Policy ach eve y .wh l .ch took ton Year_, to 4, .rage 2--4, clarlfy the 200 -foot. setback recommendation, and e 1 i rr► i nate na 1 se control and ,hours ofopen=at l` on 'limits on � arttiers. b,: Page 2-51 the buffer- 'concept could only apply to i*1u i r Avenue and is dete'rm'l ned to be I n fees a b l e as._a M l t l ga tion measure for ' entire area. It l therefore recommended for elimination tiip 6. Page 2-6, concerning the cost for roadway realignment, abandoning and acou i'r i ng of right-of-way i s much more COMP] i cared and co5:t1 y. than described. Far example, the way of some proposed realignmentsre are existing structures In the , such .e anri the Orange Ha,l'l, Nord, Rodeo and Henshaw, g The land acquired. versus the land abandoma�d is not equal an cost. Therb are legal 'Procedures, which are 'required to abandon right-of-way. I't Is suggested i ngd that mare Internal circulation + be dere i oped, ci road to c.suc as considering dead-end streets and the ldentlfication of one main onnect the nelghborhood to Baton. TI -1,18 road would bisect tto he oelghborhood and would require future deSlgns, of subdivisions back up onto the road rather than hay<e direct, access ,These types� of racorttmendat ions would require an amendment to the Guyon Circulation E l emerit • The roost feast b l e rood to connect to x'aton i s '. ' 7. Page 2-6 a on the t' m i n g provision, ei i in i nate the pro+ i s i on that b60bl^tment of Public Works deternines when the improvomentsInstalled- re bthj, tr improv'emantsyhsuatiaas i tebymlora lthsreir Installing the sharrts to -eine ih areaw:i de d l str ]cit mbui-sement agreotneh f;s i Praperty develops w`l �Lh payment of aro -lata i dig as i mpr6V bments when 5i7iti s ubci t titedmuffi �f the pro .c r+t l eS hav:s i dgtogth�! m i ngl of n, a rebges, by Board Ord l hanco, etc_E, Percenta s f l uret i sp be used to tr i gger i inpr5ve�tients, ►fie could do It a rtiurnibe'r 6#' differ ant Ways, h forcing pay -Ment from the �5 undeveloped prbpert 1 es. after 509, have developed, or, In addition, by requiring that area roads go on the Capital Improvement Program after a certain percentage has deveioped, 0. Page 2-8, the mitigation measure of pursuing state funding Is Impractical. We do this; already, and Bell-Mu:ir Roads would not be considered a high-priority item. All roads wilt need private funding sourcesor the impact is not mitigated. '9, It would be appropr i ate to consider another east -west road like the Lasseni Avenue extension,. to: 'improve c'i rcul at i on 101 Page .2-9, the bike impacts and conf1Icts of bikes and vehicles are significant. We need better bike paths, and these should be defined. 31. Pedestrian crossing at J6y Partridge, as noted previouslys would be an expensive undertaking and Is therefore not feasible.. 12. Page 2-10, mitigation measures on a site -by -site oasts won't m l ti gate overall probl eris Individual drama i naps- solutions such as dry wells and drainage `trenches 'have been prohlbited by the Nitrate Act i on Pl an, 1. Page 2-1 1 ' the sol ut 1 on, to nitrate contamination is the Installation of sewers. Hydrogeologi>c data shouldibe utilized to set development dens itI-t s which w I 1 l 'riot, cause n I trate prob;l erns This a-ro i d`s the s i tuat l on of development monitoring, then lI-istallation of sewers after the fact. y 4 Page 2^-1 2, the pro,j_ect will require an amendment to the Nitrate Act ion Plan. 45, Page 2-12, the Cit >r may .not permit a r-ew trunk i i ho to the plant_ If the property i s to seater i, then it- would have to be w I rh the concurrence o f the City of Ch i x �e In accordance with the Br->Wti and ColdWel l plan. Therefore, the property would have to become ,apart !; of the' gown a' v The fi'nanci'ng to make these rtd Caldwell study area., 7 changes in the .plain is unknown. Page 3.1-1 , the discussion on urban development trends and patterns should have been forwarded into they ;summary as a s i' gn i f`i cant impact needing m l t i gat i on» til Page ,4,1,8 r another project a 1 ternat i ve i s the hcorporat'i on Of the Bell - Muir properties i hto the West 5ast Avenue land usestudy now. - 1n process. 4 8. Page 46 i I I ret- t.l +a the. document to read} "Memo from Supervisor* Do1art to 906rd of Suoerv1cors nut1 inIng in Imp1ementaitlon Pr-bgram for tho Nitrate ; taction. P i Ain ; Y• t, 41 j n. frm not sure 'whether, it would V&sons commentln# on the be under Chapter- 11 or Chapter 12, but the ciacument throuci h the ,&-re as fo 1, 1 ows public hearing process ;fit", A] geek JO Burrell of Supervisors ��*ard Ionn l nq Commission OWY Schoenfeld Jlatthew Webbm- 10pr- t -s She l l L4* Turner r J- im;ha Wi emar• ji 'f sYne Turner RObert 01'sc;n ,have irciuded a co COPY of rPT��ase Call � f an of these the minutes the hearlm g process to data. *e� , dT++.�,ct i oris, Y comments are unclear-,or, you. need further '113.A. K I RCHER Director of Pl anftlng sua^a M . Tutt l ;e Assoc l ate planner, g +.� Cl.x ADMIN IN i Y ApA,".4 .f`� TIVA COUNTY' 0F,c�lXT�T' ';F'ICE • U TF 2.K 00UN rY CENTiz-f bF" < OACMLI-e, OALWORNIA 858Gs-336p'� a o (91 G} 4534-403• { UMC M;E.MSERS 6F THE BOARD AAAITOMt ffICNOGS Vi0I�Mati57F IVE0FFlCpq I4ASKEL A. MPINTUR:E JANE'DOLAID HILDA WHEELER ED McLAUGHLIN LEN FULTON December 3, ,1981 .roe Burrell, Et a1 2947 Nord Avenue Chico, 'Ca. 95926 and i Donna Mcoberry, 2777 Alamo Chico, Ca, 95926 t j Re General Plan Amendment, File- 84-45 Dear Mrs,, 1400berry ,and fir, Burrell,: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of Supervisors December 2, 1986, the public hearing was to consider7 continued,to January 20 198d your request for a Genaral Plan Amendment Residential on to Agricultural property located on both SidP,,S"Of Muir Avenue, south uf" Pali Road, West of Alamo Avenuey Pacific north and east of oed and north of :East Avent the SOUthern Railr Ie Chico, The meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors+ It Administration Center County corny County -5 Center Drive, otoville, ,,houl;d you have any gbestions regarding this matter the Plannin! y please contact Degartmant at 584°4601 between 1Ot00 a,m, and 3.,001 very triill`',.yous, ��artin �, Nichols Chief ,Admizl ttrative officer 1�iTN i lr : Infer-Depnrtrienfa i MernAr®ndur ,. Clerk oftlii! Board .._.. _ lic1�#r Planning; stat Ion Donna Mooherry/'Jot Burrell, General'Plan Amendinent, Legal & Mailing List .owlti October 6i 1986 1 At.taciied is the subject ;legal & mailing list for their appeal hearing. Ar n W i 1 t �b